I agree with AG Torrez: Time is running out.
The U.S. Department of the Interior's "solution" that would require the City of Las Cruces to cut it's groundwater use by 93% is NOT a solution.
sourcenm.com/2024/12/10/m...
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|New Mexico
Martin Heinrich
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes34%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align93%
Cross-party6%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Martin Heinrich
U.S. SenatorDemocratNew Mexico
SoupScore
Martin's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 55 sponsored · 281 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Today, my legislation to help Good Samaritans clean up long-abandoned hardrock mines faces its final hurdle before it goes to the President's desk.
I urge all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to vote YES on this bipartisan, commonsense bill.
Climate action is WAY cheaper than climate inaction. Democrats have made solid progress, but more is needed. And the longer we delay, the more expensive and catastrophic the consequences will be for future generations.
If the Department of the Interior gets its way, Las Cruces won’t have the water it needs to function, and neither will Ag producers.
We need the Biden administration to step in to resolve the TX v. NM case without catastrophic damage.
www.abqjournal.com/news/article...
These guys literally want to take us back in time. Apparently making your neighborhood breathe dirty air is “great”, but American manufacturing jobs making EVs are “woke.”
www.reuters.com/business/aut...
Our Capitol has survived civil war, depression, and insurrection. Don’t underestimate its resilience.
Apprenticeships are good for workers, businesses, and local economies.
That's why I led bipartisan legislation to support apprentice and pre-apprentice programs like Sophia’s at SMART Local 49.
Republicans' plan: Raise prices on YOUR everyday costs. Cut taxes for THEIR wealthy donors.
The kids at Lincoln Elementary in Gallup, NM show up every day bright eyed and ready to learn – just like the students at all the 767 Title I schools in our state.
Republicans’ Department of Education plans to slash funding for these schools slam a door in our kids’ faces.
The only thing that New Mexicans battling chronic kidney disease should have to worry about is getting better. That’s why I’ve introduced legislation to protect those with kidney failure from being kicked off of their health care when they need it most.
www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_v...
Casting politics in terms of good and evil is dangerous and destructive. The "federal government" is your Social Security, it's your uncle's VA cancer treatment, it's the national park where your kids spent their vacation. We're better than this, America.
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eene...
Republicans’ economic plan:
1. Use tariffs to hike up prices on food, appliances, and other everyday goods.
2. Give tax handouts to the super rich.
3. Cut health care and nutrition programs Americans rely on.
Sounds great for their wealthy donors... & terrible for working families.
Great to meet with folks from Protect Our Winters to highlight the progress we've made to protect our precious public lands and discuss the work ahead to tackle climate change and deliver a brighter future for the next generation.
CONFIRMED! Sarah Davenport has built an impressive legal career in New Mexico and has strong roots in her home community of Las Cruces.
Proud to have secured her confirmation and look forward to her taking the bench in the District of New Mexico.
I’m more of an Apple Music guy myself, but if I had a Spotify, my 2024 Wrapped might look something like this.
Tariffs won’t “bring back” American manufacturing—the investments Democrats have made in the last few years are already doing that. These tariffs are no more than a tax on hardworking families.
www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-t...
New Mexicans rely on USPS to receive everything from paychecks to prescription medicine.
I’m cosponsoring legislation that would require USPS to think twice before closing or downsizing rural mail processing facilities.
Clean energy is soaring, bringing high quality careers and a stronger economy with it.
When we invest in cleaner, more reliable energy alternatives, working families benefit. So do their pocketbooks.
www.canarymedia.com/articles/can...
Even Trump can't stop the energy transition.
www.canarymedia.com/articles/sol...
If you’re wondering who will pay for Trump’s impending tariffs, the answer is not China, it’s YOU — Higher prices for consumer goods, most of which cannot be sourced domestically.
www.abqjournal.com/business/art...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (5-94) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 26 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 | YES | NO | ✕ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-83) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 33 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33 | YES | NO | ✕ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-82) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (53-42) |
| 2025-04-02 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-04-02 | S.J. Res. 37 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-03-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-03-27 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-03-26 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
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.