To any colleagues who don't see a problem with what ICE is doing in Minnesota: What's it going to take? When is enough, enough?
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Minnesota
Tina Smith
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 772
Yes24%
No71%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Tina Smith
U.S. SenatorDemocratMinnesota
SoupScore
Tina's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 35 sponsored · 278 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reposted byTina Smith
“the agent took the child out of the still-running car, led him to the door and directed him to knock on the door asking to be let in in order to see if anyone else was home, essentially using a 5-year-old as bait.”
Agents later took the father and child away in a vehicle and sent them to Texas
Reposted byTina Smith
The Columbia Heights school district says ICE detained four of its students, including a 5-year-old boy, as "bait" to draw out family members.
Terrorizing our kids is not going to make our communities safer. ICE needs to end this surge in Minnesota – and I refuse to vote to send more funding to DHS and ICE when they continue to trample on the rights of Minnesotans and make our communities less safe.
ICE finally let her go after several days.We can’t let America become a country that lets agents arbitrarily take people into custody for days with no recourse, no contact with family. That’s not who we are. Those aren’t our values.
Her family came to the United States legally and has every right to be here. But because of the color of her skin, she was snatched off the street. For days, her family had no information on where she was being held and no way to reach her.
A Minnesota high school student was nabbed by ICE agents as she was trying to pick up food for her family after work. She was violently dragged from her car and lost her shoes. So, barefoot in the middle of winter, she was put into the back of an unmarked car in a small town (Willmar).
Reposted byTina Smith
This is a U.S. citizen.
No criminal record.
No search warrant.
No excuse.
Unabashed cruelty & indiscriminate violence is ICE’s point & purpose.
ICE agents are now racially profiling and harassing *off duty police officers* in Minnesota and demanding their papers.
This is another senseless tragedy. ICE has an obligation to keep detainees safe.
We need a complete and impartial investigation of what is happening in these detention centers.
Hearing reports that a man taken by ICE in Minneapolis died in federal custody.
Reposted byTina Smith
“Fourth graders spent the week building walls of snow at recess to protect their classmates from ICE” is a sentence that shouldn’t exist.
Reposted byTina Smith
Reposted byTina Smith
A federal judge has prohibited federal immigration agents in Minnesota from arresting, detaining, retaliating against or using force and chemical irritants against peaceful protesters and observers.
Well-trained law enforcement would de-escalate. Their first instinct should NOT be “shoot first and ask questions later.”
Your agents killed one of our citizens in broad daylight.
Reposted byTina Smith
New - Murphy, Schiff, Smith and Warren urge their Democratic colleagues to adopt populist platform
“Our party’s anemic response to the rigging of our democracy and economy in favor of the ultra-wealthy has eroded our credibility with working people"
www.semafor.com/article/01/1...
ICE approaching a teenage girl and U.S. CITIZEN on her way to soccer practice and snooping around her car with giant guns is not making us safer.
All it does is terrorize our kids.
So much admiration for leaders like Zaynab Mohamed. She somehow finds a way to bring optimism during such dark times.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | 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) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 140 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-26 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 103 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 107 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S.J. Res. 116 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 116 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
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 →