New York Senate Voting Record: What Roll-Call Data Reveals About 2026 Candidates

H2: Public Voting Records in the New York Senate Race: A Historical Pattern

In the last three cycles, New York Senate candidates with a clear public voting record—whether from the state legislature, Congress, or local office—faced a distinct pattern of scrutiny. Opponents and outside groups consistently mined roll-call votes for attack ads, debate prep, and opposition research dossiers. A single floor vote on a budget bill or a controversial piece of legislation could become a 30-second television spot, often stripped of context. For the 2026 cycle, OppIntell's research universe tracks 11,268 candidates across 54 states, with 250 candidates in New York alone across five race categories. Among these, 199 are FEC-registered, and 67 are cross-platform-verified, meaning they appear in at least FEC, Wikidata, and Ballotpedia. The Senate race specifically draws from this pool, and the presence or absence of a public roll-call record shapes how researchers would approach each candidate's profile.

What the public record shows for the New York Senate field is a mixed picture. Of the 250 tracked candidates statewide, all 250 have source-backed claims, averaging 2.4 claims per candidate. The top three most-researched candidates—Jonathan Lewis Jacobs, Candace Martina Mrs Niles, and Diana K. Kastenbaum—each have enough public footprint to generate a baseline profile. However, the quality and depth of that footprint vary widely. For Senate candidates, a roll-call record from a previous elected office provides the richest vein of public data. Without such a record, researchers would turn to campaign filings, public statements, and media coverage to infer positions. The 2026 field includes candidates from both major parties and third-party or independent entrants, meaning the voting record landscape is uneven. Some candidates may have no legislative history at all, while others bring decades of floor votes from the state Assembly or Congress.

OppIntell's methodology focuses on what is publicly verifiable. For the New York Senate race, that means checking FEC filings, state-level disclosure databases, and cross-platform identifiers. The 67 cross-platform-verified candidates in New York represent the subset most likely to have a substantial public record, including roll-call votes. But even among that group, the number of well-sourced candidates—those with five or more source-backed claims—stands at only 25 across the entire 2026 cycle. The majority of candidates, 259 nationally, are thinly sourced with zero claims. In New York, the average of 2.4 claims per candidate suggests that many Senate hopefuls have a thin public footprint. Researchers would need to supplement roll-call analysis with other source types, such as campaign finance reports or media interviews, to build a complete picture.

H2: Candidate Bios and Their Voting Record Baselines

For the New York Senate race, the biographical background of each candidate provides the first clue about the existence of a roll-call record. Jonathan Lewis Jacobs, one of the top three most-researched candidates in the state, has a public profile that includes prior electoral activity. His FEC registration and cross-platform verification signal that researchers could locate at least some voting history if he has held office. Candace Martina Mrs Niles and Diana K. Kastenbaum similarly appear in multiple databases, giving researchers a starting point for roll-call analysis. However, the presence of a FEC filing does not guarantee a legislative voting record; it only indicates that the candidate has registered for federal office. State-level officeholders would have their votes recorded in the New York State Assembly or Senate archives, while former members of Congress would have their votes cataloged in the official congressional record.

The party breakdown in New York's tracked candidates—49 Republican, 142 Democratic, and 59 other—means the Senate field draws from a predominantly Democratic pool. This has implications for the type of voting records researchers would find. Democratic candidates with prior legislative experience are more likely to have voted on progressive priorities such as labor rights, healthcare expansion, and climate policy. Republican candidates, fewer in number, may have records from local or state office that emphasize fiscal conservatism or law-and-order issues. Third-party and independent candidates often lack any legislative voting record, forcing researchers to rely on public statements, campaign materials, and media coverage to gauge their positions. For the 2026 cycle, the absence of a roll-call record does not mean a candidate is immune to scrutiny; it simply shifts the research focus to other source types.

OppIntell's source-backed profile signals for each candidate include links to official government websites, news articles, and campaign pages. For Senate candidates with a roll-call record, those signals would point to legislative databases such as the New York State Assembly's vote tracker or Congress.gov. The 67 cross-platform-verified candidates in New York are the most likely to have such records, but even among them, the depth varies. A candidate who served a single term in the state Assembly may have only a few hundred votes on record, while a multi-term member of Congress could have thousands. Researchers would prioritize candidates with the longest legislative histories, as those provide the most material for attack ads or debate prep. The 2026 Senate race in New York, with its mix of well-known and obscure candidates, offers a range of research depths.

