Dem Senate hopeful ripped as ‘absentee legislator’ after missing nearly 60% of votes
Republican Iowa Senate nominee Ashley Hinson has criticised her Democratic rival, state Rep. Josh Turek, for a poor voting attendance record in the Iowa legislature, calling him an "absentee legislator". The attack comes as Turek is regarded as a key candidate for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's efforts to help Democrats regain control of the US Senate, making his conduct a point of scrutiny in a closely watched race.
A report found that Turek missed 58% of House votes during the 2026 legislative session, while he received more than $20,000 in taxpayer-funded per diem payments over the same period. Hinson has seized on the figures to question Turek's fitness for higher office, framing the missed votes alongside the payments as evidence of poor representation of his constituents.
- Ashley Hinson attacks Democratic rival Josh Turek over missing 58% of votes
- Turek also collected over $20,000 in taxpayer-funded per diem payments
- Turek is a Schumer-backed contender in a key Iowa Senate race
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Hinson's supporters would argue that voters have a straightforward right to expect elected representatives to show up and cast votes on the legislation they are entrusted to consider, and that missing 58% of votes is a serious lapse regardless of the reason behind it. They would say that drawing over $20,000 in taxpayer-funded per diem payments during a period of such low attendance raises fair and reasonable questions about value for public money and accountability. From this view, a candidate seeking the added responsibilities of a US Senate seat should be judged squarely on their demonstrated record of showing up and doing the job in their current one.
The case against
Turek's defenders would argue that state legislatures are often part-time bodies in which members juggle outside jobs, caregiving, health considerations or other legitimate obligations, and that a single attendance statistic can flatten a more complicated reality without context. They would note that per diems are typically fixed statutory allowances tied to session days rather than payments contingent on each individual vote, so citing the two figures together can imply a connection that isn't necessarily there. They would further argue that a legislator's value cannot be measured by floor votes alone, since constituent casework, committee input and policy advocacy also matter, and that such attacks are a predictable feature of a competitive, closely watched Senate race rather than a definitive verdict on his fitness for office.