Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) Scorecard: Two Defections in One Week

In the span of five days, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) cast two of the most consequential dissenting votes of the 119th Congress's second session — voting NAY on a sweeping bipartisan housing bill that passed 89–10 on March 12, then refusing to cast any vote at all on Trump's top legislative priority, the SAVE America Act, on March 17. He was the only Republican to do either.

This scorecard examines both votes using official Senate roll call data, placing them in the context of Tillis's established voting profile and his upcoming 2026 re-election in a competitive North Carolina.

The Housing Vote: Why Tillis Said No

On March 12, 2026, the Senate passed H.R. 6644, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, by a resounding 89–10 margin. It was one of the most lopsided Senate votes of 2026, with broad bipartisan support from members across the ideological spectrum.

Tillis voted NAY alongside eight other Republicans — Budd (R-NC), Cruz (R-TX), Johnson (R-WI), Lee (R-UT), Paul (R-KY), Scott R. (R-FL), Tuberville (R-AL), and Young (R-IN) — and the lone Democratic dissenter, Schatz (D-HI).

While Tillis did not issue a formal press release explaining his vote, reporters noted his concerns about a Senate-added provision that bars large institutional investors from owning more than 350 single-family homes and requires divestiture of holdings above that threshold within seven years. His opposition aligned with House Financial Services Chair French Hill's stated concerns about that provision — a signal that the bill faces a substantive conference fight before it can reach the President's desk.

Sen. Cruz issued a formal statement articulating the shared objection among the NAY bloc: the investor cap provision, critics argue, would reduce rental housing supply by discouraging large-scale investment in housing construction, ultimately harming the renters the bill was designed to help. Schatz's no vote, from the opposite direction, reflected concerns that the cap didn't go far enough. Their reasoning was diametrically opposed — but both landed in the same vote column.

The SAVE Act Abstention: A Calculated No-Show

Five days later, on March 17, the Senate voted 51–48–1 to proceed to floor debate on the SAVE America Act — Trump's highest-priority legislative item, which would mandate proof of citizenship and photo identification to register to vote in federal elections.

Tillis was the only Republican to abstain. Every other Republican voted YEA. Every Democrat voted NAY, except Sen. Murkowski (R-AK), who also voted NAY.

Tillis had telegraphed his reluctance publicly. In comments to reporters before the vote, he was blunt about his assessment of the strategy: "There isn't any strategy. There's a 0% [chance] of this succeeding." He added that members on the right were "trying to swing for the fences, and they're not going to succeed... we are setting up vulnerable Republicans for a more difficult environment than they already have."

The math bears him out. The SAVE Act needs 60 votes to break a Democratic filibuster. Republicans hold 51 seats. Even with unanimous Republican support, the bill is nine votes short of cloture — and no Senate Democrat has indicated any support for the legislation. Floor debate may extend for days or weeks, but the arithmetic of the 60-vote threshold remains unchanged.

Tillis's abstention — rather than a direct NAY vote — reflects a precise political calculation. He did not oppose the bill on the merits; he opposed the floor strategy as counterproductive. By not voting rather than voting no, he avoided a direct public confrontation with the White House while still signaling his view. Trump had reportedly threatened to withhold endorsements from any senator who voted against the motion to proceed — an abstention threads that needle.

Tillis in Profile: North Carolina's Swing-State Senator

Thomas Roland Tillis, first elected in 2014 and re-elected in 2020, is North Carolina's senior senator. He serves on the Armed Services, Judiciary, Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and Veterans' Affairs committees. His current term expires January 3, 2027 — meaning he faces voters in November 2026, a fact that provides essential context for both votes this week.

North Carolina has trended toward competitive statewide races in recent cycles. Tillis's 2020 re-election margin against Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham was less than two percentage points. His electoral calculus is therefore different from senators in deeply red or deeply blue states: he cannot treat either hard-right or centrist positions as politically free.

Historically, Tillis votes with his party at high rates but is known for occasionally breaking ranks publicly when he believes the strategy is wrong — not just the policy. He opposed Trump's 2019 emergency border declaration before reversing course. He has spoken out against what he views as performative legislative moves that excite the base but produce no law. Both of this week's departures fit that pattern.

What Happens Next

On the housing bill: H.R. 6644 must return to the House for a conference to reconcile the Senate's institutional investor ban provision with the House-passed version. House Financial Services Chair French Hill has flagged concerns about that provision, and its ultimate fate — whether it survives, is modified, or is stripped — will shape which senators support the final product. A House-Senate conference could take weeks or months.

On the SAVE Act: Floor debate is ongoing as of this publication. The legislation is expected to fail to reach the 60-vote cloture threshold required under Senate rules. Once that vote fails, Republican leadership will need to decide whether to move on to other business or continue pressure on vulnerable Democrats. Tillis's prediction of failure appears likely to prove correct.

On Tillis's 2026 race: Both votes will almost certainly appear in campaign advertising — the housing NAY used by Democrats to argue Tillis opposed housing affordability, the SAVE Act abstention used by Republicans to argue he abandoned the party on election integrity. How those frames land in a competitive North Carolina electorate remains to be seen.

The data presents a senator navigating genuine tensions between national party demands, policy convictions about legislative strategy, and the arithmetic of a competitive re-election. Two votes, two departures from the Republican caucus, in five days.