H2: Race Context: How Roll-Call Records Shape the New York Senate Contest

In the last three cycles, New York Senate races have been defined by a combination of incumbency advantage, party registration, and national trends. The state's strong Democratic lean means that the primary election often determines the general election outcome. Roll-call records become especially potent in a primary, where candidates from the same party seek to differentiate themselves on ideological grounds. A vote on a controversial bill—such as the 2019 bail reform or the 2021 eviction moratorium—could become a wedge issue between a progressive challenger and a moderate incumbent. For the 2026 cycle, the Senate field includes candidates who may have voted on these very issues, making their records a central campaign battleground.

The all-party nature of OppIntell's tracking means that researchers would examine roll-call records across the political spectrum. For Republican candidates, a voting record from a more conservative district could be used to paint them as out of step with New York's electorate. For Democratic candidates, a record that includes votes on charter school expansion or police funding could alienate progressive primary voters. Third-party candidates, if they have no legislative record, may be portrayed as lacking experience or as having no accountability to voters. The 250 tracked candidates in New York include a wide range of backgrounds, from career politicians to first-time office seekers. The presence or absence of a roll-call record is one of the first data points researchers would check.

OppIntell's research universe for the 2026 cycle shows that only 25 candidates nationally are well-sourced with five or more claims. In New York, the top three most-researched candidates likely fall into this category, but the majority of the 250 candidates have fewer than five source-backed claims. This means that for most Senate hopefuls, the public voting record is either nonexistent or incomplete. Researchers would need to triangulate between FEC filings, state disclosure databases, and media archives to fill gaps. The 199 FEC-registered candidates in New York provide a baseline, but FEC data alone does not reveal voting positions. Roll-call analysis requires a separate set of sources, such as the New York State Legislative Retrieval System or the Library of Congress's THOMAS database.

H2: Competitive-Research Framing: What Opponents Would Examine

In the last three cycles, opposition researchers have used roll-call records to build narratives around a candidate's fitness for office. A single vote on a minimum wage increase or a healthcare bill could be framed as evidence of a candidate's priorities. For the 2026 New York Senate race, opponents would likely focus on votes that align with or contradict the candidate's campaign messaging. A candidate who campaigns as a progressive but voted for a corporate tax cut would face accusations of hypocrisy. Conversely, a candidate who voted for a progressive priority like the Green New Deal could use that record to bolster their credentials. The key is that the public record provides concrete evidence that cannot be easily dismissed.

OppIntell's source-backed profile signals give campaigns a head start in understanding what the competition might find. For example, if a candidate has a roll-call record that includes a vote on a controversial issue, that vote would appear in the candidate's profile as a source-backed claim. Campaigns could then prepare a response or preempt the attack. The 67 cross-platform-verified candidates in New York are the most likely to have such claims, but even thinly sourced candidates may have one or two votes that become focal points. Researchers would also examine voting attendance records; a candidate with a high number of missed votes could be attacked as disengaged or irresponsible.

The 2026 cycle's national context adds another layer. With 5,643 FEC-registered candidates and 5,625 state-SoS-only candidates across the country, the New York Senate race is part of a larger ecosystem of competitive research. Opponents may draw on voting records from other states if a candidate has previously served in a different legislature. For New York candidates who previously held office in another state, researchers would need to consult that state's legislative archives. The cross-platform verification process helps identify such candidates, but the data is only as good as the sources it links to. OppIntell's methodology emphasizes transparency about what is and is not known, so campaigns can assess their own source-readiness.

H2: Financial Posture and Its Relationship to Voting Records

In the last three cycles, campaign finance data has often been used alongside voting records to build a comprehensive candidate profile. A candidate's donor list can reveal connections to industries that benefited from their votes, creating a potential conflict-of-interest narrative. For the 2026 New York Senate race, FEC filings provide a starting point for financial analysis. The 199 FEC-registered candidates in New York have at least some disclosure, but the depth varies. Candidates who have raised significant funds are more likely to face intense scrutiny of their voting records, as opponents seek to tie their legislative actions to donor interests.

The average of 2.4 source-backed claims per candidate in New York suggests that financial data may be one of the most common source types. Campaign finance reports are public and relatively easy to access, unlike legislative voting records which require sifting through floor votes. For candidates without a roll-call record, financial data becomes even more important as a proxy for their priorities and alliances. Researchers would look for patterns such as donations from PACs associated with industries regulated by the Senate, or contributions from out-of-state donors that could be used to paint the candidate as beholden to outside interests.

OppIntell's cross-platform verification process includes checking FEC, Wikidata, and Ballotpedia. Candidates who appear in all three are more likely to have a complete financial picture. The 67 cross-platform-verified candidates in New York represent the subset most likely to have both financial data and voting records. However, even among this group, the quality of the data varies. Some candidates may have detailed FEC filings with itemized contributions, while others may have only summary data. Researchers would need to supplement with state-level disclosure for candidates who have held state office, as those reports often include more granular information.

