I’m not going to let them take away health care from millions of people without a fight.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Republican|Mississippi
Cindy Hyde-Smith
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 784
Yes74%
No24%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align99%
Cross-party1%
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 · 38 sponsored · 183 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
They're cutting food assistance that disproportionately helps their own constituents... who are working but don't make enough money to feed their families... at a time when food shelf visits are at an all-time high.
I'm running out of synonyms for cruel.
Reposted byTina Smith
We're excited to announce that #FarmAid40 will take place on Saturday, Sept. 20, in Minneapolis, Minnesota! We hope that you'll join us at Huntington Bank Stadium for a full day of music, family farmers, HOMEGROWN food and our very special HOMEGROWN Village.
Get all the info at farmaid.org/festival
Kicking moms and babies off of their health insurance (during Women’s Health Week, no less) is a low blow.
Re-submitted without additional comment.
Thank you to the first responders who are working around the clock to fight the wildfires and keep our communities safe in Minnesota. I’m closely monitoring the situation and hoping everyone stays safe.
Kids should make do with fewer toys (especially dolls) because of the tariffs, but Trump gets a shiny, $400M new toy from the Qatari government?
You don't deserve heating assistance to stay warm in the winter but he definitely deserves a $400M flying palace from the Qatari government.
Can't wait to hear the political spin they're going to put on kicking 13 million people off their health insurance. To think this is their "moderate" proposal would be laughable if it wasn't so harmful.
Reposted byTina Smith
Make no mistake: Congressional Republicans are intent on kicking hardworking Americans off their health insurance so their billionaire friends can pay less in taxes.
These contracts are often designed to fail and have left Minnesotans financially ruined with no help.
Late Friday, the CFPB quietly gutted the protections I fought to put in place for families exploited by predatory contracts for deed.
Vought called it a “compliance burden” — I’d like to know how letting unscrupulous sellers exploit people just trying to buy their own home is a “compliance burden.”
Putting a FedEx executive in charge of its competitor, the Postal Service, is exactly the kind of corrupt move we’ve come to expect from this Administration.
I was glad DeJoy left, but this guy seems hand-picked to gut USPS.
Not this mine. Not this place.
Reposted byTina Smith
When Trump took office, there was a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, hostages were being released, and aid was getting into Gaza. Now, none of that is true. The blockage of aid is causing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Israel is readying a long-term occupation of the Strip.
Reposted byTina Smith
This is a great illustration of why wholly unqualified extremists shouldn't be running essential government agencies.
@acyn.bsky.social
Can’t imagine if I went up to Duluth and said a slow port is a good thing.
A joyous day for Catholics across the globe, but especially those here in the United States who are seeing the first American Pope. I’m hopeful that Pope Leo XIV can continue the legacy of Pope Francis by encouraging selflessness, humility and service to the world’s poorest and most marginalized.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History784 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
784 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-18 | 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) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
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.
Page 1 / 16Next →