Ted Cruz And Abortion

Cruz Long Supported Overturning Roe v. Wade

Cruz Praised The Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade

Cruz On Dobbs Decision: “Nothing Short Of A Massive Victory For Life, And It Will Save The Lives Of Millions Of Innocent Babies.” According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case: ‘The Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case, reversing Roe v. Wade, is nothing short of a massive victory for life, and it will save the lives of millions of innocent babies. The decision reverses one of the most egregious departures from the Constitution and legal precedent the United States has ever seen, and one that has resulted in the deaths of 63 million American children.[‘]” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 6/24/22]

Dobbs Overturned The Constitutional Right To Abortion In Roe v. Wade. According to CNBC, “The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. in 1973. […] The case that triggered Roe’s demise, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is related to a Mississippi law that banned nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.” [CNBC, 6/24/22]

Cruz Celebrated The Overturning Of Roe v. Wade In Dobbs. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case: […] ‘Roe was wrong the day it was decided, and it has been wrong every day since then. If you search for the word ‘abortion’ in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you won’t find it. The Court at the time acknowledged that, and yet Roe created a brand new constitutional ‘right’ out of whole cloth.[‘]” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 6/24/22]

Cruz Voiced Support For Overturning Roe V. Wade For Over A Decade

2012: Cruz Supported Overturning Roe v. Wade. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “Cruz speaks of our ‘stark choice’ and the belief that ‘government is not the answer’ but fosters ‘dependency, destroying individual liberty.’ He pledges to ‘restore our constitution’ and ‘return to the founding principles.’ Cruz sees the greatest steps forward over the last two years not in Republican gains against Democrats, but in Tea Party victories against established Republicans. He favors repealing Roe v. Wade; abolishing the federal Education, Energy and Commerce departments and the IRS; replacing Social Security with private accounts; and blocking nontraditional paths to citizenship.” [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 9/7/12]

Cruz Introduced And Voted For Federal Abortion Bans

Cruz Supported Federal Abortion Bans

2021: Cruz Introduced A 20-Week Federal Abortion Ban. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) this week introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The legislation would provide common-sense protections for unborn children at 20 weeks after fertilization, a point at which there is significant scientific evidence that abortion inflicts tremendous pain on the unborn. […] Upon introduction, Sen. Cruz said: ‘I am proud to join Senator Graham on this bill to ensure the protection of unborn children who, as the science shows us, experience severe pain in the process of abortion. Every human life is a gift from God, and America’s founders knew that life comes first. Without life, there is no liberty; without life, there is no pursuit of happiness. Our fight for life is far from over, and I will continue to stand up for the unborn who feel pain in the womb and who are denied a chance at life.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 1/28/21]

2015: Cruz Effectively Voted For A Bill That Would Prohibit Abortions After 20-Weeks Gestation Except In Cases Of Rape Or Incest, But Would Erect New Barriers Such As Requiring Rape Victims To Document That They Received Prior Medical Treatment Or Counseling. In September 2015, Cruz effectively voted for a bill that would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of gestation and would impose criminal penalties on doctors that violated the ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would, “prohibit abortions in cases where the probable age of the fetus is 20 weeks or later, except in cases of rape, incest against a minor or when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger. Specifically, it would provide an exemption for pregnancies that are the result of rape against adult women if the woman obtained counseling or medical treatment for the rape at least 48 hours before the abortion. Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest against a minor would also be exempt from the ban if the rape or incest had been reported before the abortion to law enforcement or another government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse. The measure would impose criminal penalties on doctors who violate the ban. The measure also would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to an infant born at the same gestational age through natural birth.” The vote was on cloture and the Senate rejected the bill 54 to 42; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required to invoke cloture. The House had earlier passed the bill. [Senate Vote 268, 9/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]

The Bill Would Have Sentenced Doctors To Up To Five Years In Jail For Violating The Ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill imposes criminal penalties on physicians who violate the ban, with violations subject to a maximum five-year jail sentence, fines or both. It prohibits the prosecution of the woman obtaining the abortion, however, either as the perpetrator or as a conspirator to violate the ban.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
The Bill Would Have Created Barriers For Exceptions In The Case Of Rape Or Incest. According to Congressional Quarterly, “And while the original bill’s rape and incest provisions were onerous, they say the new language erects new barriers, including requiring rape victims to document that they received prior medical treatment or counseling, and that a second doctor be present for the abortion.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]

Cruz Supported Penalties For Abortion Providers Who Violated A Federal Abortion Ban

2021: Cruz Voted For An Amendment That Would Create Penalties For Providers That Conduct Elective Abortions At Or After 20 Weeks Of Gestation. In August 2021, Cruz voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health programs, including to establish penalties for providers of elective abortions at or after 20 weeks of gestation.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 48-51. [Senate Vote 348, 8/11/21; Congressional Quarterly, 8/11/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 3758; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res.14]

Cruz Has Opposed Language For Exceptions To Abortion Bans

Cruz On Rape Or Incest Exceptions For Abortion Bans: “I Don’t Believe It Makes Sense To Blame The Child.” According to the Capital Times, “Kelly then noted that Cruz doesn’t favor exceptions to allow abortion in cases of rape or incest. ‘When it comes to rape, rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person, and needs to be punished and punished severely,’ Cruz said. ‘But at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don’t believe it’s the child’s fault. And we weep at the crime, we want to do everything we can to prevent the crime on the front end, and to punish the criminal, but I don’t believe it makes sense to blame the child.’” [Capital Times, 4/4/16]

When Asked If He Supported Abortion In Cases Of Rape, Cruz Said, “Every Life Is A Precious Gift.” According to the New York Times, “Mr. Cruz was asked if he could support abortions in cases of rape, setting off a few murmurs in the room. ‘Plant,’ another man said quietly. Mr. Cruz thanked the questioner but gave no ground: ‘Every life is a precious gift,’ he said, adding that the issue was likely to come up ‘once, twice, maybe three times in the general election debates.’ When the man repeatedly interrupted, Mr. Cruz moved on: ‘Sir, we’re not going to debate, sir. Sir, sir — free speech — sir. Thank you, sir. Next question.’ The crowd applauded.” [New York Times, 1/8/16]

Cruz Said He Opposed Exceptions To Abortion Bans In Cases Of Rape And Incest. According to the Houston Chronicle, “Cruz would allow abortion only in cases in which the mother’s life is in jeopardy: ‘I think that every human life is a precious gift from God and should be protected in law from conception until natural death.’” [Houston Chronicle, 10/31/12]

Cruz Supported Personhood Amendments

Cruz Pledged To Back Personhood Amendments

August 2015: Cruz Signed Georgia Right To Life PAC’s Personhood Affirmation. According to Georgia Right to Life PAC, “Today, Texas US Senator Ted Cruz received a ringing endorsement from Georgia’s largest pro-life organization. ‘Senator Cruz has an unblemished record of standing up for innocent life,’ said Ricardo Davis, Director of Georgia Right to Life’s Political Action Committee (GRTL PAC). ‘Recent revelations about the horrors of the abortion cartel cry out for a principled fighter like Senator Cruz.’ Senator Cruz received the endorsement after reviewing his activities supporting personhood and receiving his signed GRTL PAC Personhood Affirmation, which asks that candidates support a personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would guarantee a constitutional right to life for every innocent human being, from earliest biological beginning until natural death.” [Press release- Georgia Right to Life PAC, 8/8/15]

Cruz Pledged To Support Personhood Legislation. According to Georgia Right to Life PAC, “Today, Texas US Senator Ted Cruz received a ringing endorsement from Georgia’s largest pro-life organization. ‘Senator Cruz has an unblemished record of standing up for innocent life,’ said Ricardo Davis, Director of Georgia Right to Life’s Political Action Committee (GRTL PAC). ‘Recent revelations about the horrors of the abortion cartel cry out for a principled fighter like Senator Cruz.’ Senator Cruz received the endorsement after reviewing his activities supporting personhood and receiving his signed GRTL PAC Personhood Affirmation, which asks that candidates support a personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would guarantee a constitutional right to life for every innocent human being, from earliest biological beginning until natural death.” [Press release- Georgia Right to Life PAC, 8/8/15]

Cruz Pledged To Sponsor The Life At Conception Act

2012: Cruz Pledged To Co-Sponsor The Life At Conception Act. According to a press release from the National Pro-Life Alliance, “But shortly before the primary, one of his opponents, Ted Cruz began a surge, denying Dewhurst the easy victory he had been planning on, turning the race into a runoff. In making that surge, Mr. Cruz took a bold stance on several issues, but most importantly to National Pro-Life Alliance members he pledged if elected to cosponsor the Life at Conception Act.” [National Pro-Life Alliance, 9/4/12]

Cruz Supported The Life At Conception Act. According to Pro Life Alliance, “With the general election now past, come January several newly elected pro-life champions will be joining the fight on Capitol Hill for a Life at Conception Act. One of those champions will be Ted Cruz from Texas whose strong support for the Life at Conception Act contributed to his success.” [Pro Life Alliance, 11/9/12]

Legislation Declared The Unborn To Be “Persons.” According to the Pro Life Alliance, “A Life at Conception Act – as introduced in the 113th Congress by Congressman Jim Jordan (H.R. 1091) and in the Senate by Senator Rand Paul (S. 583) – is legislation that, quite simply, would declare the unborn to be ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore entitled to the right to life guaranteed therein.” [Pro Life Alliance, Accessed 8/15/14]

Personhood Could Ban Some Types Of Birth Control And In-Vitro Fertilization

New York Times: Personhood Amendments “Would Essentially Deem Abortion And Some Types Of Birth Control Murder.” According to the New York Times, “The Democratic offensive is built around statements by Mr. Romney that some have linked to a proposed constitutional amendment in Mississippi, which among other things would effectively make illegal certain types of birth control. Under the measure, known as a ‘personhood’ amendment, a fertilized human egg would be declared to be a legal person. The amendment, which would essentially deem abortion and some types of birth control murder, represents perhaps the furthest front in the anti-abortion movement.” [New York Times, 11/3/11]

American Congress Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists: So Called “Personhood” Legislation Could Abolish Regular Forms Of Birth Control Like The IUD And The Common, Everyday Birth Control Pill. According to a statement from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “Although the individual wording in these proposed measures varies from state to state, they all attempt to give full legal rights to a fertilized egg by defining ‘personhood’ from the moment of fertilization, before conception (ie, pregnancy/ implantation) has occurred. This would have wide-reaching harmful implications for the practice of medicine and on women’s access to contraception, fertility treatments, pregnancy termination, and other essential medical procedures. These ‘personhood’ proposals, as acknowledged by proponents, would make condoms, natural family planning, and spermicides the only legally allowed forms of birth control. Thus, some of the most effective and reliable forms of contraception, such as oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and other forms of FDA-approved hormonal contraceptives could be banned in states that adopt ‘personhood’ measures. Women’s very lives would be jeopardized if physicians were prohibited from terminating life-threatening ectopic and molar pregnancies. Women who experience pregnancy loss or other negative pregnancy outcomes could be prosecuted in some cases.” [American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2/10/12]