H2: Source-Readiness Gap Analysis for the New York Senate Field

In the last three cycles, the candidates who were most prepared for opposition research were those who had proactively addressed their own voting records. They released detailed position papers, held town halls to explain controversial votes, and had rapid-response teams ready to counter attacks. For the 2026 New York Senate race, the source-readiness gap is significant. With only 25 well-sourced candidates nationally and an average of 2.4 claims per candidate in New York, most Senate hopefuls have a thin public profile. This creates an opportunity for campaigns that invest in building a robust public record, but also a risk: a candidate with few source-backed claims may be seen as a blank slate, which opponents could fill with negative assumptions.

The 259 thinly-sourced candidates nationally—those with zero source-backed claims—are the most vulnerable. In New York, the 250 tracked candidates all have at least one claim, but the average of 2.4 means many are still thinly sourced. For these candidates, the absence of a voting record could be a double-edged sword. It prevents opponents from using roll-call votes against them, but it also means the candidate has no legislative record to point to as evidence of their effectiveness. Researchers would turn to other source types, such as media interviews or campaign websites, but those sources are often less reliable and more easily manipulated.

OppIntell's value for campaigns lies in identifying these gaps early. By analyzing the public record before the race intensifies, campaigns can determine what information opponents are likely to find and prepare accordingly. For the New York Senate race, the top three most-researched candidates—Jacobs, Niles, and Kastenbaum—are already under the microscope. Their source-backed profiles provide a baseline that other candidates can use to benchmark their own readiness. The 2026 cycle is still in its early stages, and the candidates who take proactive steps to address their voting records may gain a strategic advantage.

H2: Comparative Research Methodology: How OppIntell Approaches Roll-Call Analysis

In the last three cycles, opposition researchers have developed sophisticated methods for analyzing roll-call records. They look for votes on high-profile bills, attendance patterns, and deviations from party line. For the 2026 New York Senate race, OppIntell's methodology mirrors this approach but with a focus on publicly verifiable data. The process begins with identifying candidates who have held elected office, then locating their voting records through official government websites. For New York state legislators, the New York State Assembly and Senate websites provide searchable vote databases. For former members of Congress, Congress.gov offers a comprehensive record. For local officeholders, the data may be less centralized, requiring searches of county or city government archives.

Once the voting records are obtained, OppIntell's researchers would categorize votes by issue area—such as healthcare, taxes, education, and criminal justice—to identify patterns. They would also flag votes that are out of step with the candidate's party or campaign messaging. For example, a Democratic candidate who voted for a Republican-sponsored bill on abortion restrictions would face scrutiny. The 67 cross-platform-verified candidates in New York are the most likely to have complete voting records, but even among them, some votes may be missing due to gaps in digitization. Researchers would note these gaps as source-readiness issues.

The comparative aspect of the methodology involves benchmarking candidates against each other and against the broader 2026 cycle. With 11,268 candidates tracked nationally, OppIntell can identify which types of voting records are most common and which are rarest. For New York, the high number of Democratic candidates (142) means that intra-party comparisons are especially relevant. A primary challenger could use a voting record to show that an incumbent is not progressive enough, or a moderate could use it to show that a challenger is too extreme. The all-party nature of the tracking ensures that researchers consider all angles, not just those that benefit one party.

H2: What the Public Record Does Not Show: Research Gaps and Next Steps

In the last three cycles, one of the most important lessons for campaigns was that the public record is never complete. Votes on procedural motions, voice votes, and unrecorded divisions often do not appear in official databases. For the 2026 New York Senate race, researchers would need to acknowledge these gaps. The 250 tracked candidates in New York all have source-backed claims, but those claims may not include every vote the candidate has ever cast. Campaigns should be aware that opponents may uncover votes that are not in the public record through interviews, leaked documents, or internal records.

The next step for researchers is to triangulate across multiple source types. For candidates with a legislative record, that means cross-referencing floor votes with committee votes, which are often less accessible. For candidates without a legislative record, it means expanding the search to include public statements, campaign literature, and media coverage. OppIntell's methodology emphasizes that the absence of a record is itself a data point. A candidate with no voting record may be a first-time office seeker, or they may have deliberately avoided taking public positions. The 259 thinly-sourced candidates nationally highlight the scale of this research gap.

For campaigns in New York, the message is clear: the public record is what it is, and opponents may use it. The candidates who invest in transparency—by releasing their voting records, explaining their positions, and engaging with the media—may reduce the risk of negative surprises. OppIntell's platform provides a way to assess where a candidate stands relative to the field, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the campaign. The 2026 cycle is still unfolding, and the roll-call analysis may evolve as more candidates enter the race and more votes are cast.