Member Guide | Roll Call

Last updated Sep. 08, 2014

Sorry, you are using an old browser that can't display this interactive. Install the free Google Chrome Frame plug-in for Internet Explorer, or use a modern browser such as Google Chrome, Firefox or a mobile device, such as an iPad, to view this page.

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.)

District: 11th District
Political Highlights: Republican nominee for Hazleton City Council, 1996; Hazleton City Council, 1998-00; Republican nominee for U.S. House, 2002; Republican nominee for U.S. House, 2008; mayor of Hazleton, 2000-2010; U.S. House of Representatives, 2011-present
Born: Jan. 28, 1956; Hazleton, Pa.
Residence: Hazleton
Religion: Roman Catholic
Family: Wife, Mary Grace Barletta; four children
Education: Bloomsburg State College, attended 1973-76; Luzerne County Community College, attended 1976-77
Military Service: None
Start of Service: Elected: 2010 (3rd term)
Committee Assignments: Education & the Workforce (Health, Employment, Labor & Pensions; Higher Education & Workforce Training); Homeland Security (Border & Maritime Security; Counterterrorism & Intelligence); Transportation & Infrastructure (Economic Development, Public Buildings & Emergency Management - Chairman; Highways & Transit; Railroads, Pipelines & Hazardous Materials)

Election History
2014generalLou Barletta (R) 122,46466.3
Andrew Ostrowski (D) 62,22833.7
2012generalLou Barletta (R) 166,96758.5
Gene Stilp (D) 118,23141.5
2010generalLou Barletta (R) 102,17954.7
Paul Kanjorski (D) 84,61845.3
2008generalPaul Kanjorski (D) 146,37951.6
Lou Barletta (R) 137,15148.4
2002generalPaul Kanjorski (D) 93,75855.6
Lou Barletta (R) 71,54342.4
Thomas McLaughlin (REF) 3,3042.0
Roll Call Vitals


Pennsylvania is 10th on Roll Call's Clout Index, which measures influence in Congress by state.


Twitter Followers (@RepLouBarletta)

Roll Call and CQ Weekly use ratings assigned by the Rothenberg Political Report, which are defined as follows: SAFE: As of today, the party indicated is all but certain to win the seat. FAVORED: One candidate has a substantial advantage, but an upset is still possible. LEAN: The party indicated has the edge, but the outcome is less certain than for races rated as favored. TILT: The outcome is effectively regarded as a tossup for each of these highly competitive seats, although the party indicated has a slight edge. TOSSUP: Neither party has an edge in these contests.