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. Mike D. Rogers (R-Ala.)

District: 3rd District
Political Highlights: Calhoun County Commission, 1987-91; candidate for Ala. House, 1990; Ala. House, 1995-2002; U.S. House of Representatives, 2003-present
Born: July 16, 1958; Hammond, Ind.
Residence: Anniston
Religion: Baptist
Family: Wife, Donna Elizabeth "Beth" Rogers; three children
Education: Jacksonville State U., B.A. 1981; Jacksonville State U., M.P.A. 1985; Birmingham School of Law, J.D. 1991
Military Service: None
Start of Service: Elected: 2002 (7th term)
Committee Assignments: Agriculture (Commodity Exchanges, Energy & Credit; General Farm Commodities & Risk Management); Armed Services (Readiness; Strategic Forces - Chairman); Homeland Security (Border & Maritime Security; Transportation Security)

Election History
2014generalMike Rogers (R) 103,55866.1
Jesse Smith (D) 52,81633.7
2012generalMike Rogers (R) 175,30664.0
John Harris (D) 98,14135.8
2010generalMike Rogers (R) 117,73659.4
Steve Segrest (D) 80,20440.5
2008generalMike Rogers (R) 150,81953.4
Joshua Segall (D) 131,29946.5
2006generalMike Rogers (R) 98,25759.4
Greg Pierce (D) 63,55938.4
Mark Layfield (I) 3,4142.1
2004generalMike Rogers (R) 150,41161.2
Bill Fuller (D) 95,24038.8
2002generalMike Rogers (R) 91,16950.3
Joe Turnham (D) 87,35148.2
George Crispin (LIBERT) 2,5651.4
Roll Call Vitals


Alabama is 17th on Roll Call's Clout Index, which measures influence in Congress by state.


Twitter Followers (@RepMikeRogersAL)

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.