Reposted byTina Smith
Why does the President want to disenfranchise millions of Americans?
Why is he so afraid that people will make their voices heard?
It's because he is losing.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Republican|Mississippi
Cindy Hyde-Smith
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 903
Yes73%
No25%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align99%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Cindy Hyde-Smith
U.S. SenatorRepublicanMississippi
SoupScore
Cindy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 43 sponsored · 207 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reposted byTina Smith
Trump knows we won’t let him pass his SAVE Act. Now, he’s throwing everything at the wall to strip Americans of our fundamental right to vote.
(1/2)
www.reuters.com/world/us/tru...
They already cut nearly $1 trillion.
They’re so opposed to any accountability for ICE that they’d rather take away your health care than negotiate on basic ICE reforms.
Reposted byTina Smith
Scenes from #NoKings in St. Paul
📷️: Elizabeth Flores, Jerry Holt, Renee Jones Schneider
Reposted byTina Smith
Americans: We just want health care
Republicans: How about another Middle East war?
Reposted byTina Smith
We live in the wealthiest country in the world. There’s no reason 2 in 5 adults should be burdened with medical debt.
Every American deserves health care that is affordable, accessible, and universal.
We agreed to fund all of DHS except for ICE and CBP until we get meaningful reforms.
Mike Johnson didn’t even put it up for a vote.
New farmers face big challenges when trying to start and grow their businesses, like land access, consolidation and high input prices.
This back and forth about whether or not prospective farmers get help makes that even harder.
The average age of a producer in the United States is 58. If we want our country’s agriculture production to continue to work, we have to support new and emerging farmers. Otherwise, big corporate Ag entities are happy to continue gobbling up small and independent farms as more farmers retire.
Lots of farmers in red states just got screwed, but will any of their Senators say anything?
Reposted byTina Smith
This is what desperation looks like.
President Trump wants Republicans to BLOCK funding for TSA until Congress passes his voter suppression bill.
He is terrified that the American people have turned against his failed agenda.
Reposted byTina Smith
The "SAVE America Act" isn't a voter ID bill — it's a voter suppression bill.
Tens of millions of Americans would be blocked from voting.
It needs to be stopped.
Archie and I are deeply saddened by the loss of Jessi Pierce and her three children. Jessi was an institution in Minnesota sports journalism beloved by so many hockey fans.
My heart goes out to her family and friends during this time.
A third of Americans with health insurance had to cut back on food and utilities last year to pay for it. They say we can't afford universal health care, but we can afford a billion dollars a day on war in the Middle East?
America first, indeed.
A tragic loss and very sad day.
Master Sergeant Nicole Amor’s memorial service was a beautiful yet somber tribute to a dearly loved mother, wife, daughter, friend and soldier. It was an honor to be there today.
She served our country with distinction and is gone too soon. Her memory will live on in all those who loved her.
Eid Mubarak, Minnesota!
$200B would’ve covered 6 years worth of ACA tax credits (yes, the same health care funding they shot down as too expensive)
They’d rather spend money on yet another unjustified war in the Middle East than health care for our own citizens.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History903 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
903 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Graham Amdt. No. 5779) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 5556) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hassan Amdt. No. 5535) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Ossoff Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 5514) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 5512) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tillis Amdt. No. 5452) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (15-84) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Schumer motion to commit S.2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-06-03 | S. 2 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2026-06-03 | S.J. Res. 188 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-06-01 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-05-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 185 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Nomination Confirmed (52-38) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-38) |
| 2026-05-18 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-43) |
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | YES | YES | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 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.