Gluesenkamp Perez Voted To Condemn Socialism — And To Support Trump’s Voter Suppression Scheme

Washington’s most groan-inducing Democratic member of Congress crossed party lines this week to support an amendment condemning socialism, clearly in response to the Democratic Socialists of America’s rise in popularity. 

No one should be shocked that Gluesenkamp Perez signaled her moderate virtue in yet another time-wasting resolution to finger wag the left. But what’s possibly more controversial is the fact that voting “yes” on this resolution is also a vote urging the enactment of President Donald Trump’s controversial voter suppression policy known as the SAVE America Act. Gluesenkamp Perez has flip flopped on her support of Trump’s voter suppression agenda, but this vote helps bolster the argument that Gluesenkamp Perez cares more about opposing the left than opposing the fascist Trump regime. 

On Tuesday, eight Democrats joined House Republicans to approve a resolution condemning socialism in “all its forms,” helping the measure pass the House 220-192. Those Democrats include Gluesenkamp Perez, Florida’s Kathy Castor and Darren Soto, Texas’s Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar, Maine’s Jared Golden, North Carolina's Don Davis, and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico. Additionally, Pennsylvania’s Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire’s Maggie Goodlander voted "present.”

Congress already answered this question shortly after the election of New York City Mayor. That time, 86 House Democrats voted to denounce the “horrors of socialism,” including Washington representatives Kim Shrier, Marilyn Strickland, and again, Gluesenkamp Perez. 

With Gluesenkamp Perez already on the record against socialism — and for many, many, many Republican priorities in her tenure — this vote does little more than muddy her position on the SAVE America Act. 

Moderate Democrat Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey told reporters that the resolution is “ just the SAVE Act with a wrapper on it” with the last lines of text calling for “enactment of the SAVE America Act to ensure election security, increase public confidence in America’s voting system, and close loopholes in order to prevent noncitizens from voting in elections.” 

In April of 2025, Gluesenkamp Perez voted “yes” on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act or the SAVE Act. Under the SAVE Act, the vast majority of Americans would need to show a passport or certified birth certificate in combination with a photo ID to vote. This would jeopardize voting access for 146 million American citizens who do not have a valid passport and 69 million women who changed their last name when they got married, making the name on their photo ID different from that of their birth certificate. 

The legislation sparked such intense outrage that the voter suppression fiends had to slightly rebrand their marquee legislation to the SAVE America Act. Advocates argue these proposals are incredibly similar, but the SAVE America Act goes further to screw with the vote by mail system many states, including Washington, rely on. 

Constituents flamed Gluesenkamp Perez for supporting the SAVE Act, so she wised up and voted against the SAVE America Act in February 2026, leaning on the new vote by mail provisions. Because these bills are slightly different, she could plausibly argue that she believed one bill amounted to suppression and the other did not. But her affirmative vote on this resolution undercuts that defense, signaling that when forced to choose between condemning the left and endorsing Republican-led voting barriers, she will gladly walk into the GOP's trap. 

This dance highlights the central tightrope of Gluesenkamp Perez’s political career: balancing a performative moderation aimed at appeasing conservative-leaning voters with the stark reality of keeping her Democratic base intact. While her team may view cross-party votes as savvy strategy in her precarious swing district, each tactical gesture toward the right further alienates progressive organizers and constituents who expect resistance to Republican priorities, not complicity. 

Gluesenkamp Perez’s recent primary however, may prove this is not a winning strategy. Her Republican challenger, State lawmaker John Braun, won the primary with 39.66%. She wound up second with 36.38%. However, it’s not Republicans she has to woo. The third largest vote share — 16.7% — went to a challenger to Gluesenkamp Perez’s left, Brent Heinreich, who spent his campaign criticizing her for siding with Republicans. Those are the voters she must win in November. And supporting Trump’s voter suppression agenda does not seem like a strategy to that end.