Politics in the United States usually feels like a scripted sports match. You have your team, they have theirs, and nobody ever switches jerseys. But then there is Lisa Murkowski.
The senior Senator from Alaska is basically the living embodiment of the phrase "wild card." Whether it is a Supreme Court confirmation or a massive spending bill, when her name is called on the Senate floor, people actually lean in to listen because they genuinely don't know what she's going to say.
If you are asking why did Lisa Murkowski vote yes, you're probably looking at one of three massive moments: her vote for Ketanji Brown Jackson, her vote to convict Donald Trump, or perhaps her support for the landmark Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Honestly, her reasoning is rarely about simple party loyalty. It’s a mix of Alaska-first pragmatism, a deep respect for institutional norms, and—if we’re being real—the fact that she’s already survived a write-in campaign after her own party dumped her. She isn't scared of the RNC.
The Ketanji Brown Jackson Confirmation: A Vote for "Independence"
When Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2022, the political atmosphere was toxic. Most Republicans were lining up to call her "radical." But Murkowski, along with Susan Collins and Mitt Romney, broke ranks.
Why? Because Murkowski is a stickler for the "advice and consent" role. She sat down with Jackson for a long time. She looked at her temperament. In her own statement, Murkowski noted that while she didn't agree with every ruling Jackson had ever made, she found the judge to be "qualified, independent, and possessing the proper demeanor."
👉 See also: Why Trump's West Point Speech Still Matters Years Later
For Murkowski, a "yes" vote on a judge isn't a rubber stamp for their politics; it’s an acknowledgement of their fitness for the job. She also mentioned that the court needs to look like the country. To her, having a well-qualified Black woman on the bench was a plus for the institution's legitimacy, provided the qualifications were there. They were.
Convicting Donald Trump: The January 6th Aftermath
This was the big one. On February 13, 2021, Murkowski was one of only seven Republicans who voted to convict Donald Trump of "incitement of insurrection" during his second impeachment trial.
This wasn't some spur-of-the-moment thing. If you watch the footage of her after the vote, she looks exhausted. Jaw set. Staring straight ahead. She later told reporters that she knew it might be political suicide, but she said, "I cannot allow my vote... to be devalued by whether or not I feel that this is helpful for my political ambitions."
The reason she voted yes was pretty simple in her mind: she believed the facts showed the violence at the Capitol wasn't spontaneous. She blamed Trump for setting the stage for months by claiming the election was rigged. To her, the President's "intentional silence" while the Capitol was under siege was a betrayal of his oath.
Alaska’s GOP was furious. They censured her. They demanded she resign. She didn't.
✨ Don't miss: Johnny Somali AI Deepfake: What Really Happened in South Korea
Breaking Down the Infrastructure "Yes"
While the impeachment was about morals and the Constitution, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was about cold, hard cash for the "Last Frontier."
Alaska is huge. It has a massive lack of basic roads, bridges, and high-speed internet in rural villages. Murkowski was one of the core "G10" group of senators who actually wrote the bill.
- The Money: Alaska stood to gain billions for ferries, clean water, and broadband.
- The Process: She loves a bipartisan "win" because it proves the Senate can still function.
- The Practicality: In Alaska, "Republican" often means "leave me alone," but it also means "we need the federal government to help us build a bridge so we don't die in the winter."
She saw this as a once-in-a-generation chance to fix her state’s crumbling foundations. When critics called it "Biden's bill," she pointed out that most of the stuff in it had been on Republican wish lists for years.
The Kavanaugh "No" vs. The Jackson "Yes"
People often get confused because they remember her being a "no" on Brett Kavanaugh. Technically, she voted "no" on the procedural motion to end debate and then "present" on the final confirmation.
The contrast is fascinating. With Kavanaugh, she cited his "temperament" and the "appearance of impropriety" following the sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford. Alaska has the highest rate of sexual assault in the country. Murkowski was flooded with thousands of letters from survivors in her home state.
🔗 Read more: Sweden School Shooting 2025: What Really Happened at Campus Risbergska
She wasn't necessarily saying he was guilty; she was saying the process had become so tainted that his presence on the court would hurt the judiciary's credibility.
Compare that to her "yes" on Ketanji Brown Jackson. There, the process was smoother, and the "temperament" issue wasn't there. It shows her consistency: she cares about how the public views the court's integrity.
Why She Can Get Away With It
Most senators who vote against their party this often get "primaried" and lose. Murkowski is different.
First off, she already lost a primary in 2010 to a TEA Party candidate and then won the general election anyway as a write-in candidate. People literally had to learn how to spell "Murkowski" on their ballots. That gave her a level of independence that 99% of politicians don't have.
Second, Alaska now uses Ranked Choice Voting. This is a huge deal. It means she doesn't have to pander to the far-right base to get through a primary. She can appeal to Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans all at once.
Actionable Insights for Following Murkowski's Future Votes
If you're trying to predict how she'll vote on upcoming 2026 legislation or judicial picks, stop looking at what Mitch McConnell is doing. Instead, look at these three things:
- Does it help Alaska's economy? If there is a "yes" vote that brings home federal grants for North Slope energy or rural healthcare, she's probably in.
- Does it respect the "Institutional Norms"? Murkowski hates when the Senate "shortcuts" the rules. If a bill is rushed or overly partisan, she might flip to a "no" just to spite the process.
- What is the impact on Alaska Natives? This is her most important constituency. If the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) is against a nominee or a bill, Murkowski almost always listens.
At the end of the day, Lisa Murkowski votes "yes" when she feels the move protects the dignity of the office or the survival of her state. It’s a brand of politics that feels like a throwback to an era where senators actually talked to each other. Whether you love her or hate her, you have to admit: she's one of the few people in D.C. who actually keeps everyone guessing.