MAPS: Did Your Congressmember Vote Against the Violence Against Women Act?

After a year and a half delay, VAWA reauthorization passed on Thursday. Here’s how your elected officials voted.


On Thursday, the House finally reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act—a full year and a half after it expired. VAWA had been held up by House Republicans in the last Congress after the Senate voted to add new provisions aiding Native American, immigrant, and gay victims of violence.

It looked as if the bill might suffer the same fate in the 113th Congress, after the House GOP leadership refused to schedule a vote on the version of the bill passed by the Senate 78 to 22, and instead pushed a stripped down version without protections for LGBT and Native American women. But in the end Republican lawmakers allowed a vote on the Senate’s legislation, and it passed on Thursday, 286 to 138. Not one Democrat in either chamber voted against it. (Though one representative abstained.)

One major change to VAWA that drew objections from House Republicans were steps to give tribal courts greater jurisdiction over domestic violence committed by non-native men on Native American lands. The National Congress of American Indians defines congressional districts as having a “high concentration” of Native Americans when the community makes up .3 to 23 percent of the population. (Only a few such districts are in the higher range; most are in the low single digits, according to NCAI.) Here is how members of Congress from those districts voted:

The VAWA reauthorization also provides more access to services for immigrant victims of violence, and also helps them get special visas to stay in the US if they are victims of a serious crime. Here’s how representatives from districts where Latinos make up over 25 percent of the population voted (Source: Proximity):

And here’s the full breakdown of Republican votes in the House and Senate against reauthorizing VAWA:

And finally, here’s a chart detailing how many of the Republican legislators voting against the bill were men, and how many were women:

MOTHER JONES NEEDS YOUR HELP

Straight to the point: Donations have been concerningly slow for our hugely important First $500,000 fundraising campaign. We urgently need your help, and a lot of help, over the next few weeks so we can pay for the one-of-a-kind journalism you get from us.

Learn more in “Less Dreading, More Doing,” where we lay out this wild moment and how we can keep charging hard for you. And please help if you can: $5, $50, or $500—every gift from every person truly matters right now.

payment methods

MOTHER JONES NEEDS YOUR HELP

Straight to the point: Donations have been concerningly slow for our hugely important First $500,000 fundraising campaign. We urgently need your help, and a lot of help, over the next few weeks so we can pay for the one-of-a-kind journalism you get from us.

Learn more in “Less Dreading, More Doing,” where we lay out this wild moment and how we can keep charging hard for you. And please help if you can: $5, $50, or $500—every gift from every person truly matters right now.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate