Rodney Frelinghuysen

Rodney P. Frelinghuysen

  • R-NJ, 11th District1995 – present
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen's photo

Lifetime Score 55%

2005: 59%
2006: 33%
2007: 75%
2008: 68%
2009: 86%
2010: 95%
2011: 58%
2012: 25%
2013: 45%
2014: 48%
2015: 48%
2016: 67%
2017: 39%
2018: 0%

Contact Information

Key Voting Record

Ineligible / Out of OfficeDid Not Vote
Voted with FreedomWorks principlesAnti-Freedom Vote
Print Scorecard

Key Vote Description

Legislator Score / Vote

2018: 115th Congress 0%

  • 1: On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amash Amendment (USA RIGHTS Act) to S. 139Nay

    Key Vote 1: On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amash Amendment (USA RIGHTS Act) to S. 139

    The USA RIGHTS Act would prohibit the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from querying information gathered through Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) without obtaining a warrant. It would also provide narrow exceptions, such as the case of life-threatening emergencies or if the target has consented to a query followed by a warrant. The amendment codifies the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s (FISC) ban on “abouts” collection. The National Security Agency (NSA) was forced to end “abouts” collection after the FISC determined that it was inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the USA RIGHTS Act, sponsored as an amendment to S. 139 as an amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), would prohibit reverse targeting, the collection of domestic communications, and the use of information obtained through Section 702 in criminal and civil court cases. It also brings a number of other important reforms to strengthen the oversight of the FISC and promote transparency.

    "Yea" votes scored. Double Score
  • 2: On Passage: FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, S. 139Yea

    Key Vote 2: On Passage: FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, S. 139

    Despite some tweaks to the original text produced by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act continues to represent an assault on the Fourth Amendment. The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of our constitutional republic, and crucial to defending the civil liberties of all American citizens. FISA has caused damage to the Fourth Amendment for years, and now is a critical time to support genuine reform, such as the USA RIGHTS Act. The revised version of the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act remains the exact opposite of reform, and it is worse than current law. The bill would continue the backdoor search, with an utterly meaningless “warrant requirement.” The caveats proposed to this purported “warrant requirement” are an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. The bill provides a path for the National Security Agency (NSA) to restart the practice of “abouts” collection. This means if a U.S. person mentions a potential surveillance target in a communication, the NSA can collect it, regardless of whether or not the U.S. person was communicating with anyone associated with the target. When the NSA was forced to end “abouts” collection, a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) wrote that the practice raised “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.” The judge also criticized the NSA for “an institutional lack of candor” for failing to disclose rule violations.

    "Nay" votes scored. Triple Score
  • 3: DeSantis-Budd Letter Urging a Public Vote to Reinstate EarmarksNay

    Key Vote 3: DeSantis-Budd Letter Urging a Public Vote to Reinstate Earmarks

    Reps. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and Ted Budd (R-N.C.) have spearheaded a letter that urges House Republican leaders to hold a public vote to reinstate earmarks, should the House Republican Conference move forward on the tone-deaf notion of reinstating earmarks. Put simply, there must be a public and transparent process, including a recorded vote. The American public has a right to know which members are voting to reopen the favor factory by bringing back this currency of corruption. (Signers updated as of February 14, 2018.)

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 4: On Motion to Concur: Bipartisan Budget ActYea

    Key Vote 4: On Motion to Concur: Bipartisan Budget Act

    The Schumer-McConnell spending deal, the Bipartisan Budget Act, is the worst-case scenario for fiscal conservatives under a Democratic president and Democrat-controlled Congress, but it is happening under a Republican president and Republican Congress. This is reckless spending, and a massive tax hike on future generations, made under the guise of “bipartisan negotiations.” This is deceitful, aggressive overspending by those elected to protect taxpayers. Leaving Americans with higher budget deficits likely over $1 trillion, and a national debt that will balloon to over $21 trillion, is no way to govern, and its weight falls squarely on the shoulders of taxpayers. This deal makes clear that Republicans only care about deficits and out-of-control federal spending under a Democratic president. With a Republican president and Republican control of the House and Senate, there is no other conclusion that one can possibly draw.

    "Nay" votes scored. Triple Score
  • No votes for this year match the provided filters.
  • View scorecard »