Where does each Senate Republican stand on filling the Supreme Court vacancy?

Because a simple majority vote of 51 is needed and Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, it would take four Republicans to vote with all the Democrats to block the confirmation.

It would take four GOP senators to defect from their party because Vice President Mike Pence could cast the tie-breaking vote if three Republicans joined with Democrats in voting against the nominee.

Here is a look at where Republican senators stand on the question.

Lamar Alexander, Tennessee

For a prompt vote

“No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican president’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year. The Constitution gives senators the power to do it. The voters who elected them expect it. Going back to George Washington, the Senate has confirmed many nominees to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year. It has refused to confirm several when the president and Senate majority were of different parties. Senator McConnell is only doing what Democrat leaders have said they would do if the shoe were on the other foot.”

John Barrasso, Wyoming

For a prompt vote

“This is the consistent principle and policies that have been followed through the history of the United States when 29 vacancies occurred in years of presidential elections. We’re going to be consistent with all of that. But you’re right, there’s an election coming up. Every Senate candidate and every senator speaks for himself or herself; as chairman of the conference, I have great respect for that. Each one is going to be called upon to make a decision. And in their role as our ‘advise and consent,’ the president is going to nominate and we’re going to vote this year, Chuck.”

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

For a prompt vote

“I look forward to @realDonaldTrump’s nominee receiving a full vote on the Senate floor.” https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/1307164588681691136

Roy Blunt, Missouri

For a prompt vote

“This should take as long as it needs to take but no longer. There is plenty of time to get this done. But to get it done before Election Day, everything has to work, I think, pretty precisely.”

John Boozman, Arkansas

Boozman has not issued a statement on the vote.

Mike Braun, Indiana

For a prompt vote

“I think it’s important that we do this prior to the election,” Braun said in a news conference Tuesday. “(Republicans) control the presidency and Senate. And I think the majority of Hoosiers who elected me would be disappointed if we didn’t do the vote.”

Richard Burr, North Carolina

For a prompt vote

“The president has every right under the Constitution to nominate the individual of his choosing to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy. The Senate’s role is to provide its advice and consent. In this instance, unlike 2016, Americans voted to ensure the Senate and presidency are both held by the same party. I believe the Senate should consider President Trump’s nominee as early as possible and I intend to carefully review their qualifications once that individual is named.”

Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia

For a prompt vote

“I support the choice to move forward with the confirmation process and will consider President Trump’s nominee on her merits as West Virginians would expect me to do. In these trying and polarized times, it is important to exercise our constitutional authority and move forward with the process.”

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana

Cassidy has not made a comment on the vote.

Susan Collins, Maine

Against a prompt vote

“Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election. In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the President or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd.”

John Cornyn, Texas

For a vote, but not necessarily before the election

“Just as the Senate has always done, we will thoroughly review the qualifications. We should not rush that process. It should be conducted carefully and consistently with how the Senate has previously handled Supreme Court nominations,” Cornyn, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said during a speech on the Senate floor on Monday. “The Senate will vote on that nominee sometime this year.”

Tom Cotton, Arkansas

Is for a prompt vote

“We’re going to move forward without delay and there will be a vote.” He said he wasn’t sure it could happen before Election Day.

Kevin Cramer, North Dakota

For a prompt vote

“I’m for whatever gives us the best opportunity to confirm a conservative to the court while giving us the best chance of keeping the Senate and White House.”

Mike Crapo, Idaho

For a prompt vote

“I will be prepared to vote once we have established a well-qualified candidate who will interpret the law as it is written. There remains much uncertainty in this process and details will become clearer in the coming weeks. As with previous Supreme Court vacancies, I will conduct due diligence and cast any votes with careful consideration according to the principles and values of Idahoans.”

Ted Cruz, Texas

For a prompt vote

“I believe we are going to take up and confirm the president’s #SCOTUS nominee before Election Day. That is consistent with over 200 years of Senate precedent.”

Steve Daines, Montana

For a prompt vote

“I believe the Senate should move forward with confirming President Trump’s nominee.”

