Martin Heinrich headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from New Mexico
Born
October 17, 1971
Age 54
Phone
(202) 224-5521
Office
709 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New Mexico

Martin Heinrich

Martin Trevor Heinrich is an American politician serving as the senior United States senator from New Mexico, a seat he has held since 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, Heinrich served as the U.S. representative from New Mexico's 1st congressional district from 2009 to 2013. He and fellow senator Ben Ray Luján are the co-deans of New Mexico's congressional delegation.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 772
Yes32%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align93%
Cross-party6%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Martin Heinrich headshot
Martin Heinrich
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew Mexico
SoupScore
Martin's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 42 sponsored · 241 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

In New Mexico, we love our green chile dip, and kids love their half-pint milk cartons. Even more, we appreciate the workers that produce them. They deserve respect and a fair contract. I will always stand with unions in demanding fair pay, good benefits, and safe working conditions.
24 years ago, our country was changed forever. I’ll never forget those we lost and the brave first responders who risked everything. Today, federal staffing cuts are forcing first responders to once again fight for the health care they deserve. Let's fix this now.
There can be no place for political violence in our country. None. Political violence is absolutely and always wrong, no matter who it is against, what their views are, or if you disagree with them. My thoughts are with Charlie Kirk's family.
Nowhere in the United States of America should anyone be detained for the way they look or how they speak. My statement on the SCOTUS decision to allow ICE and Border Patrol to racially profile Hispanics.
White text on dark blue background reads: When you look back in history, there is a distinct and dangerous turning point in authoritarian regimes when the courts are either disbanded or become complicit. Yesterday, President Trump’s handpicked Supreme Court majority became complicit.  

President Trump, Congressional Republicans, and now the radical majority of the Supreme Court believe it’s okay to stop and detain anyone – including Americans – because of how they look, speak, or where they are. This is morally wrong and un-American. 

Nowhere in the United States of America should anyone be detained for the way they look or how they speak. It doesn’t matter what job they work or where they are in their hometown. 

I agree with Justice Sotomayor: “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” And yet, that is exactly what President Trump, Congressional Republicans, and now the radical majority of the Supreme Court are condoning and encouraging. 

I will fight like hell to protect the freedoms I know New Mexicans deserve.
Secretary Kennedy is an anti-vaccine, anti-science snake oil salesman who is actively putting the health of New Mexicans like Lance in danger. He never should have been nominated or confirmed for his position, and he needs to resign now, before he does even more harm.
The Roadless Rule protects some of New Mexico’s last truly wild public lands. These are the places where you chase elk, fish for Rio Grande cutthroat trout, or call in a coveted Gould’s turkey. Repealing the Roadless Rule is an attack on our hunting and fishing heritage.
After Uvalde, we passed the first gun safety law in 30 years. Now, as Trump works to undo it, another community is reeling from gun violence. My heart is with the students, teachers, and staff at Annunciation Catholic School and all of Minneapolis as they grieve this tragedy.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
772 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
2026-03-23Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2026-03-22End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-37)
2026-03-21S. 1383 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Rejected (41-49, 3/5 majority required)
2026-03-21S. 1383 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (49-41, 3/5 majority required)
2026-03-20H.R. 7147 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (47-37, 3/5 majority required)
2026-03-18S.J. Res. 118 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 118YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (47-53)
2026-03-17S. 1383 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-48)
2026-03-17Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2026-03-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (48-45)
2026-03-12H.R. 7147 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required)
2026-03-12H.R. 6644 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (89-10)
2026-03-11H.R. 6644 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (82-11, 3/5 majority required)
2026-03-11H.R. 6644 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (84-10)
2026-03-10H.R. 6644 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (89-9, 3/5 majority required)
2026-03-10Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (71-29)
2026-03-09End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (68-28)
2026-03-05H.R. 7147 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required)
2026-03-04S.J. Res. 104 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 104YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (47-53)
2026-03-04H.R. 6644 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8)
2026-03-02H.R. 6644 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (84-6, 3/5 majority required)
2026-02-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (57-33)
2026-02-26End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-34)
2026-02-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)
2026-02-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2026-02-24H.R. 7147 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-45, 3/5 majority required)
2026-02-12H.R. 7147 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2026-02-12H.J. Res. 142 (119th)Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 142NONOJoint Resolution Passed (49-47)
2026-02-11H.J. Res. 142 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2026-02-10S.J. Res. 95 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-51)
2026-02-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2026-02-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2026-02-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2026-02-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2026-02-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-46)
2026-02-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-47)
2026-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2026-02-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2026-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (58-39)
2026-02-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-39)
2026-02-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2026-02-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-44)
2026-02-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-40)
2026-02-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-40)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (71-29, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-30Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 4287)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (58-42)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (58-42)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (67-33)
2026-01-30H.R. 7148 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (32-67)

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 2 / 16Next →