Senator Mullin has no relevant experience, and I’m concerned he’ll be a rubber stamp to Pres. Trump and Stephen Miller and run a DHS that is not fundamentally different from Secretary Noem’s. Americans cannot afford more of the same abuses of power. I will not support Senator Mullin’s confirmation.
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 — 772
Yes34%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align91%
Cross-party9%
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 · 100 sponsored · 238 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Secretary Kristi Noem’s tenure at the Department of Homeland Security was disastrous because the Trump Administration’s immigration policies are ripping apart families and violating Americans’ constitutional rights, without making us any safer.
DACA recipients are following the rules, they're working, and they're paying taxes.
They shouldn't be at risk of losing their jobs because the Trump Admin. is creating months-long delays to renew their DACA status.
Under the Trump Administration, an election worker that makes a mistake while registering a U.S. citizen to vote would face harsher penalties than convicted fraudsters who stole millions from seniors and families.
Here's the truth: A Nevada REAL ID *would not qualify on its own* to register to vote if the Republicans' SAVE America Act became law.
This bill is not about voter ID, it's about voter suppression because Trump and his allies know Americans are fed up with their failed policies.
The CFTC is looking the other way while prediction market companies tied to Trump's family profit by trampling on state and Tribal law.
Chair Selig should keep in mind that ultimately this corruption will come to light and he will have to answer to Congress - potentially sooner than he thinks.
That may be Trump and Stephen Miller’s goal, but it is not who we are as Americans. Juan Chavez Velasco should be home, and Dreamers should have the pathway to citizenship they deserve.
Detaining people like Juan won’t make America any safer. But it does hurt his family and create fear and uncertainty in communities like his who are contributing every day to this country.
Dreamers like Juan deserve to have peace of mind and the freedom to build their lives safely in the country they call home. Instead, this Administration is targeting them to fulfill their mass deportation quotas.
Juan isn't a criminal. He's not the worst of the worst. He's a DACA recipient who grew up in America, went to school, and is now a medical lab scientist giving back to his community in Texas.
www.ms.now/news/ice-det...
Juan Sebastian Chavez Velasco's nine month old daughter is in the hospital, but he can't be with her because he's been detained by Trump's ICE.
I just heard from a Nevadan who told me that because of the SAVE America Act, she plans to spend over $165 to apply for a passport just to be able to vote.
Call your Senators and tell them to reject this voter suppression legislation: (202) 224-3121
Glad to meet with members of the Parliament of Canada this afternoon to discuss the partnership between our countries that makes us strong. From trade to travel and tourism, Canada is a key partner for Nevada’s economy and communities in every corner of our state. Thank you for being here.
These children were victims of abuse and neglect and came to America for safety. They received special immigration protections to keep them from being abused again.
But the Trump Admin. is ignoring those protections and sending children back into harm's way.
Children are being traumatized because of the color of their skin. Even when they don't have family members who are undocumented, they feel fear because of what's happening to their peers who look like them.
Trump's cruel and indiscriminate tactics have no place in this country.
That's not a hypothetical, it's what's happening right now as this Administration creates ridiculous, months-long delays to process DACA renewals.
I'm pushing the Department of Homeland Security to cut down the processing time and deliver the peace of mind Dreamers deserve.
Picture this: you're a Nevadan with DACA. You're working, you're following the law, and you file on time for your renewal.
But the Trump Admin. delays your renewal past the expiration date. Now, you've lost your work permit, possibly even your job. And if you have a family, that impacts everyone.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-29 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-55, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-27 | S. 3627 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (82-15) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (85-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-14 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 98 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2026-01-13 | S.J. Res. 84 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-01-12 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (80-13, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-40) |
| 2026-01-08 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 98 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-01-07 | S.J. Res. 86 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (43-50) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-01-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-42) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-36) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S.J. Res. 82 (119th) | Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 82 | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (50-50) |
| 2025-12-17 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (69-27) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-12-17 | S. 1071 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (77-20) |
| 2025-12-15 | S. 1071 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-20, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 1071 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (75-22) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | Resolution S.Res. 532 | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 3385 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 3386 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-10 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-12-10 | S.J. Res. 82 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-49) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-12-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-32) |
| 2025-12-04 | S. Res. 520 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (43-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-04 | H.J. Res. 131 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 131 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-45) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (63-34) |
| 2025-12-03 | S.J. Res. 91 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-41) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-40) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (60-39) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-36) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-12-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-41) |
| 2025-11-20 | H.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 130 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-43) |
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.