Personhood Amendments, Which Aimed To Define A Fertilized Embryo As A Person, Could Make Forms Of Birth Control, Like The Common, Everyday Birth Control Pill, Illegal Because They Prevent Implantation Of A Fertilized Egg. According to Salon, “But [Mississippi’s] Initiative 26, which would change the definition of ‘person’ in the Mississippi state Constitution to ‘include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof,’ is more than just an absolute ban on abortion and a barely veiled shot at Roe v. Wade — although it is both. By its own logic, the initiative would almost certainly ban common forms of birth control like the IUD and the morning-after pill, call into question the legality of the common birth-control pill, and even open the door to investigating women who have suffered miscarriages. … [T]he Personhood movement hopes to do nothing less than reclassify everyday, routine birth control as abortion. The medical definition of pregnancy is when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterine wall. If this initiative passes, and fertilized eggs on their own have full legal rights, anything that could potentially block that implantation – something a woman’s body does naturally all the time – could be considered murder. Scientists say hormonal birth-control pills and the morning-after pill work primarily by preventing fertilization in the first place, but the outside possibility, never documented, that an egg could be fertilized anyway and blocked is enough for some pro-lifers.” [Salon, 10/26/11]

Ted Cruz And Guns

Cruz Opposed Gun Safety Reform

Cruz Opposed The 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

Cruz Opposed The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. According to the BBC, “The US Congress has passed a gun control bill – the most significant firearms legislation in nearly 30 years. It imposes tougher checks on young buyers and encourages states to remove guns from people considered a threat. The measures enjoyed bipartisan support, with 14 Republicans joining Democrats in the House to approve the bill by 234 to 193 votes. The bill is now headed to President Joe Biden to be signed into law. On Thursday, the bill also passed in the Senate, with 15 Republican Senators voting alongside their Democratic colleagues in favour of the bill. It ultimately passed in a late-night 65-33 vote. […] Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is widely tipped to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, condemned the bill as an attempt to ‘try to disarm law-abiding citizens rather than take serious measures to protect our children.’” [BBC, 6/24/22]

The Law Addressed Gun Violence And Mental Health

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act Provided Over $4.6 Billion Through FY 2026 To Address Gun Violence And Mental Health, Expand School-Based Mental Health Services, And Enact Several Gun Restrictions. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act would “provide over $4.6 billion in emergency funding through fiscal 2026 to address gun violence and mental health, and tighten restrictions on firearm purchases. Within total appropriations, the bill would provide $2.1 billion for Education Department support for school-based mental health services and student engagement activities and $990 million for Health and Human Service Department mental health programs, including $50 million for grants to states to implement or expand school-based health programs under Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/22]

The Law Expanded Background Checks

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act Allowed The National Instant Criminal Background Check System To Check Juvenile Criminal And Mental Health Records For Gun Buyers Under 21 Years Of Age And Consider Crimes Committed Or Mental Illness Adjudication At 16 Years Or Older As Disqualifications. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, would “expand background check requirements by requiring the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to check juvenile criminal and mental health adjudication records for gun purchasers under 21 years of age and apply the existing criteria for disqualification based on crimes committed as a juvenile or adjudication of mental illness at 16 years or older.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/22]

The Law Closed The “Boyfriend Loophole”

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act Closed The “Boyfriend Loophole,” Which Would Apply Gun Ownership Restrictions For Individuals Convicted Of Domestic Violence, Including Violence Against A Current Or Former Dating Partner. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act would “close the ‘boyfriend loophole’ by applying restrictions on gun ownership for individuals convicted of domestic violence to include violence against a current or former dating partner.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/22]

The Bill Would Prevent Individuals With Domestic Violence Convictions Against Dating Partners From Buying Firearms For At Least Five Years And The Right Would Be Reinstated If The Individual Was A First-Time Offender And Did Not Commit A Crime During Those Five Years. According to Politico, “In addition, it closes what’s known as the ‘boyfriend loophole’ by barring individuals with misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence against dating partners or former dating partners from purchasing a firearm for at least five years. Under that provision, the right to a firearm would be reinstated after that period if the individual is a first-time offender and has not committed any violent acts during that time frame.” [Politico, 6/23/22]

The Law Required Firearm Dealers To Become Federally Licensed

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act Required All Individuals Who Sell Firearms To “Predominantly Earn A Profit” To Register To Become Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act would “narrow the definition of a federally licensed firearm dealer to require registration by all individuals who sell firearms to predominately earn a profit to register.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/22]

The Law Supported Red Flag Laws And Intervention Programs

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act Reserved $1.6 Billion For Justice Department Activities To Support School Security, Community Violence Intervention, Community Policing, Improvements To Background Check Systems, And Grants To Implement State Crisis Intervention Programs And “Red Flag” Laws. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act would, “Within total appropriations, the bill would provide $1.6 billion for Justice Department activities to support school security, community violence intervention, community-oriented policing and background check system improvements, including $750 million for new grants under the Byrne JAG program to implement state crisis intervention programs, including mental health, drug and veterans courts, as well as extreme risk protection order or ‘red flag’ programs, provided they include certain due process protections.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/22]

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act Reserved $750 Million For Grants To Implement State Crisis Intervention Programs And “Red Flag” Laws. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act would, “Within total appropriations, the bill would provide $1.6 billion for Justice Department activities to support school security, community violence intervention, community-oriented policing and background check system improvements, including $750 million for new grants under the Byrne JAG program to implement state crisis intervention programs, including mental health, drug and veterans courts, as well as extreme risk protection order or ‘red flag’ programs, provided they include certain due process protections.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/22]

The Law Prohibited Straw Purchases And Firearm Trafficking

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act Prohibited Firearm Trafficking And “Straw Purchases” Or The Acquisition Of Firearms For Individuals Prohibited From Owning A Firearm Or Who Intend To Commit A Crime. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act would “prohibit firearm trafficking and ‘straw purchases,’ or the knowing acquisition of firearms on behalf of another individual who is prohibited from owning a firearm or intends to use the firearm to commit a felony.” [ Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/22]

Cruz Opposed An Assault Weapons Ban

2013: Cruz Voted Against Banning Assault Weapons And Magazines Holding More Than 10 Rounds Of Ammunition, With Exemptions For Some Firearms Used For Hunting And Recreation. In April 2013, Cruz voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] prohibit[ed] the future production, import, sale, transfer or possession of certain firearms considered to be assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, with exemptions for law enforcement officials. It would [have] exempt[ed] certain firearms used for hunting and sporting purposes from the ban. It also would [have] allow[ed] law enforcement grant funds [to] be used to buy back semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips.” The Senate rejected the proposed amendment to a gun policy bill by a vote of 40 to 60. [Senate Vote 101, 4/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/17/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 711; Congressional Actions, S. 649]

Cruz Opposed Universal Background Checks For Gun Buyers

Cruz Opposed Universal Background Checks For Gun Buyers. According to CBS News, “Cruz didn’t back down from his stance against universal background checks for gun buyers, a measure that was debated but ultimately voted down by the Senate earlier in 2013. ‘Do you target violent criminals, or do you try to take away the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens?’ Cruz asked, touting an alternative bill he offered that would increase the resources devoted to prosecuting gun-law violations.” [CBS News, 11/9/13]

Cruz Said Universal Background Checks Legislation “Raises Serious Constitutional Concerns.” According to Politico, “‘Senate Democrats are blatantly misconstruing Sen. Cruz’s record to distract to distract from how extreme they are on gun control and how out of touch they are with the American people,’ Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in an e-mail to POLITICO. ‘Sen. Cruz’s comments were related to improving the existing background check system, as discussed in Judiciary hearings just a few weeks ago. Under current law, states are supposed to report the names of individuals with mental illnesses to the federal gun background check database, but that doesn’t always happen. ‘This is completely different from liberals’ effort to expand background checks to any individual that would seek to own a firearm,’ Frazier said. ‘Democrats’ proposed legislation would require universal background checks for private sales between law-abiding citizens, which according to DOJ would be effective only if accompanied by a national gun registry – a measure that raises serious constitutional concerns.’” [Politico, 3/26/13]

Cruz Repeatedly Voted Against Background Checks

2018: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Efforts To Improve The National Instant Criminal Background Check System

2018: Cruz Effectively Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal, Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels; Legislation Included The Fix NICS Act, Which Would Attempt To Better The National Instant Criminal Background Check System. In March 2018, Cruz effectively voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure’s spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level.” The vote was a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 67 to 30. The Senate later agreed to the legislation, sending it to the president, who signed it into law. [Senate Vote 62, 3/23/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]

Cruz Voted In Opposition To Adding People Who Could Not Manage Their Own Finances To The National Criminal Background Check System

2017: Cruz Voted To Disapprove A Rule Adding Individuals Who Cannot Manage Their Own Finances, Often Due To Mental Impairment, To The National Criminal Background Check System. In February 2017, Cruz voted for disapproving a rule preventing certain people deemed mentally ill from obtaining weapons via the Congressional Review Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, “This resolution disapproves the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 19, 2016. It provides that the rule would have no force or effect.” The vote was on the legislation. The Senate agreed to the legislation by a vote of 57 to 43. President Trump later signed the legislation into law. [Senate Vote 66, 2/15/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 40]

Cruz Repeatedly Effectively Voted Against Expanding The Federal Background Check System

2016: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Expanding The Federal Background Check Requirement To Cover All Firearm Sales. In June 2016, Cruz effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require[d] that a background check be conducted for every firearm sale and would [have] require[d] federal agencies to certify that they have submitted pertinent information for the purpose of background checks.” The underlying legislation was a bill that would have funded Commerce, Justice and Science in FY 2017. The vote was on a motion to table a motion to commit the bill to the Judiciary committee with instructions. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 56 to 42. [Senate Vote 107, 6/20/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/16; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 4750; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]

2015: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Expanding Federal Background Check Requirement To Cover Firearms Purchases At Gun Shows, Over The Internet Or Through An Ad, While Excluding Sales Between Family Members And Friends. In December 2015, Cruz effectively voted against expanding federal background check requirement to cover firearms purchases at gun shows, over the internet or through an ad, while excluding sales between family members and friends. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “expand[d] the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to include firearms purchased on the Internet or at a gun show, and would make it unlawful to sell or transfer a firearm under such circumstances without first completing a background check.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on a motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline, which required a 3/5ths majority. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 48 to 50. [Senate Vote 321, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2908; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2874; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]

2013: Cruz Effectively Voted To Block Legislation Expanding Background Check Requirements For Gun Transactions And Increasing Penalties For Illegal Gun Sales. In April 2013, Cruz effectively voted against a bill to expand background checks and increase penalties for illegal gun sales. According to the New York Times, “The strong majority in favor of considering legislation that would expand background checks and increase the penalties for illegal gun sales reflected the power of a lobbying campaign by parents of students killed in Newtown, Conn., and by others who persuaded reluctant lawmakers to back them in an initial fight that looked lost just last week. The vote was 68 to 31.” The vote was on a cloture motion on the motion to proceed. Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 68 to 31, and then agreed to the underlying motion to proceed by voice vote. The bill was subsequently considered by the Senate but no further action had been taken as of September, 2013. [Senate Vote 95, 4/11/13; New York Times, 4/11/13; Congressional Actions, S. 649]