Michael Enzi, Wyoming

Enzi has not made a comment on the vote.

Joni Ernst, Iowa

For a prompt vote

“We have much to consider over the coming days. The Supreme Court plays a fundamental role in the defense of our Constitution and in the protection of our rights and liberties. Once the president puts forward his nominee for the Supreme Court, I will carry out my duty—as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee—to evaluate the nominee for our nation’s highest court.”

Deb Fischer, Nebraska

Is for a prompt vote

“As such, once President Trump makes a nomination, I look forward to engaging in the process and evaluating the nominee on the basis of their qualifications, temperament, understanding of the Constitution, and commitment to the rule of law.”

Cory Gardner, Colorado

For a prompt vote

“I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm”

Lindsey Graham, South Carolina

For a prompt vote

“I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.”

Chuck Grassley, Iowa

Is for a prompt vote

“Over the years, and as recently as July, I’ve consistently said that taking up and evaluating a nominee in 2020 would be a decision for the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate Majority Leader. Both have confirmed their intentions to move forward, so that’s what will happen. Once the hearings are underway, it’s my responsibility to evaluate the nominee on the merits, just as I always have.”

Josh Hawley, Missouri

For a prompt vote

“I have every expectation [Trump] will nominate someone with all deliberate speed and we should proceed as soon as we can.”

John Hoeven, North Dakota

For a prompt vote

“Sen. Hoeven believes the Senate should vote on the president’s nominee,” a spokeswoman said.

Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi

For a prompt vote

“President Trump and the Senate now have the solemn duty to fill that vacancy, a process that should not be delayed.”

James Inhofe, Oklahoma

For a prompt vote

“The precedent here is clear. In the case of a united government, with voters having elected a Senate and White House of the same party, it is our constitutional obligation to consider a nomination of a Supreme Court justice. I look forward to a thorough and swift consideration of President Trump’s nominee. I’ve been pleased at the short lists President Trump has put forward and am confident his nominee will be a well-qualified, constitutional judge.”

Ron Johnson, Wisconsin

For a prompt vote

“President Trump was elected for a term that runs into January. Republicans have control of the Senate until the end of this Congress. We should fulfill that constitutional duty,” he said in an interview with WISPolitics.

John Kennedy, Louisiana

For a prompt vote

The Constitution’s provisions for filling a #SCOTUS vacancy are unaffected by the electoral calendar. We’re going forward, and anyone who thinks Sen. Schumer wouldn’t do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot probably believes Jimmy Hoffa died a natural death.

James Lankford, Oklahoma

For a prompt vote

“I look forward to considering and voting on President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy before the end of the year. If the president puts forward a nomination, the Senate has the authority to provide advice and consent, and I take this role very seriously. Confirming a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year when the White House and Senate majority are of the same party is consistent with precedent.”

Mike Lee, Utah

For a prompt vote

“In 2016, President Obama nominated a replacement for Justice Scalia and my Senate colleagues and I gave our advice and consent on the nominee, consistent with the Constitution, by rejecting him. This year, President Trump will nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsburg and, consistent with the Constitution, we will again give our advice and consent. If we like the nominee, we will confirm her. If we don’t, we won’t. It’s that simple.”

Kelly Loeffler, Georgia

For a prompt vote

“I will support President @realDonaldTrump in nominating a strict constructionist before the election who will protect innocent life and safeguard conservative values.”

Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

For a prompt vote

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Martha McSally, Arizona

For a prompt vote

“This U.S. Senate should vote on President Trump’s next nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Jerry Moran, Kansas

For a prompt vote

Sen. Moran supports holding a vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee by President Trump this term, a spokesman said.

Lisa Murkowski, Alaska

Is opposed to a prompt vote

“For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed. I did not support taking up a nomination eight months before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia. We are now even closer to the 2020 election–less than two months out–and I believe the same standard must apply.”

Rand Paul, Kentucky

For a prompt vote

Paul supports filling the vacancy “as soon as possible,” a spokesperson told The Washington Post on Sept. 22.

