Meet the Democrats Who Voted Against the Impeachment Inquiry

Jeff Van Drew

Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ)Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In a display of unity that would have been unthinkable just two months ago, 231 House Democrats voted Thursday morning to formalize the impeachment process. Over the summer, the party seemed hopelessly split on the issue. That all changed after the emergence in September of a whistleblower complaint revealing President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations against his political enemies.

This week, several longtime holdouts from districts Trump won—Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Anthony Brindisi of New York, and Jared Golden of Maine—announced their support for the impeachment resolution. Democrats also had the backing of Michigan independent Justin Amash, a one-time Freedom Caucus conservative who left the Republican Party earlier this year after calling for impeachment.

Still, two Democrats voted against the impeachment probe Thursday. Here’s who they are:

Jeff Van Drew

One of four New Jersey Democrats to flip GOP congressional seats last year, Van Drew has been particularly skeptical about impeachment. “If we are going to have an impeachment inquiry and procedure [leading up to the] 2020 elections, it will be very counterproductive,” Van Drew said in September, according to the Press of Atlantic City. Van Drew, whose district Trump won by 5 points, is among the most conservative members of the House Democratic caucus. He told the Philadelphia Inquirer that impeachment could “secure the presidency for Donald Trump” and, according to the paper, he echoed a series of GOP talking points about the Ukraine scandal. This week, he told Politico that he was leaning toward a “no” vote. “I didn’t know that it was really necessary at this point,” he said.

Collin Peterson

Like Van Drew, Peterson is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. Unlike Van Drew, he’s been on Capitol Hill for decades. His rural Minnesota district has moved sharply to the right in recent years—Trump won it by 30 points in 2016, and Peterson’s recent victories have been narrow ones. “If anyone thinks a partisan impeachment process would constrain President Trump, they are fooling themselves,” he told the Detroit Lakes Tribune in September. “Without significant bipartisan support, impeachment proceedings will be a lengthy and divisive action with no resolution.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

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