Cruz Opposed Closing The Gun Show Loophole

Cruz Repeatedly Voted Against Closing The Gun Show Loophole

2013: Cruz Voted Against Expanding Federal Background Check Requirement To Cover Firearms Purchases At Gun Shows, Over The Internet Or Through An Ad, While Excluding Sales Between Family Members And Friends. In April 2013, Cruz voted against an amendment that, according to the Albuquerque Journal, “aimed to block criminals and the seriously mentally ill from obtaining firearms. Currently, mandatory background checks apply only to purchases from licensed firearms dealers. The so-called Manchin-Toomey amendment would have expanded the checks to include firearms purchased online or from advertisements, but not to guns acquired from friends and relatives. The compromise was widely seen as the best chance for some kind of gun law change in the Senate – at least in the early days of the 113th Congress.” The Senate rejected the proposed amendment to proposed gun law legislation by a vote of 54 to 46; the Senate had previously decided that 60 votes would be required for the amendment to be agreed to. [Senate Vote 97, 4/17/13; Albuquerque Journal, 4/18/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 715; Congressional Actions, S. 649]

Cruz Voted For Maintaining The Gun Show Loophole

2016: Cruz Effectively Voted For A GOP Gun Bill That Maintained The Gun Show Exemption From Background Checks While Also Reauthorizing The Background Check System And Encouraged States To Submit Mental Health Records To The Background Check System. In June 2016, Cruz effectively voted for legislation that, according to Congressional Quarterly would have “reauthorize[d] the National Instant Criminal Background Check System at $125 million annually through fiscal 2020.” In addition, according to Vox, the amendment would not have “expand[ed] the use of the background check system — instead, it would [have] expand[ed] what’s currently included in it. […] [T]he amendment would encourage states to submit some mental health records to be included in the system. […] [T]he amendment would [have] ma[d]e it harder for the VA to prevent veterans from buying guns on mental health grounds — something that Grassley and other Republicans have complained about the Obama administration doing unilaterally.” The underlying legislation was a bill that would have funded Commerce, Justice and Science in FY 2017. The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, requiring 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 53 to 47. [Senate Vote 103, 6/20/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/16; Vox, 6/20/16; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 4751; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 4750; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]

2013: Cruz Voted For GOP Gun Bill Maintaining Gun Show Exemption From Background Checks, Increasing School Security Funding And Prohibiting Buying A Gun To Give To A Person Banned From Buying One Themselves. In April 2013, Cruz voted for legislation that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] reauthorize[d] grants to help states use the national background check database. It would [have] require[d] federal courts to submit records to the database and restrict[ed] federal grant funds to states that do not meet reporting requirements. It also would [have] expand[ed] definitions of mental illness that prohibit individuals from owning guns, ma[d]e it a federal crime to purchase firearms on behalf of people legally barred from owning them and call[ed] for a task force to investigate and prosecute attempted firearm purchases by felons and fugitives. It would [have] prohibit[ed] the Justice Department from inducing licensed gun dealers to sell firearms to a straw purchaser unless department officials certify that certain safeguards are in place. It would [have] call[ed] for a study on the causes of mass shootings, including the impact of violent video games, and reauthorize[d] grant programs on school security, mental health and crime prevention.” The legislation was considered as a substitute amendment to Senate Democrats’ gun legislation, and under an earlier Senate agreement, the amendment required 60 votes to be adopted. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 52 to 48. [Senate Vote 98, 4/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/17/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 725; Congressional Actions, S. 649]

Cruz Voted To Disapprove The ATF’s Firearm Brace Rule

2023: Cruz Voted To Disapprove A Rule From The Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, And Explosives That Expanded The Definition Of “Short-Barreled Rifle” To Include A Pistol With A Stabilizing Brace. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted for a joint resolution that would “provide for congressional disapproval of the January 2023 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives rule that expands the definition of a ‘short-barreled rifle’ to include a pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace attachment. The rule also subjects such firearms to heightened regulations under the National Firearms Act, including taxation, identification and registration requirements, and as of May 31, 2023 required owners to register, modify or destroy such firearms. Under the provisions of the joint resolution, the ATF rule would have no force or effect.” The vote was on passage. The Senate rejected the joint resolution by a vote of 49 to 50. [Senate Vote 171, 6/22/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/22/23; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 44]

Cruz Voted To Overturn D.C.’s Gun Laws

Cruz Voted To Prohibit D.C. From Regulating Firearms

2015: Cruz Voted To Prohibit Washington, D.C. From Regulating Firearms. In December 2015, Cruz voted to prohibit Washington, D.C.’s from regulating firearms. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “prohibit[ted] the District of Columbia from regulating firearms.” The amendment also would have “repeal[ed] restrictions on the transportation and ownership of firearms and would establish an application process for obtaining a firearm license. The amendment further prohibits the District of Columbia from regulating firearms […] [and] repeal[ed] [D.C’s] registration requirements and semiautomatic weapon ban.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on the amendment and required a 3/5ths majority. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 54 to 45. [Senate Vote 325, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2915; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2874; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]

Cruz Voted To Repeal D.C.’s Gun Registration Requirement And Semiautomatic Weapon Ban

2015: Cruz Voted To Repeal Washington, D.C.’s Registration Requirement And Its Semiautomatic Weapon Ban. In December 2015, Cruz voted to repeal Washington, D.C.’s registration requirement and its semiautomatic weapon ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “repeal[ed] [D.C’s] registration requirements and semiautomatic weapon ban.” In addition, the amendment would have “repeal[ed] restrictions on the transportation and ownership of firearms and would establish an application process for obtaining a firearm license. The amendment further prohibits the District of Columbia from regulating firearms.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on the amendment and required a 3/5ths majority. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 54 to 45. [Senate Vote 325, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2915; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2874; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]

Cruz Voted To Prohibit The Army Secretary From Enforcing Firearm Regulations On Federally Managed Water Infrastructure

2013: Cruz Voted For An Amendment Prohibiting The Army Secretary From Establishing Or Enforcing Firearm Regulations On Federally Managed Water Infrastructure Property. In May 2013, Cruz voted for an amendment prohibiting the Army secretary from creating or enforcing firearm regulations on federally managed water infrastructure projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “bar[red] the Army secretary from establishing or enforcing regulations that prohibit the possession of firearms on water infrastructure property managed by the Army Corps of Engineers if the individual is not prohibited from possessing it and is in compliance with state gun laws.” The underlying bill was the Water Resources Development Reauthorization Act. The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 56 to 43; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required for the adoption of the amendment. [Senate Vote 115, 5/8/13; Congressional Quarterly, 5/8/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 805; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 799; Congressional Actions, S. 601]

Cruz Voted Against Banning Magazines Holding More Than 10 Rounds

2013: Cruz Voted Against Banning Firearm Magazines Capable Of Holding More Than 10 Rounds Of Ammunition. In April 2013, Cruz voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] prohibit[ed] the future production, import, sale, transfer or possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, with exemptions for law enforcement officials. It would also [have] allow[ed] law enforcement grant funds be used to buy back semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips.” The Senate rejected the proposed amendment to Senate-considered gun control legislation by a vote of 46 to 54. [Senate Vote 103, 4/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/17/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 714; Congressional Actions, S. 649]

Cruz Voted Against Making Purchasing Guns For Those Who Were Legally Barred From Owning One A Federal Crime

2013: Cruz Voted Against An Amendment Making Straw Purchases Of Firearms For Those Legally Barred From Owning One A Federal Crime. In April 2013, Cruz voted against an amendment making it a federal crime to purchase firearms for those who are legally barred from having one. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “revise[d] provisions in the bill that would make it a federal crime to purchase firearms on behalf of those legally barred from owning them to include exceptions for firearms purchased as a raffle, contest or auction award, as a gratuity for a hunting guide, as an employee bonus or as a commemorative award or honorarium.” According to the Washington Post, the amendment also “makes gun trafficking a federal crime and strengthens the penalties against,” and according to Mother Jones, “Convicted gun traffickers would face prison sentences of up to 25 years.” The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment 58 to 42; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required for the adoption of the amendment. The underlying bill, a bill on gun control, died in the Senate. [Senate Vote 99, 4/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/17/13; Washington Post, 4/17/13; Mother Jones, 4/17/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 713; Congressional Actions, S. 649]

Cruz Voted Against The UN Small Arms Trade Treaty

2013: Cruz Voted To Support Allowing Legislation Upholding Second Amendment Rights, In Particular, Legislation Preventing The United States From Entering Into The U.N. Small Arms Trade Treaty. In March 2013, Cruz voted for an amendment that, according to The Hill, “would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment.” The amendment was to the Senate’s fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, and was non-binding. The Senate agreed to the amendment by a vote of 53 to 46; the underlying budget resolution was later adopted by the Senate. Some provisions of the Senate-passed budget resolution were later included in the December 2013 Ryan-Murray budget agreement. [Senate Vote 91, 3/23/13; The Hill, 3/23/13; Congressional Record, 3/20/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 139; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 8]

2015: Cruz Voted To Block Funding For Any International Organization Charged With Implementing The United Nations Small Arms Trade Treaty, Until Congress Approves The Treaty. In March 2015, Cruz voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would establish a spending-neutral reserve fund that would allow for legislation to prohibit funding for the UN Arms Treaty secretariat or any international organizations created to support the implementation of the UN Arms Trade Treaty prior to Senate ratification and adoption of implementing legislation.” The Senate adopted the proposed amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution by a vote of 59 to 41, and subsequently passed the amendment resolution. The final budget resolution included the policy. [Senate Vote 108, 3/26/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15; S. Con. Res. 11, 4/7/15; Congress.gov, H. Rept. 114-96; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 649; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

Cruz Voted To Create A 60-Vote Point Of Order Against Further Gun Control Legislation

2013: Cruz Voted For Creating A 60 Vote Point Of Order Against Further Gun Control Legislation. In March 2013, Cruz voted for an amendment creating a 60 vote point of order for any further gun control legislation. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, “create[d] a 60-vote point of order against certain legislation related to gun policy, including prohibiting the possession of certain types of guns, limiting the size of ammunition clips or requiring background checks for private firearm transfers.” The underlying legislation was on the FY 2014 budget resolution. The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 50 to 49; 60 Senators yes would have been required for the adoption of the amendment. [Senate Vote 87, 3/23/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 673; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res. 8]

