Cindy Hyde-Smith headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Mississippi
Born
May 10, 1959
Age 67
Phone
(202) 224-5054
Office
528 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Republican|Mississippi

Cindy Hyde-Smith

Cindy Hyde-Smith is an American politician and lobbyist serving since 2018 as the junior United States senator from Mississippi. A member of the Republican Party, she served from 2012 to 2018 as the Mississippi Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce and from 2000 to 2012 in the Mississippi State Senate.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 840
Yes72%
No26%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align99%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Cindy Hyde-Smith headshot
Cindy Hyde-Smith
U.S. SenatorRepublicanMississippi
SoupScore
Cindy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 39 sponsored · 189 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Two weeks ago, my friend and Minnesota Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were taken from us in an awful act of political violence. Today, the United States Senate unanimously supported a resolution honoring Melissa and Mark’s life and work.
So the people that Republicans deem worthy enough to keep their health insurance at all are now also going to be told by the government where they can and can’t go to get birth control and pap smears and cancer screenings? Got it. Gross.
Breaking: WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court sides with South Carolina in ruling allowing states to cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood.
Reposted byTina Smith
Oh so Senate Republicans ADMIT that the Big Beautiful Bill cuts Medicaid. Their bill effectively defunds rural hospitals. Some simple math: $15 billion does not plug a nearly $1 trillion hole. It doesn't add up! This is a self-inflicted wound and this band-aid won't heal it.
Despicable. Thousands of people rely on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings and pap smears, STI testing, and so many more essential services. Women should not be penalized for needing reproductive health care.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court allows states to cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood.
They’re citing a think tank that’s actively gutting child labor laws… I’ll stick to trusting the CBO (which clearly states the big, beautiful bill is a giant pile of bullshit)
It’s free to cite the CBO—which has been dead wrong on every major prediction this century—but Senator Smith’s vote against our bill will cost the average MN family $2,360 per year in additional taxes.
thefga.org/research/scori…
They won’t cut spending for things like Trump’s flights to his golf courses and resorts every weekend, but they’ll trip over themselves to cut spending on things poor people rely on like Medicaid and food stamps.
The news cycle is terrible because I read some horrific headline about what’s going on in the world, and then remember that while that’s happening, Republicans are ALSO taking health care and food stamps away from millions of Americans who need it.
Reposted byTina Smith
You know things are bad when House Republicans — who voted to cut Medicaid by $800B — are worried about Medicaid cuts in the Senate GOP's bill. But make no mistake: both the House and Senate bills kick millions off their health care. We're fighting them with everything we've got.
New: 16 House Republicans write a letter rebelling against the Senate bill’s Medicaid spending cuts, which are more aggressive than the House bill. Concerns include provider taxes, state payments, harm to hospitals and “cuts to emergency Medicaid funding.” Led by Rep. David Valadao:
Reposted byTina Smith
This is oligarchy. This is obscene. While 60% live paycheck to paycheck & kids go hungry, Jeff Bezos, worth $230 billion, goes to Venice on his $500 million yacht for a $20 million wedding & spends $5 million on a ring while his real tax rate is just 1.1%. End this oligarchy.
Jamming this bill through while claiming you’re a ‘fiscal conservative’ is Olympic-level mental gymnastics that I honestly thought most Senators were too old to be capable of.
@IgorBobic: "On a current law basis, we estimate the Senate-proposed tax cuts would increase deficits by $4.2 trillion – nearly $500 billion above the House’s equivalent proposals. That figure would rise to $4.8 trillion if temporary tax cuts in the bill were ultimately made permanent."
Giving the biggest corporations giant tax breaks, paid for by kicking Americans off their health insurance and taking their food assistance, will not make us great. Those tax savings aren’t going to trickle down to workers. They’re going to pay for stock buybacks.
Republicans overturned Roe v. Wade 3 years ago and it's been chaos ever since. Women should not have to plead to get the medical care they need, and they should not be denied life-saving care just because a guy in a suit thinks it's wrong. Abortion bans kill women.
Lots going on in the world right now but please don’t forget they’re going to try and jam one of the largest transfers of wealth from working families to the richest corporations through the Senate this week.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
840 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
2025-02-06Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-06Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-02-05End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-05Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (55-44)
2025-02-04End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (55-45)
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (54-46)
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (77-23)
2025-02-03End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-03Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGYESNomination Confirmed (59-38)
2025-02-03Begin considerationNOT_VOTINGYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-01-30End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (83-13)
2025-01-30End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (62-35)
2025-01-30Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (80-17)
2025-01-29End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (78-20)
2025-01-29Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (56-42)
2025-01-29End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (56-42)
2025-01-28H.R. 23 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-28Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (77-22)
2025-01-27End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (97-0)
2025-01-27Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (68-29)
2025-01-25End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (67-23)
2025-01-25Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (59-34)
2025-01-24End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (61-39)
2025-01-24Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-01-23End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (51-49)
2025-01-23Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (74-25)
2025-01-23End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (72-26)
2025-01-22S. 6 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-21Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-01-21Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46)
2025-01-20Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (99-0)
2025-01-20S. 5 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (64-35)
2025-01-20S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (75-24)
2025-01-17S. 5 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-15S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (46-49)
2025-01-15S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Agreed to (70-25)
2025-01-13S. 5 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10)
2025-01-09S. 5 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-9, 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.

← PrevPage 17 / 17