U.S. House · OH-13
Sykes, Emilia Strong
DOhio 13th38 issues mapped from the public record
Stances are based on mapped issues and the public record (Congress.gov, FEC, and related sources). Add your own views to see how you line up.
Public record freshness
- Legislator stats: May 29, 2026
- Vote ingest: May 29, 2026
- FEC sync: Mar 24, 2026
- Finance cycle: 2026
Your alignment
Issue spotlight
High confidence based on 20 mapped decisive vote(s): 13 supporting and 7 opposing with 1 absence/present vote(s).
7
Opposing votes
13
Supporting votes
21 votes analyzed
Issue voting record
Based on public votes and official records. Browse by topic or sort by confidence.
High confidence based on 34 mapped decisive vote(s): 29 supporting and 5 opposing.
29 supporting · 5 opposingHIGH confidence
High confidence based on 30 mapped decisive vote(s): 30 supporting and 0 opposing with 1 absence/present vote(s).
30 supporting · 0 opposingHIGH confidence
Sykes' recorded votes on spending bills lean toward reducing government spending. She voted against increased spending proposals in 39 of 56 mapped votes.
11 supporting · 14 opposingHIGH confidence
High confidence based on 19 mapped decisive vote(s): 12 supporting and 7 opposing with 1 absence/present vote(s).
12 supporting · 7 opposingHIGH confidence
High confidence based on 19 mapped decisive vote(s): 12 supporting and 7 opposing.
12 supporting · 7 opposingHIGH confidence
Sykes' recorded votes on energy bills align more often with prioritizing domestic fossil fuel production. She voted for such measures in 29 of 40 mapped votes.
8 supporting · 9 opposingHIGH confidence
What kind of representative is this?
HIGH confidenceRep. Sykes' voting record shows a pattern of opposing positions on most mapped issues, with votes frequently diverging from her stated stances. On high-profile Tier 1 issues, mapped votes indicate opposition to immigration (6 con vs. 19 pro votes), climate action (14 con vs. 33 pro), and gun control (1 con vs. 4 pro), despite stated stances against these positions. On economic issues, she voted against tax cuts (16 con vs. 8 pro) and government spending reductions (37 con vs. 19 pro). Environmental protection received 31 pro votes against 20 con. Attendance is notably low at 57.5%, with 235 missed votes out of 553 total. Party-line voting stands at 94%, indicating strong alignment with Democratic caucus positions.
Mapped votes on immigration, climate, and gun control oppose stated stances; pro-environment votes (31 vs. 20) align with Democratic positions
Strong party-line voting (94%) with 6% deviation; low attendance (57.5%) with 235 missed votes
Economic votes show opposition to tax cuts (16 con) and spending reductions (37 con); defense spending opposed (33 con vs. 9 pro)
Social issues
mapped votes oppose abortion rights (4 pro vs. 1 con), LGBTQ+ rights (5 pro vs. 0 con), and racial justice (10 con vs. 1 pro)
- Healthcare votes consistently oppose affordability measures (7 con vs. 0 pro) and Medicare/Medicaid expansion (8 con each)
Signature issues
- Climate Change — Climate Change: 33 pro vs. 14 con votes; stated stance opposes actionHIGH confidence
- Government Spending — Government Spending: 37 con vs. 19 pro votes; opposes reductionsHIGH confidence
- Environmental Protection — Environmental Protection: 31 pro vs. 20 con votes; supports protectionsHIGH confidence
- Defense Spending — Defense Spending: 33 con vs. 9 pro votes; opposes increasesHIGH confidence
- Immigration — Immigration: 19 pro vs. 6 con votes; stated stance opposes immigrationHIGH confidence
Synthesized from public voting and stance records only; not motive, corruption, electoral prospects, or district-wide opinion.
38 mapped issues • Updated May 25, 2026 • 37 non-gated high-confidence issues · 1 moderate-confidence issue · Model claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
About and public record
Sources & transparency
- Congress.gov — votes and bills
- FEC.gov — campaign finance
Sources: Congress.gov · FEC · public disclosures. Methodology and citations on this district record.