Without Medicaid, Pam from Reno wouldn't be able to provide her son with the care he needs. It's shameful that Republicans want to move ahead with Medicaid cuts that could put Carson's coverage at risk.
Thank you Pam for speaking out and being in this fight to protect Medicaid.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Nevada
Catherine Cortez Masto
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 830
Yes36%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align91%
Cross-party8%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Catherine Cortez Masto
U.S. SenatorDemocratNevada
SoupScore
Catherine's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 104 sponsored · 248 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Republicans' tax scam bill is a bad deal for America, and they should withdraw it completely and start from scratch on a bipartisan basis to deliver real relief for working families.
But they won't - so I'll keep working to stand up for Nevadans. (6/6)
And, I'm introducing an amendment to prevent any part of this bill from raising out of pocket costs on seniors' Medicare or prescription drugs. (5/6)
Third, I'm introducing an amendment to prevent millions of school children from losing access to school meals due to the Republican tax scam bill.
No child should go hungry at school so Senate Republicans can send trillions of dollars to the ultra-wealthy. (4/6)
Second, I'm introducing amendments to hold fraudsters accountable.
People like Billy Long pushed fake "Tribal tax credits" and encouraged individuals to claim tax benefits they weren't eligible to receive, and they should be liable for the harm they caused to taxpayers. (3/6)
First, I'm introducing an amendment to make No Tax on Tips permanent.
Senate Republicans' bill ends no tax on tips after just 3 years, but makes billionaire tax cuts permanent. Our workers deserve better. (2/6)
At this very moment, Senate Republicans are advancing their bill that will kick millions of Americans off their health care while giving billionaires a tax break.
So I'm introducing amendments to lower taxes for workers, hold criminals accountable, and protect Nevadans. (1/6)
I've heard from countless Nevadans like Jacqui about the harm our communities face from Republicans' tax scam bill. This is legislation is cruel and shameful, and we all need to stand up to oppose it.
Medicaid has made it possible for Kailin, a Nevadan with Down Syndrome, to live independently and work.
But if Republicans move ahead with their plan to cut $930 billion from Medicaid, it could put the coverage she relies on at risk. It's cruel, and it's shameful.
Republicans' tax scam bill would tax new energy projects across the country, driving up Nevadans' power bills at a time when families are already struggling.
We should be working together to lower costs, not jacking them up for workers while cutting billionaires' taxes.
Let's be clear about what Senate Republicans' bill would actually do:
If you're a billionaire, you get hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax breaks.
If you're a waiter, or a teacher, you'll be worse off after they cut Medicaid and school lunches for your kids.
Last night, Republican Senator Thom Tillis told the truth about Senate Republicans' Medicaid cuts.
This bill will betray the promise Donald Trump made to "cherish Medicaid," it will hurt working Americans across the country, and it should not become law.
In Nevada, we know how important it is to manage our public lands responsibly. I spoke to Jocelyn Torres, a Nevadan with @conservationlands.bsky.social, about how we manage our lands, and the potential impacts of irresponsible Republican proposals to sell them off for billionaire tax breaks.
Planned Parenthood helps Nevadans access essential health care for everything from birth control to postpartum care to STI treatment. I'm strongly opposed to this Supreme Court decision that will enable extremist Republicans to block Americans' access to the care they need.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, anti-choice extremists have pushed restrictions on the right to choose at every level of government.
Make no mistake: they want to restrict abortion even in states like Nevada that voted to protect it, and we have to stand up and fight back.
Immigrant families with Temporary Protected Status have fled horrific violence and persecution. They deserve safety and peace of mind.
That's why I'm working on legislation to build a pathway to permanent residency and help hardworking families reach for the American Dream.
Three years ago to the day, Trump's Supreme Court Justices overturned decades of protections for abortion rights.
Now, this admin. is going after abortion access across the country, including in states where it is legal, and we have to keep fighting to defend women's freedoms.
Working families don't want to lose their health care so Senate Republicans can give out tax breaks to billionaires, and they're not going to "get over it."
I want Senate Republicans and President Trump to answer a simple question:
Why should police officers and firefighters have to pay more for their health care and their kids' school lunches so that billionaires can get a tax cut?
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History830 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
830 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (5-94) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 26 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-83) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 33 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-82) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (53-42) |
| 2025-04-02 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-04-02 | S.J. Res. 37 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-03-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-03-27 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-03-26 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (74-25) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (73-25) |
| 2025-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (60-31) |
| 2025-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (62-30) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (63-32) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (64-33) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (54-46) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (27-73) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
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.