A total of fifteen votes were used to score the current Senate on their views of social and defense related issues. Two votes were taken from the 107th Session, four votes were taken from the 108th Session, and the remaining nine votes were taken from the first session of the 109th Congress. If a Senator was in office it was assumed that he or she could have voted on the legislation and not-voting was scored the same as voting against the position favored by the Freedom Democrats Scorecard. The average was based only on the votes a Senator was eligible to vote on by holding office. The scorecard only tracked the current composition of the Senate and the majority of the scorecard reflects votes taken since the last election. The only Senator that was unable to vote for the entire scorecard was Senator Menendez of New Jersey, who was appointed late in 2005. Senator Corzine was therefore tracked instead.

Vote 1- USA PATRIOT Act: On October 25, 2001 the Senate quickly voted on the USA PATRIOT Act, with several members not even bothering to read it. The legislation was pushed through the Congress by the President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft, and their Republican allies in Congress. Although now many Senators have voiced their opposition to the Patriot Act, only one voted against it originally: Senator Feingold (D-WI).

Vote 2- Authorization of Force in Iraq: On October 11, 2002 the Senate granted President Bush a blank check to invade Iraq without no restrictions or prerequisites. By handing over their constitutional ability to declare war, the Senate allowed the United States to enter into an occupation which currently has no exit strategy and no signs of ending. The authorization, which passed 77-23, is on this scorecard with the “no” position graded favorable.

Vote 3- Partial Birth Abortion Ban: On March 13, 2003, the Senate approved the Partial Birth Abortion Ban by a vote of 64-33. This vote was included on the scorecard because it is viewed as an attack on federalism and states, not the national government, have the rights to regulate and restrict late term abortions.

Vote 4- Reporting on Guantanamo Bay Detainees: On July 16, 2003, the Senate voted to table a measure that would have made public the names of persons at Guantanamo Bay and provide information on when and whether they would be charged with a crime or sent back to their home countries. The vote to table the measure, which was successful 52-42, is included and the “no” vote is favored by the scorecard.

Vote 5- Assault Weapons Ban Renewal: Senator Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an amendment on March 2, 2004 that would have renewed the assault weapons ban. This scorecard opposed efforts to renew the ban because of the broad nature of the guns bans, the lack of evidence for it discouraging crime, and its violation of the 2nd Amendment. The amendment passed 52 to 47, and the scorecard grades in favor of the “no” position.

Vote 6- Federal Marriage Constitutional Amendment: The Senate voted 48 to 50 on July 14, 2004 on a cloture motion against forcing a vote on the amendment known as the Federal Marriage Constitutional Amendment. This amendment would deny the right to marry to all same-sex couples and undermine other same-sex unions created by state law. The scorecard supported voting against this motion.

Vote 7- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Like the Medical Malpractice Caps from the House scorecard, which the Senate has not voted on, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, represents a worrying trend in restricting the ability of individuals to go to court to seek compensation for grievances. The act also reduced the role of state courts in class action lawsuits; opposition to the act could also have rested on appeals to federalism. The act passed the Senate on February 10, 2005.

Vote 8- New Guantanamo Bay Facility: This scorecard supports the closing down of Guantanamo Bay and certainly opposes attempts to expand the facilities as outlined in the 2005 Emergency Supplemental. An amendment to delete $36 million for construction of a new prison at Guantanamo Bay was rejected on April 13, 2005.

Vote 9- Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator: Several votes in the social and defense scorecard could easily have been included in the fiscal and trade scorecard because of their twin nature of representing opposition to both increased militarism and unnecessary programs. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) is one such program. The scorecard supports the vote by the Senate on July 1, 2005 to prohibit funding of this project.

Vote 10- Additional Border Security: The Senate rejected an amendment 38-60 on July 14, 2005 that would have added $368 million to the Homeland Security budget with the intention of hiring additional border agents. Illegal immigration will not be stopped by increased control at the border nor should we view immigrants as a ‘problem’ that is a threat to America. Proponents of the amendment said it would help in avoiding another 9-11, despite the lack of evidence that the terrorists had benefited from illegal immigration.

Vote 11- Torture Prevention: Senator McCain (R-AZ) introduced an amendment on October 5, 2005 to the Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 that would ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of anyone held in custody anywhere in the world by the US Government. The scorecard supported the amendment; it was approved 90 to 9.

Vote 12- Missile Defense Funding: Like the vote on RNEP, opposition to the missile defense system is based both on its questionable technology and unnecessary contribution to a possible global arms race. On November 8, 2005 the Senate rejected an amendment which would have cut $50 million from the national missile defense system. This system, which depends on unproven and questionable technology, would only serve to escalate world anger over America’s shift to unilateral militarism.

Vote 13- Guantanamo Bay Detainees: The Supreme Court case Rasul v. Bush upheld the rights of detainees at Guantanamo to challenge the legality of their detentions. An amendment offered by Senator Graham (R-SC) on November 10, 2005 overturned this decision by removing the right to seek habeas review from those designated by Bush as enemy combatants. Although adopted, the scorecard supported those Senators who voted against the amendment.

Vote 14-War in Iraq Policy: An amendment was offered by Senator Levin (D-MI) on November 15, 2005 that would have called on President Bush to establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Although rejected 58 to 40, the scorecard supports the efforts by some Senators to work toward ending the presence of American troops in Iraq.

Vote 15- USA PATRIOT Act Cloture: The renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act was a heated issue in 2005 and this scorecard includes both the original passage of the PATRIOT Act and attempts to renew it several years later. The Senate voted on December 16, 2005 not to end debate on the renewal by rejecting the motion to cloture. Voting against cloture was the best way to ensure that the renewal would not pass. Senator Frist switched his vote to against the motion to cloture so he could bring it up for debate again at a later date; the scorecard does not give him credit for voting against cloture.

The highest score was Russ Feingold of Wisconsin with a perfect score of 100%. Other high scores included Barbara Boxer of California, Carl Levin of Michigan, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Paul Sarbanes of Maryland. The highest scoring Republican was Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island with a score of 60%. The lowest score went to Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma with a score of 0%. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the lowest scoring Democrat with a score of 26.67%.

The average score for the Senate was 40.43%. The average for the Senate Democrats was 69.71%; for the Senate Republicans the average score was 16.29%. This gap, roughly fifty percentage points, parallels previous scorecards. The one Independent Senator, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, scored 80%. Although they were not scored on the same votes, this is the same score for Social and Defense issues received by Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who also represents the state of Vermont and is the most likely replacement for Jim Jeffords when he retires this year.

The above graph should help illustrate the divide between the two parties on social and defense issues.