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.

Sen. Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho)

Chief Deputy Whip

Political Highlights: Idaho Senate, 1984-92; U.S. House of Representatives, 1993-99; U.S. Senate, 1999-present
Born: May 20, 1951; Idaho Falls, Idaho
Residence: Idaho Falls
Religion: Mormon
Family: Wife, Susan Crapo; five children
Education: Brigham Young U., B.A. 1973; Harvard U., J.D. 1977
Military Service: None
Start of Service: Elected: 1998 (3rd term)
Committee Assignments: Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs (Financial Institutions & Consumer Protection; Housing, Transportation & Community Development; Securities, Insurance & Investment - Chairman); Budget; Environment & Public Works (Clean Air & Nuclear Safety; Superfund, Waste Management & Regulatory Oversight; Transportation & Infrastructure); Finance (Energy, Natural Resources & Infrastructure; Fiscal Responsibility & Economic Growth; Taxation & IRS Oversight - Chairman); Indian Affairs; Joint Taxation

Election History
2010generalMichael Crapo (R) 319,95371.2
P. Sullivan (D) 112,05724.9
Randy Bergquist (CNSTP) 17,4293.9
2004generalMichael Crapo (R) 499,79699.2
Scott McClure (D) 4,1360.8
1998generalMichael Crapo (R) 262,96669.5
Bill Mauk (D) 107,37528.4
George Mansfeld (NL) 7,8332.1
1996generalMichael Crapo (R) 157,64668.8
John Seidl (D) 67,62529.5
John Butler (NL) 3,9771.7
1994generalMichael Crapo (R) 143,59375.0
Penny Fletcher (D) 47,93625.0
1992generalMichael Crapo (R) 139,78360.8
J.D. Williams (D) 81,45035.4
Steven Kauer (I) 4,9172.1
David Mansfield (I) 3,8071.7
Roll Call Vitals


Idaho is 44th on Roll Call's Clout Index, which measures influence in Congress by state.


Twitter Followers (@mikecrapo)

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.