Catherine Cortez Masto headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Nevada
Born
March 29, 1964
Age 62
Phone
(202) 224-3542
Office
309 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Nevada

Catherine Cortez Masto

Catherine Marie Cortez Masto is an American lawyer and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Nevada, a seat she has held since 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, Cortez Masto served as the 32nd attorney general of Nevada from 2007 to 2015.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 776
Yes34%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align91%
Cross-party9%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Catherine Cortez Masto headshot
Catherine Cortez Masto
U.S. SenatorDemocratNevada
SoupScore
Catherine's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 100 sponsored · 238 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

As Nevada's Attorney General, I went after scammers targeting Nevada seniors. Over the years, their tactics have changed - and today one of the most common strategies is the "romance scam." All of us should know the signs to protect our loved ones from fraud. (1/4) consumer.ftc.gov/articles/wha...
The agreement we secured today also keeps essential agencies like TSA and FEMA operating so we can focus on the reforms that Nevadans are demanding. Public safety is a responsibility, and we need to be working together to deliver for America. (3/3)
That's good news, but we still have work to do. Republicans must now meet our demands for Constitutional protections, real accountability, and public safety standards. And if they don't work with us in the next two weeks, I will not support the DHS funding bill. (2/3)
Here's what's going on in the Senate: Yesterday, Senate Democrats killed a bill that would have fully funded DHS with no guardrails or reforms. We did this to protect Americans and law-abiding immigrants from the horrific abuses the Trump Admin. has enabled across America. (1/3)
When the Trump Admin. decided on a whim to cancel and delay countless American energy projects, they weren't just hiking up costs on our families and businesses, they were killing jobs workers were counting on to make ends meet.
Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, Donald Trump - they've enabled horrible abuses of U.S. citizens and law-abiding immigrants across the country. We need accountability, protections for our Constitutional rights, and standards to keep the public safe.
As a former Attorney General, I know what it takes to fight crime in a way that builds community trust and respects Americans' rights. Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller's tactics are the exact opposite. Nevadans deserve better than the chaos this Administration has unleashed.
A law enforcement recruit in Maine had a valid work permit and already passed a rigorous background check for the opportunity to serve his community, but the Trump Admin. detained him anyway. They're doing this instead of going after violent criminals like Trump promised to do.
Eighty-one years ago, the Auschwitz concentration camp was finally liberated. Today, we mark that solemn anniversary by remembering the six million Jewish people, and millions of others, who were murdered by the Nazi regime in the Holocaust.
No parent should be afraid to take their child to the hospital in an emergency. The Trump Admin.'s cruel tactics aren't keeping us safe, they're putting more lives at risk. This is exactly why I've led the fight to protect sensitive locations like hospitals, churches, and schools.
The White House has had months to answer a simple question: what are they doing to fix the tourism declines Trump's reckless policies have caused? Nevadans are losing their livelihoods because of the Trump Admin.'s economic mismanagement, and they don't have answers. But I won’t stop demanding them.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
776 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (58-42)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (58-42)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (67-33)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (32-67)
2026-01-29H.R. 7148 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-55, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-27S. 3627 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-45, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-15H.R. 6938 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (82-15)
2026-01-15H.R. 6938 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (85-14, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-14S.J. Res. 98 (119th)Point of Order S.J.Res. 98NONOPoint of Order Well Taken (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2026-01-13S.J. Res. 84 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-52)
2026-01-12H.R. 6938 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (80-13, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-40)
2026-01-08S.J. Res. 98 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 98YESYESMotion to Discharge Agreed to (52-47)
2026-01-07S.J. Res. 86 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (43-50)
2026-01-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-48)
2026-01-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2026-01-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-35)
2025-12-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-42)
2025-12-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-35)
2025-12-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (58-36)
2025-12-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-12-18S. Res. 532 (119th)Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-43)
2025-12-18S.J. Res. 82 (119th)Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 82YESYESJoint Resolution Defeated (50-50)
2025-12-17S. Res. 412 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-12-17Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (71-29)
2025-12-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (69-27)
2025-12-17Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (67-30)
2025-12-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-30)
2025-12-17S. 1071 (119th)Accept House changesYESYESMotion Agreed to (77-20)
2025-12-15S. 1071 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (76-20, 3/5 majority required)
2025-12-11S. 1071 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (75-22)
2025-12-11S. Res. 532 (119th)Resolution S.Res. 532NONOResolution Agreed to (52-47)
2025-12-11S. 3385 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-12-11S. 3386 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-12-10S. Res. 532 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-12-10S.J. Res. 82 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-49)
2025-12-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-12-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-46)
2025-12-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-12-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-12-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-12-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-12-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (57-32)
2025-12-04S. Res. 520 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (43-37, 3/5 majority required)
2025-12-04H.J. Res. 131 (119th)Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 131NONOJoint Resolution Passed (49-45)
2025-12-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (63-34)
2025-12-03S.J. Res. 91 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (49-47)
2025-12-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (57-41)
2025-12-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-40)
2025-12-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-39)

Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.

← PrevPage 3 / 16Next →