David Perdue, Georgia

For a prompt vote

“The people of Georgia want a Supreme Court that applies the law, not makes the law. I am confident that President Trump will nominate another highly-qualified candidate who will strictly uphold the Constitution. Once the president announces a nomination, the United States Senate should begin the process that moves this to a full Senate vote. We know Chuck Schumer and Jon Ossoff want to radically reshape our nation’s highest court. If Democrats take control of the Senate, they have said they will add four seats and pack it with activist judges. The choice for the future of the Supreme Court is clear, and our nation’s founding principles are at stake.”

Rob Portman, Ohio

For a prompt vote

“I look forward to seeing who President Trump plans to nominate and thoroughly assessing his or her qualifications for this important role.”

James Risch, Idaho

Has not said if he is for a prompt vote

“My vote is going to depend not on the calendar, not on the election, not on anything. It’s going to depend on the person who is nominated to fill the place.”

Pat Roberts, Kansas

Roberts has not voiced an opinion on the vote.

Mitt Romney, Utah

For a prompt vote

“My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.”

Mike Rounds, South Dakota

For a prompt vote

Sen. Rounds will “be ready to vote whenever the vote is called, based on the merits of the nominee,” a spokeswoman said.

Marco Rubio, Florida

For a prompt vote

“I think there should be a vote whenever the Senate’s ready to vote.”

Ben Sasse, Nebraska

For a prompt vote

“You know where this is headed,” Sen. Sasse told a reporter on Tuesday.

Rick Scott, Florida

For a prompt vote

“It would be irresponsible to allow an extended vacancy on the Supreme Court. I believe that President Trump’s nominee should get a vote in the U.S. Senate.”

Tim Scott, South Carolina

Scott has not voiced an opinion on a prompt vote.

Richard Shelby, Alabama

For a prompt vote

“Justice Ginsburg’s service was long and will be remembered. In the days ahead, I look forward to a solid conservative candidate being nominated and an expeditious confirmation process.”

Dan Sullivan, Alaska

For a prompt vote

“The historical precedent and principle of an election year nomination to the Supreme Court, dating back to the founding of our republic, is that the Senate has generally confirmed a President’s nominee from its own party and not confirmed one from the opposing party. President Trump is well within his constitutional authority to nominate an individual for the Supreme Court vacancy, and the Senate will undertake its advice and consent responsibilities on confirmation, as authorized by the Constitution.”

John Thune, South Dakota

For a prompt vote

“One thing I can say is that Republicans won’t be deterred from performing our constitutional role by Democrats' undemocratic threats. We will work to fill this Supreme Court vacancy, and I look forward to receiving and reviewing the president’s nomination in the near future.”

Thom Tillis, North Carolina

For a prompt vote

“Four years ago, a Supreme Court vacancy arose under divided government and a lame-duck president as Americans were choosing his successor. Today, however, President Trump is again facing voters at the ballot box and North Carolinians will ultimately render their judgment on his presidency and how he chooses to fill the vacancy,” Tillis said on Sept. 19.

Patrick Toomey, Pennsylvania

For a prompt vote

“I will evaluate President Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg based on whether the nominee has the character, intellect, and experience needed to serve on our nation’s highest court. These are the same objective, non-partisan criteria that I have used to evaluate judicial nominees under both President Obama and President Trump.”

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

For a prompt vote

“President Trump and Senate Republicans promised to confirm well-qualified, conservative judges and justices to the federal courts. We should continue to fulfill this promise and our constitutional duty for all vacancies as long as we are in office. I look forward to consideration of the president’s nominee by the full Senate.”

Todd Young, Indiana

For a prompt vote

“The president has put forward a list of incredibly talented potential nominees, including Indiana’s own Judge Amy Coney Barrett, but I think any of the judges that the President has been discussing in recent days would be an excellent choice. It is my intention to dutifully evaluate the records of whoever the President ultimately nominates and to ensure bold action following his nomination.”