Anti-choice extremists have said for years that their goal was to make abortion access a “states’ rights” issue. But their actions show that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Nevada
Catherine Cortez Masto
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 885
Yes36%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align92%
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 · 118 sponsored · 268 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Donald Trump has been president for over a year and a half. His administration cut programs and fired staff that would have helped prevent the spread of New World screwworm.
Quit the blame game. It's time for the Trump Administration to do their jobs and protect our ranchers.
Read more about my Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act here:
www.cortezmasto.senate.gov/news/press-r...
Women aren’t second class citizens. But right now, a woman’s right to travel across state lines to access reproductive health care is under threat. I broke down what’s going on, and the legislation I’m introducing to protect our rights:
youtu.be/lQQVQRc09Xk
The result for Nevadans is fewer tourists, fewer tips, reduced hours, and ultimately lost jobs. This policy doesn’t do anything to keep America safe, and it should be withdrawn immediately.
www.gamblingnews.com/news/more-ha...
If a potential tourist hears they have to hand over 5 years of their online history to the Trump Admin. before they’re allowed to enter the country, they’re going to choose to go somewhere more welcoming.
In case you missed it, Scott Bessent tried to weasel his way out of accountability for the corrupt Trump settlement actions at the IRS by playing word games.
I’m fighting to protect abortion access, and I’m proud to have incredible advocates like @reproductivefreedomforall.org in this with us to defend our freedoms. Thank you all for advocacy.
This week, I heard real stories from Reproductive Freedom for All Nevada about the importance of access to life-saving reproductive health care. Across America, women are being denied timely medical care because of the chaos and confusion created by extreme abortion bans. We deserve better.
Instead, Republicans gave it to Trump with no accountability for the abuses we have seen this lawless administration commit in our communities.
Senate Republicans voted to hand Trump’s ICE and Border Patrol another $70 billion with no guardrails. Think about that.
We could have used that funding to lower health care costs or invest in local law enforcement, or fund food assistance for working families.
My amendment would have provided the funding to put over 200,000 police officers on our streets across the country with the training and standards to truly keep our communities safe.
Senate Republicans voted to block it.
Republicans already gave Trump’s ICE and CBP $150 billion last year. The result has been chaos and abuse in our communities.
I’m putting forward legislation right now to take the excess $31 billion Republicans want to add on top of ICE’s budget and use it to invest in local law enforcement instead.
Senate Republicans are leaving the door open to using taxpayer dollars to fund Trump’s ridiculous ballroom while Nevada families are struggling to make ends meet.
American citizens shouldn’t have to carry a passport just because the color of their skin or the language they speak. But that’s the reality that Senate Republicans are funding.
Republicans want to move ahead with $70 billion of ICE and Border Patrol funding today with no guardrails to protect against the detention of U.S. citizens like Dulce. That’s unacceptable to me.
Dulce Consuelo Diaz Morales is an American citizen who was born in the United States. She presented proof to the ICE agents who detained her, but they ignored her and held her for nearly a month.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History885 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
885 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-30 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Bill Defeated (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | S. 2806 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-43) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-19 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Decision of the Chair PN12-19 and PN25-28 and PN12-45 and PN22-1 and PN22-2 and PN22-5 and PN22-27 and PN22-20 and PN22-21 and PN26-8 and PN26-34 and PN26-35 and PN55-41 and PN22-4 and PN22-8 and PN22-19 and PN26-1 and PN22-23 and PN25-40 and PN26-7 and PN26-19 and PN26-31 and PN60-3 and PN26-44 and PN25-2 and PN55-16 and PN60-9 and PN60-10 and PN129-8 and PN26-45 and PN141-37 and PN141-7 and PN141-28 and PN12-22 and PN25-21 and PN22-3 and PN26-22 and PN13-5 and PN22-24 and PN25-33 and PN141-18 and PN150-5 and PN345-16 and PN55-42 and PN54-6 and PN54-7 and PN55-45 and PN55-25 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Motion to Reconsider PN55-25 and PN55-45 and PN54-7 and PN54-6 and PN55-42 and PN345-16 and PN150-5 and PN141-18 and PN25-33 and PN22-24 and PN13-5 and PN26-22 and PN22-3 and PN25-21 and PN12-22 and PN141-28 and PN141-7 and PN141-37 and PN26-45 and PN129-8 and PN60-10 and PN60-9 and PN55-16 and PN25-2 and PN26-44 and PN60-3 and PN26-31 and PN26-19 and PN26-7 and PN25-40 and PN22-23 and PN26-1 and PN22-19 and PN22-8 and PN22-4 and PN55-41 and PN26-35 and PN26-34 and PN26-8 and PN22-21 and PN22-20 and PN22-27 and PN22-5 and PN22-2 and PN22-1 and PN12-45 and PN12-19 and PN25-28 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-16 | S. Con. Res. 22 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (36-62) |
| 2025-09-16 | S.J. Res. 60 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2025-09-15 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-10 | S. 2296 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-09-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-43) |
| 2025-09-04 | S. 2296 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-02 | S. 2296 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-23) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | — | — | Nomination Confirmed (72-22) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-35) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-42) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (78-17) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-19) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
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.