Cruz Was Called Out For His Lackluster Responses To School Shootings

Senator Chris Murphy Attacked Cruz’s Gun Policies

2023: Senator Chris Murphy Attacked Cruz For Being Unwilling To Address The Gun Crisis In America. According to Fox News, “While promoting stricter laws on firearms during an appearance on ‘Salon Talks’ Tuesday, Murphy, D-Conn., took aim at Republicans seeking to protect Second Amendment rights. ‘It is beyond me why Republicans who claim to care about the health of our kids don’t seem to give a crap about our children who are being exposed to these epidemic, cataclysmic rates of gun violence,’ Murphy said in the interview. When Murphy was asked if he could reach any GOP lawmakers, specifically Cruz, on the issue, he did not refrain from slamming the Republican senator. ‘I don’t know that I have battles with Ted Cruz. I just tend to ignore him. I mean, he comes to the floor and makes these ridiculous requests. I object to them and then leave the floor. And he yells at me for a while once I’m back in my office, but I’m not sure that they’re actual battles. Ted Cruz is looking for confrontations and opportunities to yell at people, and I would rather not give him those opportunities,’ he said, adding that Cruz is ‘not in the Senate to compromise. He’s in the Senate to get clicks.’” [Fox News, 3/15/23]

Cruz Tried To Defend Himself After Being Attacked For Tweeting His “Thoughts And Prayers” For The School Shooting In Nashville, Claiming He Has Done A Lot To Combat Gun Violence

Cruz Tweeted: “For Everyone Who Says ‘Thoughts & Prayers Aren’t Enough,’ I Agree. Ask Why Every Single Senate Dem Voted Against My Bill Doubling Police Officers In School.” Cruz tweeted, “The Covenant School shooting was horrific. For everyone who says ‘thoughts & prayers aren’t enough,’ I AGREE. Ask why EVERY SINGLE SENATE DEM voted against my bill doubling police officers in school. One armed officer could have stopped this lunatic, BEFORE a child was killed.” [Twitter, @tedcruz, 3/27/23]

[Twitter, @tedcruz, 3/27/23]

Cruz Tweeted His Thoughts And Prayers After The School Shooting In Nashville. Cruz tweeted, “Heidi and I are praying for the entire Nashville community right now. May God’s comfort be with the Covenant School in the wake of this evil atrocity.” [Twitter, @tedcruz, 3/27/23]

Cruz Advocated For Increased Guns In Schools In An Effort To Decrease Gun Violence

Cruz Used The Tennessee School Shooting To Attack Democrats For Not Passing His “School Safety” Bill Which Would Arm Security Guards In Schools

Press Release From Senator Ted Cruz: “Sen. Cruz Fights To Pass Two School Safety Bills On Senate Floor” According to press release from Senator Ted Cruz, “Today on the Senate floor, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) reintroduced and fought for the immediate passage of his Securing Our Schools Act and the Protect Our Children’s Schools Act. The bills would improve school security and access to student mental health resources and allow schools to use unspent, previously appropriated federal COVID-19 education-related funding to improve school security. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) objected to Sen. Cruz’s effort and blocked both bills from passing the Senate, without explaining which policies within the bills he opposed. Sen. Murphy previously objected to both bills last Congress.” [Press release — Senator Ted Cruz, 3/30/23]

Cruz: “Why On Earth Do We Protect A Stupid Deposit More Than Our Children? It’s A Shame Senate Democrats Refuse To Pass My School Safety Legislation.” Cruz tweeted, “There are armed police officers in banks. Why? Because we want to protect the money we save. Why on earth do we protect a stupid deposit more than our children? It’s a shame Senate Democrats refuse to pass my school safety legislation.” [Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 3/30/23]

Following The Tennessee School Shooting, Cruz Claimed Banks Were Some Of The Most Protected Spaces Because It Had Armed Guards, Ten Days Later A Mass Shooting Took Place At A Bank In Louisville

Cruz Asserted That Banks Were Exempt From Gun Violence In The Aftermath Of The Tennessee School Shooting. According to Independent, “Texas Senator Ted Cruz used armed officers at banks as an example of implementing more firearms to increase safety on school campuses, 10 days before the Louisville bank shooting. On 31 March, just days after The Covenant School shooting in Nashville, Tennessee, Mr Cruz (R-TX) posted an image on Twitter where he compared firearms present at banks to the need for firearms at schools to prevent school shootings. ‘When you go to the bank and you deposit money in the bank, there are armed police officers at the bank. Why? Because we want to protect the money we save. Why on earth do we protect a stupid deposit more than our children?’ The image read.” [Independent, 4/11/23]

Ten Days After Cruz Claimed Banks Were Safe, Six People Were Killed And Eight Others Were Injured In A Shooting At A Bank. According to Independent, “However, Mr Cruz’s example of banks being physically secure did not age well. Six people were shot dead and eight others were injured in a shooting at Old National Bank on Monday. Mr Cruz’s Twitter post was mocked with replies after the tragic shooting.” [Independent, 4/11/23]

Cruz Tweeted, “Let Me Be Clear: Yes, I Want To Double The Number Of Police Officers Protecting Our Kids In Schools.” Cruz tweeted, “Let me be clear: Yes, I want to double the number of police officers protecting our kids in schools. More on #Verdict: The FBI’s targeting Catholics, NBA coaches are attacking the Second Amendment & Bud Light is going woke. @benfergusonshow” [Twitter, @tedcruz, 4/12/23]

[Twitter, @tedcruz, 4/12/23]

Cruz Shifted Blame On Mass Shootings From Guns To Anything But Guns

Cruz Blamed Mass Shootings On declining Church Attendance, Violent Video Games, Prescription Drugs, Social Media Bullying And Other Societal Factors, But Not Guns

2022: Cruz Blamed Mass Shootings On Several Issues, None Of Which Were Guns. According to The Hill, “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) blamed declining church attendance, violent video games, prescription drugs, social media bullying and other societal factors — but not guns — for the wave of mass shootings in the U.S. during an address to National Rifle Association (NRA) members on Friday. ‘We know that many of these who seek to commit the most heinous crimes, they’re isolated from human contact,’ Cruz said. ‘They’re living a virtual life in the absence of community of community and faith and love.’ During the event, located a short drive away from the Uvalde, Texas, massacre that claimed the lives of 19 children and two adults, Cruz called on Congress to enhance security at schools, but reiterated his opposition to any efforts to tighten gun laws. ‘What stops armed bad guys is armed good guys,’ he said, arguing that lawmakers’ proposal to expand background checks on gun sales wouldn’t prevent most mass murders.” [The Hill, 5/27/22]

Cruz Shifted Blame On Mass Shootings From Guns To Biden’s Border Policies

Cruz Blamed A Mass Shooting In Texas On Biden’s Border Policy. According to Newsweek, “On Friday night, a man identified by ICE as a 38-year-old Mexican national named Francisco Oropeza, went on a shooting rampage in the small rural town of Cleveland, Texas, after a neighbor asked him to stop firing his gun in his yard because a baby next door was trying to sleep. The confrontation turned deadly when the suspect re-emerged from his house with an assault rifle and killed five people, including a 9-year-old boy, in a neighboring house.[…] ‘Joe Biden & Kamala Harris made the deliberate political decision to open our borders & allow SIX MILLION illegal immigrants to cross,’ Senator Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted on Sunday. ‘This death & carnage is the predictable and tragic result.’” [Newsweek, 5/1/23]

Cruz Opposed Federally Funded Gun Violence Research

Cruz Voted Against Funding For Gun Violence Research

2019: Cruz Voted Against The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Provided $25 Million for Gun Violence Research. In December 2019, Cruz voted against the FY 2020 minibus spending bill According to The Hill, “federal agencies will receive $25 million from Congress to study gun violence […] The deal includes $12.5 million each for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health to study gun violence and ways to prevent it.” The vote was a motion to concur. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 71-23, thereby sending the bill to the president, who signed it into law. [Senate Vote 415, 12/19/19; The Hill, 12/16/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1865]

Cruz Supported Laws That Made Guns More Widely Available

Cruz Reciprocity Voted To Allow Concealed Carry Reciprocity

2013: Cruz Voted To Make Concealed Carry Permits Issued In Any One State Valid In Any Other State That Permits Concealed Carry. In April 2013, Cruz voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would allow concealed-carry permits issued in one state to be valid in all others that issue such permits. It would require that a person carrying a concealed weapon outside of the permitting-issuing state, follow the concealed-carry regulations of the state in which the individual is located.” The Senate, having agreed to require 60 votes to adopt the amendment, rejected it by a vote of 57 to 43. [Senate Vote 100, 4/17/13]

Cruz Voted To Allow Gun Sales Across State Lines

2015: Cruz Voted To Permit The Sale Of Handguns Across State Lines. In December 2015, Cruz voted for allowing the sale of handguns across state lines. According to Senator Rand Paul, the amendment would have “allow[ed] for the purchase of handguns across state lines in the same manner as long rifles and shotguns.” The amendment also would have “repeal[ed] restrictions on the transportation and ownership of firearms and would establish an application process for obtaining a firearm license. The amendment further prohibits the District of Columbia from regulating firearms and repeals its registration requirements and semiautomatic weapon ban.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on the amendment and required a 3/5ths majority. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 54 to 45. [Senate Vote 325, 12/3/15; Office Of Senator Rand Paul, Accessed 12/9/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2915; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2874; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]

Cruz Voted Against Prohibiting Suspected Terrorists From Buying Guns

2016: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Allowing The U.S Attorney General To Deny Individuals Who Are On The ‘No Fly List’ Or The ‘Selective List’ From Purchasing Firearms; The Measure Would Allow The Potential Buyer To Challenge The Denial In Court. In June 2016, Cruz effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “allow[ed] for the attorney general to block a gun transfer to an individual that is on the ‘no fly’ or ‘selectee list,’ if there is a reasonable basis to believe, based on specific information and evidence, that the individual is in some way related to terrorism, would [have] notif[ied] law enforcement officials if an individual that has appeared on the Terrorist Screening Database within the last five years has requested a firearm transfer, and would [have] allow[ed] for an expedited review for a petition on the denial of the transfer that would [have] require[d] a reasonable basis based on specific and articulate information and credible evidence that the transferee is or has been engaged with terrorism in order to uphold the block on the transfer.” The underlying legislation was a bill that would have funded Commerce, Justice and Science in FY 2017. The vote was on a motion to table a motion to commit the bill to the Judiciary committee with instructions. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 67 to 31. [Senate Vote 110, 6/23/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/16; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 4859; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 4858; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]

2016: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Preventing Suspected Terrorists From Purchasing Firearms. In June 2016, Cruz effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “authorize[d] the attorney general to deny the transfer of a firearm to an individual that represents a threat to public safety based on reasonable suspicion that the individual has ties to terrorism.” According to Vox, the amendment also would have allowed “the federal government […] [to] give greater scrutiny to any gun purchase from someone on the ‘terrorist watch list’ or anyone who’s been investigated in connection with terrorism over the past five years.” The underlying legislation was a bill that would have funded Commerce, Justice and Science in FY 2017. The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, requiring 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 47 to 53. [Senate Vote 106, 6/20/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/16; Vox, 6/20/16; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 4720; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 4685; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]

2015: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Allowing The U.S. Attorney General To Deny Suspected Or Known Terrorists From Buying Firearms. In December 2015, Cruz effectively voted against allowing the U.S. Attorney General to prevent suspected or known terrorists from purchasing a firearm. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “allow[ed] the attorney general to deny the sale or transfer of a firearm, as well as the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit, to an individual known or suspected to have been engaged in conduct constituting, related to or supporting terrorism.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on a motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline, which required a 3/5ths majority. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 319, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2910; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2874; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]

