There have been several OPs saying the Senate unanimously approved a Charlie Kirk day of rememberance resolution, but

[lostincalifornia]

I cannot find a vote tally of those in the Senate who voted for it, and if anyone voted against it, or were not present.

It also wasn't done by a formal vote, but a procedural Senate way to avoid a formal vote called a Unanimous consent. Funny that our illustrious media outlets aren't reporting that.

The House vote you can easily find who voted for it, and it wasn't unanimous.

It is hard for me to believe that Bernie Sanders and some other Democrats would have voted for a resolution honoring a racist, which is why I would like to see the actually tally in the Senate.

Thanks in advance if anyone can find that final Senate vote on the resolution.

I can also tell you WHY you probably won't find it, because it was approved by Unanimous consent, which is a procedural shortcut that allows a motion or decision to be approved WITHOUT A FORMAL VOTE IF NO MEMBER PRESENT OBJECTS.

In other words I don't think they had a real vote.

According to Google AI:

Unanimous consent is not voted on but rather is passed by default if no one in the assembly objects to a proposed action. This process is used to fast-track routine or non-controversial matters by forgoing the need for a formal motion, debate, and vote.

[questionseverything]

3. From what I can see, there was not a full senate vote

Like 20 plus senate republicans got together and did a resolution not an actual bill

[lostincalifornia]

7. I think ABC and other MSM headlines are intentionally putting up misleading headlines, trying to represent

it as an actual vote which it isn't.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. They only need 51 present for a quorum to take a voice vote

And Republicans have 53 seats.

My guess is the Dems walked out.

[lostincalifornia]

8. Either walked or weren't paying attention, but It is very unlikely that in a formal vote you would have Senate

Democrats unanimously voting for a resolution honoring a racist.

[lapucelle]

25. A quorum was not present.

That means that either all of the Democrats and some of the Republicans were not in the chamber or that some Democrats and some Republicans were not there. Either way, at least 51 senators appear to have skipped the shit show.

Senate rules presume a quorum in legislative session. In other words, "we do have a quorum" is the default setting.

The roll gets called only if a senator "suggests the absence of quorum".

If a motion to rescind the quorum call (stop the roll call) is passed by unanimous consent, the issue of a quorum goes back to its default setting, i.e. the presumption of a quorum.

-----------------------------------

- Scott (R) ("notwithstanding rule XXII" ) was careful not to invoke cloture.

- At the end of his ridiculous speech, Tuberville (R), suggested the absence of a quorum, and a roll call was ordered and initiated

- The roll call was stopped when Lankford (R) asked for unanimous consent for the quorum call to be rescinded.

---------------------------------------------

The resolution itself was "approved" by a voice vote of those present in the chamber.

------------------------------------------------

From the Congressional Record:

Mr. SCOTT of Florida: Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 403, which was submitted earlier today.

snip-------------------------------------------

Mr. Tuberville: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LANKFORD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MORENO): Without objection, it is so ordered

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

[sheshe2]

5. Thank you, lostincalifornia.

[lostincalifornia]

12. It just that there seems to be so many outlets pushing a misleading narrative. I think it is prudent that we

should be somewhat skeptical of what saturates the airwaves as news.

[sheshe2]

16. I did a quick search before responding.

Every outlet title screamed "UNANIMOUS SENATE VOTE", which was misleading when you read the story. Media needs to DO BETTER!

They won't but

[TheProle]

6. More Info:

Driving the news: Republicans voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

The Day of Remembrance would be Kirk's birthday, October 14.
The resolution was introduced by Rep. Jimmy Patronis (R-Fl.) and Senator Rick Scott (R-Fl), with all Republican co-sponsors.
This is just a simple resolution, which means for now, it is not enshrined in the law and does not require a full Senate vote.

https://www.axios.com/2025/09/18/charlie-kirk-national-day-remembrance-senate

[lostincalifornia]

9. Thank-you. A misleading headline from many of the MSM "news" outlets.

[TheProle]

10. The country's lost its goddamn mind.

[lostincalifornia]

13. and I don't think Antipsychotics will solve the problem, or maybe that is the problem, too many are already on them.

[Cha]

20. Thank You, The Prole!

[Quiet Em]

11. It was just a Republican stunt.

It's non-binding, means nothing and will be forgotten about by tomorrow.

[lostincalifornia]

14. I think so, and from what I am observing a lot of the MSM don't mind pushing the misleading headline that

Senate Democrats were actively part of this, which they weren't.

[Quiet Em]

17. They've been extremely misleading

It's awful and pathetic.

[Cha]

22. Of course, the m$$$m Doesn't mind getting it

Wrong if it helps Fascism.

TY for your OP.. and I especially like The Prole's contribution... I've already passed it on to one of those Wrong "Dems voted unanimously" threads.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20658058

[lostincalifornia]

23. Thanks Cha.

[Cha]

24. You're Welcome,

lostincalifornia.

[kavotheclown]

15. Thank you for explaining

I appreciate that you took the time to explain the details of this "unanimous" vote. I was disappointed AGAIN with the Dems, but your detailed summary cleared up the misinformation. I was especially grateful to see actual words when I clicked on your thread, instead of a linked video. I look forward to more threads from you.

[mcar]

18. Thanks for this

[Wiz Imp]

19. It passed by unanimous consent.

I can find no specifics about it, so I assume it means there were at least 51 Republicans in the chamber at the time of the vote and zero Democrats.

The Senate passed a Resolution "honoring" Charlie Kirk also by unanimous consent earlier in the week. The Senate Resolution didn't contain all the garbage about how wonderful Kirk was like the House Resolution did, so I don't doubt that Democrats would be OK with it since it was basically just a condemnation of political violence.

RESOLUTION
Condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk and honoring his life and legacy.

Whereas Charlie Kirk was horrifically assassinated on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University while speaking to a large group of college students;

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a devoted husband, father, and Christian;

Whereas, in 2012, Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA, a conservative campus advocacy group that quickly became one of the fastest growing college campus chapter organizations in the country; and

Whereas Charlie Kirk frequently engaged college students of all political backgrounds in open debates and discussion, encouraging civil discourse on college campuses and among college students: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) condemns the assassination of Charlie Kirk in the strongest possible terms;

(2) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children; and

(3) honors Charlie Kirk’s commitment to the constitutional principles of civil discussion and debate between all people of the United States, regardless of political affiliation.

[Hekate]

21. TY for bringing this up. Given the tally in the House I have also found the Senate claim baffling.

[lapucelle]

26. The bottom line is that there was no tally in the Senate because a quorum wasn't present.

At least 51 senators skipped the proceedings.

The resolution was passed by a voice vote of those who were present in the chamber.

See this post for a further explanation.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220657774#post72

[Justice matters.]

27. Kick nt

[lapucelle]

28. There is no tally. The resolution was "approved" by a voice vote of those present. There was no quorum.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220657774#post72