Catherine Cortez Masto headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Nevada
Born
March 29, 1964
Age 62
Phone
(202) 224-3542
Office
309 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Nevada

Catherine Cortez Masto

Catherine Marie Cortez Masto is an American lawyer and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Nevada, a seat she has held since 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, Cortez Masto served as the 32nd attorney general of Nevada from 2007 to 2015.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 782
Yes34%
No63%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align91%
Cross-party9%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Catherine Cortez Masto headshot
Catherine Cortez Masto
U.S. SenatorDemocratNevada
SoupScore
Catherine's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 101 sponsored · 240 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

The tourism economy grew across the board in 2024, except for the United States. Instead, our workers have had to make do with fewer tips, reduced hours, or even losing their job entirely because the chaos and recklessness of the Trump Admin. has driven visitors elsewhere.
No racial profiling, no detaining U.S. citizens, real standards and accountability - none of this is unreasonable, it's what Americans are demanding. We've had plenty of time to work on these commonsense reforms, but we're not yet seeing good faith from the GOP or this White House.
Usually, families might use their tax refund to buy their kids new clothes, or even enjoy a well-earned vacation. This year, more and more Americans will have to use their refund to make up for the higher costs Trump's tariffs have imposed on all of us.
Holding ICE to the same standards as state and local law enforcement isn't unreasonable. Upholding our constitutional rights isn’t either. These aren't Democratic demands, they're commonsense reforms that Americans are insisting on across this country.
Donald Trump and his cronies are claiming that he's ended inflation. The truth is just the opposite. I hear from families in Nevada who are struggling with soaring costs, and they deserve leaders who will work to lower those costs.
No solo lo hemos visto en Nevada. En todo los EE.UU., trabajadores andan perdiendo no solo dinero, sino sus empleos también por el daño que Trump ha hecho a nuestra economía turística. Por eso he introducido una propuesta para invertir en esta industria y levantar a los trabajadores.
Donald Trump's incompetent tariff tax strategy has raised costs for American manufacturers, pushed up prices for our families, and potentially killed thousands of jobs. There's a smart way to use tariffs to protect key American industries. This isn't it.
Americans want federal law enforcement to hold criminals accountable. They want their Constitutional rights respected. And they want commonsense standards like the ones local police already follow.   These are reasonable reforms Republicans need to work with us to pass now.
Another continuing resolution is not a solution. Republicans need to be working with us now on the sensible reforms Americans are demanding to keep our communities safe and stop the abuses the Trump Admin. has engaged in across our country.
The list of reforms Democrats put forward are commonsense and reasonable policies that state and local law enforcement already follow across the country. And, it's what the American people are insisting on to protect our rights. It's up to Republicans now to come to the table.
When I push Trump and his cronies on what they're doing to lower costs, they point to No Tax on Tips. Now, I support No Tax on Tips. But what good does that do for hospitality workers if Trump's recklessness drives away tourists and they lose their jobs?
If you missed it yesterday - @democrats.senate.gov called up a bill to allow the Senate to sue for the release of the remaining Epstein Files. Republicans blocked it. Why are Senate Republicans standing in the way of truth and transparency?
Last year, my Epstein Files Transparency Act became law, requiring the Trump administration to release ALL of the Epstein files. They have continued to break the law by releasing ONLY A FRACTION of the files. (1/2)
I introduced a bipartisan bill today to help grow our tourism industry with our partners in Canada and Mexico. With all of the damage this President and his cronies have done to our economy, I will continue working to put Nevadans first.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
782 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-44)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (81-15)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (21-75)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (15-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (14-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (45-50)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (42-53)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (44-51)
2025-08-01Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114)YESYESMotion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-41)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-41)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-38)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 34 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (24-73)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 41 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (27-70)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-49)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (54-44)
2025-07-29End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-07-28Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-39)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-47)

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.

← PrevPage 7 / 16Next →