Cruz Voted To Make It Easier For Mentally Ill Veterans To Access Guns

2013: Cruz Voted For An Amendment Making It Easier For Mentally Ill Veterans To Obtain Firearms. In April 2013, Cruz voted to make it easier for mentally ill veterans to obtain firearms. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “prevent[ed] veterans who are mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from being deemed ‘a mental defective’ and blocked from owning guns unless a court finds that the individual poses a danger to himself or others.” According to the Washington Post, “Opponents argue that it would make it easier for mentally ill veterans to obtain firearms.” The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment 56 to 44; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required for the adoption of the amendment. The underlying bill, a bill on gun control, died in the Senate. [Senate Vote 102, 4/17/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/17/13; Washington Post, 4/17/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 720; Congressional Actions, S. 649]

Cruz Was Heavily Funded By The NRA

Cruz Was Listed As A Politician Heavily Funded By The National Rifle Association

Cruz Was Listed As A Politician Heavily Funded By The National Rifle Association. According to KCRA News, “Open Secrets has also compiled a database of current members in the 118th Congress who have received the most funding from the NRA. The report reveals the NRA has funded tens of millions of dollars to support gun rights politicians – including Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. The report also shows the NRA spent millions of dollars against gun control politicians, including Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock.” [KCRA News, 5/16/23]

Ted Cruz And Voting Rights

Cruz Hoped To Overturn The 2020 Election

Cruz Led Efforts To Overturn The 2020 Election In The Senate

Cruz Hoped To Overturn The 2020 Election. According to the Washington Post, “In the plan Cruz laid out to the Fox News host and her producer, if a majority of the House and the Senate objected to electoral certification on Jan. 6, 2021, then an electoral commission would be stood up immediately, commencing a 10-day review period to be completed before the inauguration. If the commission found ‘credible evidence of fraud that undermines confidence in the electoral results in any given state,’ then the state would then call a special session and recertify results, according to Cruz. ‘Is there any chance you can overturn this?’ Bartiromo asked Cruz. ‘I hope so,’ he responded.”

Cruz Advocated For A Committee To Audit Unsubstantiated Claims Of Voter Fraud According to the Washington Post, “Sen. Ted Cruz advocated the creation of a congressionally appointed electoral commission ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol to make a credible assessment of unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, according to a recording made by Abby Grossberg, a former producer at Fox News.” [Washington Post, 4/25/23]

Cruz Said He Organized Senators To Object To The Certification Of The 2020 Election. According to the Washington Post, “Cruz says in the recorded conversation that he successfully organized 11 senators to object to the electoral certification as the mechanism to establish a commission. Cruz was the first senator to object to the electoral college results, joining Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) in challenging Arizona’s electoral certification. The Post has previously reported on Cruz’s proposal of delaying the certification of the electoral college results to spark a 10-day ‘audit’ that could enable GOP state legislatures to overturn the election results.” [Washington Post, 4/25/23]

Cruz Supported The Arizona Vote Count Objection

2021: Cruz Voted For Objecting To Arizona’s Vote Count From The November 2020 Elections. In January 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted for an “objection to the counting of electoral votes from the state of Arizona during the joint session of Congress, on the grounds that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.” The vote was on agreeing to the objection. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 6-93. [Senate Vote 1, 1/6/21; Congressional Quarterly, 1/6/21]

The Debate On The Arizona Vote Count Was Interrupted By Trump Supporters That Raided The U.S. Capitol. According to Forbes, “The debate was interrupted by Trump supporters who violently stormed the U.S. Capitol building, causing lawmakers to be moved to an undisclosed secure location.” [Forbes, 1/6/21]

Cruz Supported The Pennsylvania Vote Count Objection

2021: Cruz Voted For Objecting To Pennsylvania’s Vote Count From The November 2020 Elections. In January 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted for an “objection to the counting of electoral votes from the state of Pennsylvania during the joint session of Congress, on the grounds that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.” The vote was on agreeing to the objection. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 7-92. [Senate Vote 2, 1/7/21; Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/21]

Cruz Refused to Recognize The Legitimacy Of The 2020 Election

2022: Cruz Would Not Say Biden Was Legitimately Elected. According to the Texas Tribune, “Nearly two years after former President Donald Trump’s supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol and delayed certification of the 2020 election, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz still won’t say President Joe Biden was legitimately elected. During a confrontational appearance Monday on ‘The View,’ the Texas Republican was grilled about his continued support for Trump, his onetime opponent for the Republican nomination to be president. Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former communications director in Trump’s White House who has since become fiercely critical of the former president, pressed Cruz on whether he believed Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election. But Cruz redirected, instead focusing on Democrats who had previously bemoaned their own electoral losses. ‘Biden is the president today,’ Cruz said. ‘There are a lot of folks in the media that try to, anytime a Republican is in front of a TV camera, try to say the election was fair and square and legitimate. You know who y’all don’t do that to? You don’t do it to Hillary Clinton.’ ‘So it’s illegitimate when Republicans win but not when Democrats win?’ Cruz added.” [Texas Tribune, 10/24/22]

Cruz Refused To Say He Would Accept The 2024 Election

Cruz Refused To Say If He Would Accept The Results Of The 2024 Election. According to CNN, “Republican Sen. Ted Cruz refused on Wednesday to say whether he will unconditionally accept the results of the 2024 election, the latest in a series of comments by prominent Republicans that seek to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the upcoming presidential contest. ‘I think that’s actually a ridiculous question,’ replied Cruz when asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on ‘The Source’ whether he will accept the results of the 2024 election regardless of who wins. ‘So you’re asking, ‘Will you promise, no matter what, to agree an election is legitimate regardless of what happens?,’ and that would be an absurd thing to claim. Like, we have an entire election law system: that people challenge elections, elections get overturned, voter fraud gets proven. That happens all the time,’ Cruz said.” [CNN, 5/23/24]

Cruz Opposed Efforts To Make It Easier To Vote

Cruz Opposed The John Lewis Act

Cruz Opposed The John Lewis Act. According to the Texas Tribune, “Texas’ U.S. senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, are on track next week to help deliver what could be the final blow to Democratic hopes of passing a federal voting bill that would shut down many of the voter restrictions the Texas Legislature passed into law last year. The U.S. Senate is expected to soon address a House-passed bill that would reinstate parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and push back against sweeping voting changes passed by Republican-controlled legislatures across the country. […] The Democratic legislation at hand passed the House in a party line vote on Thursday, and Senate Democratic leaders are expected to put the bill on the floor in the coming days. Known as Freedom to Vote: The John Lewis Act, the legislation is named for the late civil rights leader and member of Congress who died in 2020.” [Texas Tribune, 1/14/22]

The Bill Would Improve Native American Voter Access

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Of 2021 Would Have Improved Voter Access For Native Americans By Authorizing $10 Million Yearly Through FY 2037 For A Native American Voting Task Force Grant Program To Improve Voter Turnout, Ballot Access, Address Internet Issues And Provide Information In The Community’s Native Language. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “also include several provisions intended to improve voting access for Native Americans. It would authorize $10 million annually through fiscal 2037 for a Native American voting task force grant program for activities to increase voter turnout and ballot access in Native American communities, including to address internet connectivity issues and provide information in the community’s dominant language.” [Congressional Quarterly, 11/3/21]

The Bill Provided Protections For Election Workers

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Of 2021 Would Have Been Similar To The House-Passed Version But Would Add Provisions That Expand Protections For Election Workers Against Violence And Threats. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “The text of the bill is largely similar to that of a bill (HR 4) passed by the House on August 24. Among other differences, the bill would add provisions that would expand and clarify protections for election workers against threats and violence.” [Congressional Quarterly, 11/3/21]

The Bill Would Restore Preclearance Requirements Under The Voting Rights Act

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Of 2021 Would Have Effectively Restored Preclearance Requirements Under The Voting Rights Act For All Voting Changes In States And Localities With A History Of Voting Discrimination In The Last 25 Years. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “effectively restore preclearance requirements under the Voting Rights Act for any changes to voting practices in states and localities with a history of voting rights violations within the previous 25 years.” [Congressional Quarterly]

The Measure Would Have Sought To Authorize The Justice Department And Federal Courts To Preclear State Election Laws, Including Before They Take Effect, By Restoring Provisions Of The Voting Rights Act That Were Struck Down In 2013 By The Supreme Court. According to The Washington Post, “The John Lewis bill instead seeks to empower the Justice Department and federal courts to review state election laws — in some cases, before they take effect — restoring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that have been struck down by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions since 2013.” [The Washington Post, 11/3/21]
The Measure Would Have Updated The Voting Rights Act To Reinforce Provisions That Were Thrown Out And Weakened By The Supreme Court Decision On Shelby County V. Holder In 2013 And The 2021 Decision On Brnovich V. Democratic National Committee. According to The Hill, “The voting rights bill named after Lewis would update the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to strengthen sections of the 1965 law that were gutted by the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which focused on Section 5 of the VRA that required Justice Department preclearance before some states could change voting laws, and the 2021 Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee decision, which advocates believe weakened Section 2 of the 1965 law focused on racially targeted voting policies.” [The Hill, 10/20/21]

The Bill Would Reinforce Anti-Discrimination Authorities

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Of 2021 Would Have Reinforced Anti-Discrimination Authorities For Voting Practices. According to Congressional Quarterly, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 would “include a number of provisions to strengthen anti-discrimination enforcement authorities in relation to voting practices.” [Congressional Quarterly, 11/3/21]

Republicans Blocked A Third Major Voting Rights Bill, Which Was Another Democrat Priority Measure In Response To Voter Restrictions Passed In Republican-Majority State Legislature After Former President Trump Falsely Claimed Fraud In The 2020 Election. According to The Washington Post, “Republican senators on Wednesday voted to block debate on the third major voting rights bill that congressional Democrats have sought to pass this year in response to the state-level GOP push to restrict ballot access following former president Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen 2020 election.” [The Washington Post, 11/3/21]

Cruz Effectively Voted Against The Freedom To Vote Act

2022: Cruz Effectively Voted Against The Freedom To Vote Act. In January 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted against the “motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer, D-N.Y., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill, with a further Senate amendment.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 49-51. [Senate Vote 9, 1/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 1/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5746]

The Freedom To Vote Act Was A Broad Measure That Affected Congressional Redistricting And Campaign Finance. According to NPR, “The second bill the Senate is considering is the Freedom to Vote Act. It’s a more sweeping measure of the two, and would affect everything from the way congressional districts are drawn to how campaigns are financed.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Made Election Day A National Holiday, Permit States To Have At Least 2 Weeks Of Early Voting, Allow No-Excuse Absentee Ballot Voting, Require Greater Accessibility For People With Disabilities, Require States To Broaden Their Valid Photo Identification Requirements, And Require States To Offer Same-Day And Online Voter Registration. According to NPR, “The measure would: make Election Day a national holiday, aimed at making easier for all voters to get to the polls that day; allow states to have early voting for at least two weeks prior to Election Day, including nights and weekends; allow voting by mail with no excuses needed, and voters could put their ballots in drop boxes; require that states make voting more accessible for people with disabilities; require that states that require IDs for voting would have to broaden the types of identification acceptable. States would also have to offer same-day voting registration and online registration and also make it easier to register at places like departments of motor vehicles.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Prohibited Partisan Gerrymandering And Limit How States May Conduct Voter Purges From Voter Checklists. According to NPR, “The measure would also outlaw partisan gerrymandering — that is, drawing congressional boundaries to the political advantage of one party or another — and would limit the ways states can purge people from voting rolls.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Regulated Campaign Finance By Limiting Dark Money By Political Action Committees And Requiring Groups That Spend Over $10K To Disclose Their Donors. According to NPR, “It would also impose new rules on how campaigns are paid for by limiting the use of so-called dark money by political action committees. Any group that spends more than $10,000 to influence an election would be required to disclose all donors.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Establish A Small Donor Matching System For House Candidates, In Which The Election Assistance And Innovation Fund Would Match Contributions Up To $200 At A 6 To 1 Ratio. According to NPR, “A small donor matching system would be set up for House candidates. A new Election Assistance and Innovation Fund would match contributions up to $200 at a 6:1 ratio. The fund would not use taxpayer dollars and instead be financed through assessments paid on fines, penalties and settlements for certain tax crimes and corporate malfeasance.” [NPR, 1/18/22]
The Freedom To Vote Act Would Have Fortified The Federal Election Commission’s Authority To Investigate Campaign Abuse Charges And Require The Replacement Of Outdated Voting Machines With Machines That Provide Voters Paper Receipts Of Their Ballots. According to NPR, “The measure would also strengthen the Federal Election Commission’s ability to investigate charges of campaign abuses and require that states replace outdated voting machines with ones that, among other things, provide voters with paper records of their ballots.” [NPR, 1/18/22]

Cruz Backed Voter Suppression Methods

Curz Voted To Require Photo ID In Federal Elections

2013: Cruz Voted To Support Requiring A Photo ID To Vote In Federal Elections. In March 2013, Cruz voted to support requiring Americans to show a photo ID to vote in federal elections. According to a press release from Sen. David Vitter, “U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-La.) today offered an amendment to the Senate budget resolution to require a valid government-issued photographic ID to vote in a federal election.” According to the Congressional Record, the purpose of the amendment was to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure election integrity by requiring a valid government-issued photographic ID for voting in federal elections.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 44 to 54. [Senate Vote 83, 3/23/13; Congressional Record, 3/22/13; David Vitter Press Release, 3/22/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 526; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 8]

Cruz Opposed Federal Pre-Clearance Because It Blocked Photo ID Laws

2012: Cruz Opposed A Provision Of The Voting Rights Act Designed To Protect Minority Voters In Southern States Because It Blocked A Law Requiring Photo ID To Vote. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “It’s time to do away with the nearly 50-year-old federal rule that let U.S. officials block a new state law requiring Texans to show photo ID to vote. That’s what Republicans candidates running to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in the U.S. Senate said during a forum Thursday night. They called for repeal of the Voting Rights Act provision that requires Texas and other Southern states with histories of discrimination to receive pre-clearance when changing election laws. ‘Right now, Texas is subjected to different standards than much of the country,’ former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz said during the forum, hosted by the Dallas Bar Association. ‘I think we need to be fighting to ensure the law is colorblind and fair to everyone. ‘The Department of Justice … is acting to stop Texas from implementing … common-sense law.’” [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 3/16/12]

Cruz Sponsored Legislation Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Register To Vote

2013: Cruz Sponsored Legislation To Require Proof Of Citizenship For Voter Registration. According to Politico, “Ted Cruz didn’t wait long to mount a legislative response to the Supreme Court’s ruling against Arizona’s voter registration rule. An amendment submitted by the Texas senator on Monday afternoon to the Senate’s immigration bill would ‘permit states to require proof of citizenship for registration to vote in elections for federal office.’ Cruz’s measure would amend the National Voter Registration Act.” [Politico, 6/17/13]

Cruz Opposed Funding Election Security

Cruz Voted Against Election Integrity Funding

2019: Cruz Voted Against The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Provided $440 Million To The Election Assistance Commission. In December 2019, Cruz voted against the FY 2020 minibus appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill “provides $440 million to the Election Assistance Commission, including $425 million in new grants to improve the security and integrity of elections for Federal office.” The vote was a motion to concur. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 81-11, thereby sending the bill to the president, who signed it into law. [Senate Vote 428, 12/19/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1158]

The FY 2020 Minibus Provided $425 Million In New Grant Funding For States To Enhance Election Security. According to The Hill, “The spending deal agreed upon by House and Senate negotiators includes $425 million for states to improve their election security […] [the bill] will also include a requirement for states to match 20 percent of the federal funds, meaning the eventual amount given to election officials to improve election security would reach $150 million [The Hill, 12/16/19]

Cruz Voted Against Election Security Grants

2018: Cruz Voted Against Appropriating $250 Million In Election Security Grants. In August 2018, Cruz voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “appropriate[ed] $250 million for election security grants.” The underlying bill was an FY 2019 Appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, Financial Services, Agriculture, Transportation, and HUD. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 50 to 47, where 60 votes was needed for adoption. [Senate Vote 176, 8/1/18; Congressional Quarterly, 8/1/18; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 3464; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 3399; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6147]

Cruz Voted Against Funding Efforts To Oppose Russian Hacking

2018: Cruz Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal, Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels, Including $300 Million To The FBI To Counter Russian Election Hacking And $380 Million For The Election Assistance Commission To Help States Improve Election Security. In March 2018, Cruz voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure’s spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level.” The vote was a motion to concur. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 65 to 33, thereby sending the bill to the president, who signed it into law. [Senate Vote 63, 3/23/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]

The Bill Provided $300 Million To The FBI To Counter Russian Election Hacking And $380 Million For The Election Assistance Commission To Help States Improve Election Security. According to the Washington Post, “The bill provides $380 million to the federal Election Assistance Commission to make payments to states to improve election security and technology, and the FBI is set to receive $300 million in counterintelligence funding to combat Russian hacking.” [Washington Post, 3/22/18]

Cruz Opposed Electoral College Reform

Cruz Voted Against Bipartisan Presidential Election Reform

2022: Cruz Voted Against The FY 2023 Omnibus Spending Package, Which Included The Presidential Election Reform Act And Changed The Procedures For Casting And Counting Electoral Votes In Presidential Elections. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted against concurring the Senate amendment with the House amendment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which would “modify procedures for casting and counting electoral votes in presidential elections.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The Senate concurred with the House and Senate amendments by a vote of 68-29, thus the amended bill was sent to the House for final concurrence. Subsequently, the House concurred with the Senate and sent the final bill to President Biden. The bill was signed into law. [Senate Vote 421, 12/22/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/22/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6552; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2617]

The Presidential Election Reform Act Made It More Difficult To Overturn A Certificated Presidential Election, Which Was The First Legislative Response To The January 6th Insurrection Led By Former President Trump. According to CNN, “A provision in the legislation aims at making it harder to overturn a certified presidential election, the first legislative response to the US Capitol insurrection and then-President Donald Trump’s campaign to stay in power despite his loss in 2020.” [CNN, 12/29/22]
The Provisions Clarified That The Vice President’s Role During The Certification Of Election Results Was Exclusively Ceremonial And Clarified The Accurate Slate Of State Electors. According to CNN, “The legislation clarifies the vice president’s role while overseeing the certification of the electoral result to be completely ceremonial. It also creates a set of stipulations designed to make it harder for there to be any confusion over the accurate slate of electors from each state.” [CNN, 12/29/22]
The Provision Raised The Threshold For Objecting To A State’s Slate Of Electors To 20% Of Members Of Each Chamber Of Congress, Instead Of Having Only One Member Of Each Chamber Challenge The Electors. According to NPR, “Importantly, the measure also would raise the bar for objecting to a state’s slate of electors. As it stands now, it takes just one member of the House and one senator to challenge a state’s electors and send both chambers into a potentially days-long debate period, even without legitimate concerns. The new legislation would raise the threshold for an objection to 20% of the members of each chamber.” [NPR, 12/23/22]

Cruz Opposed Funding Voter Re-Enfranchisement

Cruz Effectively Voted Against Voter Re-Enfranchisement

2015: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Providing Funding For Voter Re-Enfranchisement. In March 2015, Cruz effectively voted against funding for voter re-enfranchisement. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “create[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would [have] provide[d] a funding stream for a voter re-enfranchisement initiative, which may include Bureau of Prisons notifications to released inmates of voting rights, notifications by U.S. attorneys of voting rights restrictions during plea agreements, and a Justice Department report on the disproportionate impact of criminal disenfranchisement laws on minority populations.” The underlying legislation was S.Con.Res.11, the FY 2016 Senate budget resolution. The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 47 to 51. [Senate Vote 133, 3/27/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/27/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 367; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

Cruz Voted To Confirm Opponents Of Voting Rights

Cruz Voted To Confirm Jeff Sessions As Attorney General

2017: Cruz Voted To Confirm Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) To Be The Attorney General. In February 2017, Cruz voted for confirming President Trump’s nominee to be Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. The vote was on the nomination. The Senate confirmed Sessions by a vote 52 to 47. [Senate Vote 59, 2/7/17; Congressional Actions, P.N. 30]

1986: Sessions Confirmed That He Believed “That The Voting Rights Act Is An Intrusive Piece Of Legislation.” According to the Washington Post, “Metzenbaum, noting that Sessions has not hired a black lawyer in more than four years in office, asked: ‘Could any black person come into your court and feel they had a chance of getting justice before you?’ Sessions also confirmed that he believes ‘that the Voting Rights Act is an intrusive piece of legislation’ but added that he thinks the law has been ‘effective.’” [Washington Post, 3/14/86]

Cruz Voted To Confirm Andrew Brasher As A Federal Judge

2020: Cruz Voted For The Confirmation Of Andrew Brasher To Be A U.S. Circuit Judge For The 11th Circuit. In February 2020, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted for the “confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nomination of Andrew Brasher to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Eleventh Circuit.” The vote was confirmation. The Senate confirmed Brasher by a vote of 52-43. [Senate Vote 36, 2/11/20; Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/20; Congressional Actions, PN1325]

2013: Brasher Filed An Amicus Brief In Shelby v. Holder Supporting The Effective Repeal Of The Voting Rights Act. According to the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, “In 2013, in the infamous Shelby County v. Holder decision, five right-wing justices on the Supreme Court gutted the landmark Voting Rights Act, which had been repeatedly reauthorized by strong bipartisan majorities in Congress. Mr. Brasher filed an amicus brief asking the Court to do just that. He asserted that ‘Congress violated the Constitution’ when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006.” [Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, 12/3/19]

Cruz Voted To Confirm Eric Murphy As A Federal Judge

2019: Cruz Voted To Confirm Eric Murphy To Be A Judge On The Sixth Circuit. In March 2019, Cruz voted for confirming Eric Murphy to be a Judge on the Sixth Circuit. The Senate confirmed Murphy by a vote of 52 to 46. [Senate Vote 39, 3/7/19; Congressional Actions, P.N. 242]

Murphy Has Argued In Favor Of Reducing Voting Rights. According to the Huffington Post, “But Murphy is perhaps best known for defending Ohio’s notorious voter purge law before the Supreme Court in 2018, arguing that the state should be able to drop people from its voter rolls if they don’t vote for six years and don’t respond to a postcard asking them to confirm their address. The court upheld the law in a contentious 5-4 decision, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing in her dissent that the law will disproportionately make it harder for ‘minority, low-income, disabled, homeless, and veteran voters to cast a ballot.’ That same year, Murphy argued in favor of upholding the so-called perfection requirement, allowing Ohio to discard ballots because of minor clerical errors. In 2014, Murphy defended the elimination of Ohio’s ‘Golden Week,’ a five-day period in which voters could register and vote at the same time. The state created the period in response to the 2004 election, when many Ohio voters were forced to wait in line for up to 12 hours to vote. The 6th Circuit ruled in favor of getting rid of the period, but Judge Jane Stranch wrote in her dissent that it would impose ‘a disproportionate burden on African Americans’ and ‘was linked to social and historical conditions of discrimination that diminish the ability of African Americans to participate in the political process.” [Huffington Post, 3/7/19]

Ted Cruz And LGBTQ Rights

Cruz Opposed Marriage Equality

Cruz Said That Gay Marriage Activism Pushed Out Religious Liberty

2015: Cruz Told The Iowa Faith And Freedom Coalition Summit That They Had Seen “Religious Liberty Under Assault At An Unprecedented Level” In The Past Month. According to Dallas Morning News, “The nine speakers at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition included top tier candidates who were united in their support of religious freedoms, their opposition to abortion and the belief that the nation needs a strong new leader. […] Sen. Ted Cruz received a standing ovation at the outset and told the crowd, ‘In the past month we have seen religious liberty under assault at an unprecedented level.’ He said Democrats and the media reacted with ‘hysteria’ to the Arkansas and Indiana efforts to pass a religious freedom law that critics said would have allowed business owners to discriminate against gays.” [Dallas Morning News, 4/25/15]

Cruz Said “There Is A Liberal Fascism That Is Going After Christian Believers”

Cruz Told Attendees That, “Today’s Democratic Party Has Decided There Is No Room For Christians In Today’s Democratic Party” And That There Was A “Liberal Fascism” Going After Christians. According to The Hill, “Sen. Ted Cruz (R Texas) on Saturday said Democrats had gone to extremes in their persecution of Christians. ‘Today’s Democratic Party has decided there is no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party,’ he said at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Waukee, Iowa. ‘There is a liberal fascism that is going after Christian believers,’ the 2016 GOP presidential candidate continued. ‘It is heartbreaking,’ Cruz argued. ‘But it is so extreme, it is waking people up.’” [Hill, 4/25/15]
Cruz Said That Democrats Were “Radicalized For Legalizing Gay Marriage”

Cruz Said That The Democratic Party Was So “Radicalized” For Legalizing Gay Marriage That There Was No Longer Room For Religious Liberty. According to The Hill, “Cruz said same sex marriage had produced rabid zealotry in Democratic ranks. This ideology, he argued, was excluding people of faith. ‘Today’s Democratic Party has become so radicalized for legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states that there is no longer any room for religious liberty,’ he said.” [Hill, 4/25/15]

Cruz Said He Opposed Marriage Equality

2022: Cruz Called The Supreme Court’s Decision To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage “Clearly” Wrong. According to the Dallas Morning News, “Sen. Ted Cruz is joining a multitude of conservatives in continuing to say the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage was ‘clearly’ wrong and an overreach, stoking concerns that the reversal of Roe vs. Wade could impact other past decisions. In a clip posted to his podcast YouTube channel on Saturday, the Texas Republican discussed the ‘vulnerability’ of the Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling with conservative commentator Liz Wheeler. ‘Obergefell, like Roe vs. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history,’ Cruz said in the clip. ‘Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states.’ Before the decision, 37 states and Washington D.C. had legalized same-sex marriages while Texas and nine other states had constitutional provision that barred recognition of the unions. Cruz argued it should have remained for the states to decide. ‘In Obergefell, the court said, ‘No, we know better than you guys do, and now every state must, must sanction and permit gay marriage,’’ Cruz said in the clip.” [Dallas Morning News, 7/18/22]

2014: Cruz Opposed Marriage Equality, Saying He Supported “Traditional Marriage.” According to Huffington Post, “It seems Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has taken up a new cause in Congress — defending states’ right to regulate marriage. Amid a wave of court decisions striking down anti-gay marriage laws in states, the Texas Republican introduced a bill to the Senate Wednesday to amend U.S. law ‘with regard to the definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ for Federal purposes and to ensure respect for State regulation of marriage.’ […] ‘I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens,’ Cruz said in a statement. ‘The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents.’[…] Cruz warned of the dangers of gay marriage a month after the Supreme Court decision in a July 2013 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. ‘If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced,’ he said. ‘It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage.’” [Huffington Post, 2/13/14]

Cruz: “Traditional Marriage Is An Institution Whose Integrity And Vitality Are Critical To The Health Of Any Society. We Should Remain Faithful To Our Moral Heritage And Never Hesitate To Defend It.” According to a Ted Cruz press release, “‘Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.’” [Ted Cruz Official Press Release, 10/6/14]

2015: Cruz Described The Ongoing Shift Toward Legal Recognition For Same-Sex Couples As An “Unrelenting Assault On Traditional Marriage,” And Castigated Judges Who Have Struck Down Prohibitions For “Ignoring Their Oaths, Ignoring The Constitution And Legislating From The Bench.” According to the Des Moines Register, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz cast himself as a leading Republican opponent of same sex marriage during an appearance before a crowd of evangelical Christians in Des Moines on Monday. Cruz, R Texas, described the ongoing shift toward legal recognition for gay couples as an ‘unrelenting assault on traditional marriage,’ and castigated judges who have struck down prohibitions for ‘ignoring their oaths, ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench.’” [Des Moines Register, 3/9/15]

Cruz Voted Against Codifying The Right To Marry

2022: Cruz Voted Against Codifying The Right To Marry, Regardless Of Sexual Orientation Or Race And Against Prohibiting Individuals Acting Under State Law From Refusing To Recognize A Same-Sex Or Interracial Marriage. In November 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, which would “codify the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation or race. Specifically, it would prohibit any person acting under color of state law from denying full faith and credit to, or any rights based on, a marriage between two individuals on the basis of the individuals’ sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. It would allow the U.S. attorney general or a harmed individual to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive relief against an individual who violates these provisions. The bill would also replace the current federal definition of marriage, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to define a marriage as valid if it is between two individuals and valid in the place where the marriage was entered into and would be considered valid in a U.S. state. As amended, it would specify that no provisions in the bill may be construed to diminish or abrogate religious liberty and that religious organizations and their employees would not be required to provide services for the celebration of a marriage, consistent with First Amendment protections. It would also specify that the bill would not authorize federal recognition of polygamous marriage and that it would not impact any benefits, status or rights that do not arise from marriage.” The vote was on passage. The Senate passed the amended bill by a vote of 61-36, thus the bill was sent back to the House for final concurrence. The House concurred with the Senate amendment and sent the bill to President Biden for final signage. The bill ultimately became law. [Senate Vote 362, 11/29/22; Congressional Quarterly, 11/29/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6487; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]

The Bill Would Not Require States To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, But Instead Required States To Recognize Out-Of-State Legal Marriages. According to CNN, “While the bill would not set a national requirement that all states must legalize same-sex marriage, it would require individual states to recognize another state’s legal marriage.” [CNN, 11/30/22]
If Obergefell v. Hodges Were To Be Overturned, And If A State Were To Outlaw Same-Sex Marriage, The Respect For Marriage Act Would Mandate Such State To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages That Were Conducted In Other States. According to CNN, “So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.” [CNN, 11/30/22]

Cruz Effectively Voted Against The Legislation At Least Three Times

2022: Cruz Effectively Voted Against The Baldwin Substitute Amendment That Would Codify The Right To Marry, Prohibit States From Refusing To Recognize A Same-Sex Or Interracial Marriage, And Clarify That The Bill Would Not Diminish Religious Liberty And Would Not Mandate Religious Organizations To Provide Marriage Services. In November 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted against the “motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer, D-N.Y., for Baldwin, D-Wis., substitute amendment no. 6487 to the bill that would codify the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation or race. The bill would prohibit any person acting under color of state law from denying full faith and credit to, or any rights based on, a marriage between two individuals on the basis of the individuals’ sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. It would allow the U.S. attorney general or a harmed individual to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive relief against an individual who violates these provisions. The bill would also replace the current federal definition of marriage, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to define a marriage as valid if it is between two individuals and valid in the place where the marriage was entered into and would be considered valid in a U.S. state. The Baldwin substitute amendment would add language to specify that no provisions in the bill may be construed to diminish or abrogate religious liberty and that religious organizations and their employees would not be required to provide services for the celebration of a marriage, consistent with First Amendment protections. It would also specify that the bill would not authorize federal recognition of polygamous marriage and that it would not impact any benefits, status or rights that do not arise from marriage.” The vote was on cloture. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 61-35, thus the bill was advanced. [Senate Vote 358, 11/28/22; Congressional Quarterly, 11/28/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6487; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]

2022: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Codifying The Right To Marry, Regardless Of Sexual Orientation Or Race. In November 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted against the “motion to proceed to the bill that would codify the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation or race.” The vote was on a motion to proceed. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 53-23, thus the bill was advanced. [Senate Vote 357, 11/17/22; Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]

2022: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Codifying The Right To Marry. In November 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted against the “motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer, D-N.Y., motion to proceed to the bill.” The vote was on cloture. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 62-37, thus the bill was advanced. [Senate Vote 356, 11/16/22; Congressional Quarterly, 11/16/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]

Cruz Opposed Allowing Individuals Whose Right To Marry Was Denied To Sue For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief

2022: Cruz Voted Against Allowing The U.S. Attorney General Or Harmed Individuals To Sue In Federal Court For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief Against People Who Violate The Right To Marry Or Refuse To Recognize Same-Sex Or Interracial Marriage. In November 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, which would “allow the U.S. attorney general or a harmed individual to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive relief against an individual who violates these provisions.” The vote was on passage. The Senate passed the amended bill by a vote of 61-36, thus the bill was sent back to the House for final concurrence. The House concurred with the Senate amendment and sent the bill to President Biden for final signage. The bill ultimately became law. [Senate Vote 362, 11/29/22; Congressional Quarterly, 11/29/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6487; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]

2022: Cruz Voted For An Amendment That Would Have Removed A Provision That Provided Individuals With The Ability To Sue Against Entities That Refused To Recognize Their Marriage On The Basis Of Their Sexual Orientation Or Race. In November 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted for an amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act, which would “strike a section from the bill that would permit any person harmed by a violation of the bill’s prohibition against not recognizing a marriage on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity or national origin, to bring civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive relief.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45-52. [Senate Vote 361, 11/29/22; Congressional Quarterly, 11/29/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6493; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 6487; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8404]

Cruz Introduced The State Defense Of Marriage Act

2015: Cruz Re-Introduced The State Marriage Defense Act, Which Aimed To Allow States To Adopt Their Own Definitions Of Marriage And Would Block The Federal Government From Applying Its Own Definition Of Marriage Onto States. According to Politico, “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is calling on his colleagues to pass a bill that would make same sex marriage a state issue. Cruz, along with 11 other Republican senators, re-introduced the State Marriage Defense Act on Tuesday, which aims to allow states to adopt their own definitions of marriage and would block the federal government from applying its own definition of marriage onto states.” [Politico, 2/10/15]

Cruz Called For A Constitutional Amendment To Allow States To Ignore The Supreme Court’s Ruling Striking Down Gay Marriage Bans

2015: Cruz Called For A Federal Constitutional Amendment That Would Allow States To Ignore A Supreme Court Ruling Striking Down Bans On Gay Marriage. According to Politico, “Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal are calling for a federal constitutional amendment that would allow states to ignore a Supreme Court ruling striking down bans on gay marriage. The establishment candidates, like Mitt Romney, are bound to be asked whether they support or oppose such an effort.” [Politico, 1/27/15]

Cruz Opposed The Violence Against Women Act, Which Included Protections For The LGBTQ Community

Cruz Voted Against Reauthorizing The Violence Against Women Act With New Protections For The LGBTQ Community

2013: Cruz Voted Against A Reauthorization Of The Violence Against Women Act That Included Protections For Immigrants, LGBTQ Populations And Native Americans. In February 2013, Cruz voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which, according to Politico, “include[d] protections for illegal immigrants, Native Americans and people in same-sex relationships.” According to The Washington Post, “First authorized in 1994, the bill provides $660 million over the next five years for programs that provide legal assistance, transitional housing, counseling and support hotlines to victims of rape and domestic abuse.” The Senate passed the measure by a vote of 78 to 22. The House passed the Senate’s version of the bill February 28, 2013. The president signed the bill on March 7, 2013 and it became Public Law 113-004. [Senate Vote 19, 2/12/13; Politico, 3/7/13; The Washington Post, 3/7/13; Public Law 113-004, 3/7/13; Congressional Actions, S. 47]

Cruz Opposed Employment Non-Discrimination Protections For LGBTQ People

Cruz Voted Against The Employment Non-Discrimination Act For LGBTQ People

2013: Cruz Voted Against The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), Which Barred Employment Decisions On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation Or Gender Identity. In November 2013, Cruz voted against ending debate on a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] prohibit[ed] employers, employment agencies and labor organizations from discriminating against an employee, applicant or member on the basis of his or her perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity. It would [have] prohibit[ed] federal agencies and state and local governments from penalizing or withholding licenses, government contracts, tax exempt status or other benefits from religious organizations exempted from the bill.” The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 64 to 32. The bill died in the House. [Senate Vote 232, 11/7/13; Congressional Quarterly, 11/7/13; Congressional Actions, S. 815]

2013: Cruz Said The ENDA Was “The Wrong Approach.” According to Ted Cruz press release, “U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released the following statement today concerning the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): ‘The decision whether or not to make sexual orientation a protected legal class is a choice best left to the states, and elected legislatures in all 50 states have reached different conclusions on that question. A one-size-fits-all federal statutory right, which would invite abusive lawsuits and which contains insufficient protections for religious liberties, is the wrong approach.’” [Ted Cruz Official Press Release, 11/7/13]

Cruz Voted To Allow Religious Employers To Discriminate Against LGBTQ Individuals In Employment

2013: Cruz Voted To Allow Employers That Are Closely And Formally Tied To A Church Or Specific Religion To Discriminate Against LGBTQ Individuals In Hiring And Employment. In November 2013, Cruz voted for an amendment that, according to CQ, “would [have] expand[ed] the bill’s religious organization exemption to include employers that are owned or managed substantially by churches, officially affiliated with religions or have a curriculum directed toward the propagation of a particular faith.” The amendment was rejected by a vote of 43 to 55. [Senate Vote 230, 11/7/13; Congressional Quarterly, 11/7/13; Congressional Actions, Congressional Actions, S. 815]

Cruz Opposed Federal Survivor Benefits For Same-Sex Spouses

Cruz Voted Against Revising The Definition Of A Spouse To Include Same-Sex Marriages

2015: Cruz Voted Against Revising The Definition Of Spouse For Veterans’ Benefits. In June 2015, Cruz voted against an amendment revising the definition of spouse for veterans’ benefits. According to Congressional Quarterly, “would revise the definition of spouse for purposes of veterans benefits to reflect new state definitions of spouse. The amendment would define an individual as a spouse if the marriage is considered valid in the state or place in which the marriage occurred.” The underlying bill was the FY 2016 Defense Authorization. The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 53 to 42; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required for the adoption of the amendment. [Senate Vote 203, 6/4/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/4/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 1494; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 1463; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1735]

2015: Cruz Voted Against Protecting All Legally Married Spouses’ Right To Obtain Social Security And Veterans Benefits When Their Spouse Dies. In 2015, Cruz voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would ensure that all legally married spouses have access to Social Security and veterans benefits after the death of their spouse.” The Senate adopted the proposed amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution by a vote of 57 to 43, and later passed the amended resolution. [Senate Vote 121, 3/26/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15; S. Con. Res. 11, 4/7/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 1063; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

Cruz Opposed The Student Non-Discrimination Act

Cruz Voted Against Prohibiting Discrimination Against LGBTQ Youth In Schools

2015: Cruz Voted Against The Every Child Achieves Act Of 2015. In July 2015, Cruz voted against banning discrimination and bullying at K-12 schools on account of sexual orientation and gender identity. According to the Washington Post, “In its first vote affecting gay people since the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, the Senate Tuesday rejected a federal prohibition against discrimination and bullying in K-12 public schools based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” The underlying legislation was an overhaul of No Child Left Behind. The vote was on passage on the amendment; the amendment was rejected by a vote of 52 to 45; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required for the adoption of the amendment. [Senate Vote 236, 6/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/15; Washington Post, 7/14/15 Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2093; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2089; Congressional Actions, S. 1177]

Cruz Opposed Recognition Of Transgender Rights

Cruz Voted Against Allowing Transgender Students Participating In Sports

2021: Cruz Effectively Voted For An Amendment That Would Withhold American Rescue Plan Funds To Schools If They Do Not Prohibit Transgender Students From Participating In Women’s And Girls’ Sports. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted for the “motion to waive all applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act with respect to the Murray, D-Wash., point of order that the Tuberville amendment no. 1386 to the Schumer, D-N.Y., substitute amendment no. 891 to the bill violates section 313(b)(1)(d) of the Congressional Budget Act. The amendment would require states and education agencies or institutes of higher education to bar transgender students from participating in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.” The vote was on a motion to waive. The Senate failed to acquire a 3/5 majority and rejected the motion by a vote of 49-50. [Senate Vote 97, 3/6/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 1386; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 891; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1319]

Cruz Effectively Voted To Limit Maternal And Infant-Related Resources To Biological Females

2022: Cruz Effectively Voted To Define “Pregnancy” To Limit Maternal And Infant-Related Program Resources To Women. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted for the “motion to commit the bill to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with instructions to report it back to the Senate with changes that would include a definition for the term ‘pregnancy’ that limits maternal and infant-related program resources to individuals assigned female at birth.” The vote was on a motion to commit. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 50-50. [Senate Vote 319, 8/7/22; Congressional Quarterly, 8/7/22; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 5194; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]

The Amendment Was A Challenge To Gender-Inclusive Language Such As “Pregnant People.” According to the Washington Times, “Senate Democrats defeated a budget-reconciliation amendment Sunday that would have limited federal pregnancy programs to biological females, rejecting the Republican challenge to gender-inclusive terms such as ‘pregnant people.’” [Washington Times, 8/7/22]

Cruz Was Silent On A Case Where Two Gay Men Were Dragged Out Of Their Bedroom And Charged With “Deviate Sex”

As Solicitor General, Cruz Maintained His Silence On Lawrence V. Texas

2003: As Texas Solicitor General Cruz Remained “Absolutely Silent” On The Lawrence v. Texas Case Where Two Gay Men Were Dragged Out Of Their Bedroom And Charged With “Deviate Sex.” According to Bloomberg, “As Texas solicitor general when the Lawrence v. Texas case came before the Supreme Court, Cruz was ‘very much in the middle of all this drama,’ said Mitchell Katine, who was local counsel to the two gay men at the center of the case, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. The two had been dragged out of their bedroom by police and charged with ‘deviate sex.’ Yet ‘Cruz remained absolutely silent,’ Katine said. The case remained assigned instead to a Harris County district attorney.” [Bloomberg, 4/29/15]

A Spokesperson Said Cruz Did Not Step In Because Lawrence V. Texas Was A Criminal Case And His Office Primarily Handled Civil Cases, Despite The Fact That Six Of The Nine Cases Cruz Argued Before The Supreme Court Were Criminal. According to Bloomberg, “Through a spokesman, Cruz said he didn’t step in because the case was criminal in nature and his office primarily handled civil cases. Yet six of the nine cases Cruz argued before the nation’s highest court were criminal in nature. Cruz also was just beginning a new job, and his advisers say he wasn’t in a position to take over. Cruz started the solicitor general’s job Feb. 10, 2003 and the Texas brief was filed on Feb. 17. Yet Dellinger notes that the court argument wasn’t until March 26, which gave ‘plenty of time to prepare.’” [Bloomberg, 4/29/15]
Interviews With Former Fellow Law Students, Professors Etc., Suggested That Cruz’s Lack Of Involvement In The Lawrence Case Was Part Of A Broader Narrative About His Relationship With The Gay Community Where He Consistently Opposed Gay Marriage Publically But Stayed Away From The “Front Lines Of The Fight.” According to Bloomberg, “Interviews with a dozen former fellow law students, professors, lawyers and government officials show that his lack of involvement in the Lawrence case is part of a broader narrative about the Texas senator’s relationship with the gay community: While he has consistently opposed gay rights, he has often stayed away from the front lines of the fight and even courted gay donors. Last weekend Cruz, 44, called on Americans to get on their knees in prayer that the court rules against same sex marriage laws. Cruz told Iowans he’s been a religious liberty advocate for decades, singling out his experience as Texas solicitor general from 2003 to 2008.” [Bloomberg, 4/29/15]

Download the research

Ted Cruz on Abortion Ted-Cruz-on-Abortion.docx · 22 KB

Ted Cruz on Guns Ted-Cruz-on-Guns.pdf · 22 KB

Ted Cruz on LGBTQ Rights Ted-Cruz-on-LGBTQ-Rights.pdf · 22 KB

Ted Cruz On Voting Rights Ted-Cruz-On-Voting-Rights.pdf · 22 KB