Tina Smith headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Minnesota
Born
1958
Age 68
Phone
(202) 224-5641
Office
720 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Minnesota

Tina Smith

Christine Elizabeth Smith is an American politician, retired Democratic political consultant, and former businesswoman serving as the junior United States senator from Minnesota since 2018. She is a member of the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL), an affiliate of the Democratic Party.

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 headshot
Tina Smith
U.S. SenatorDemocratMinnesota
SoupScore
Tina's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 35 sponsored · 278 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

The fight for the Boundary Waters isn’t over, it just looks a little different now. We will not give up. That would play right into their hands.
Losing hope is exactly what they want us to do. While the vote against the Boundary Waters is fresh on our minds, the work continues.    Headed to Greater Minnesota now to keep up the fight. We have so much to do to tackle corporate greed in areas like housing and health care.
Since they’re abusing the Congressional Review Act to get around the filibuster, I am reserving some of my time so I can make closing remarks in the morning before the final vote. Maybe they’ll listen to reason after a night’s sleep. Stay tuned. Save the Boundary Waters.
Photo of my desk with a boundary waters canoe area forest service sign next to the Minnesota state flag and a framed photo of my parents.
70% of Minnesotans do NOT want copper nickel mining near the Boundary Waters. The Senate has a chance to do right by them by leaving the mining moratorium in place.
Reposted byTina Smith
As soon as today, the US Senate will vote on a House resolution that allows copper mining by a Chilean company near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The Boundary Waters is the most-visited wilderness area in the country, and it cannot be replaced.
The Boundary Waters don’t just belong to Minnesotans. They’re the birthright of every single American. Why would we let a foreign mining company ruin them just so they can mine OUR resources, ship them off to China and enrich their shareholders?
Map showing the pollution a proposed copper-nickel mine would have on the Boundary Waters, Voyageurs National Park and Quetico Provincial Park.
The threat to the Boundary Waters isn’t just about Minnesota — the legislative gymnastics being thrust upon us to allow copper-nickel mining in this watershed would mean no public lands are ever truly protected. We would be opening Pandora’s box… for what? The profits of a foreign mining company?
Photo of a canoe in the Boundary Waters. The waters are so still that the sky is reflected on the surface.
From the guy who promised to “bring back American manufacturing” …the irony would be comical if it weren’t so frustrating
Trump, who has promoted "Buy America" policies and vowed to protect American steel, has secured tens of millions of dollars worth of donated foreign steel for his $400 million ballroom project, report @anaswanson.bsky.social and @lukebroadwater.bsky.social. www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/u...
Can’t trust a word they say. They’re lying about what they’re doing in Minnesota and across the country. This is exactly why I’m not voting for a single penny for ICE or CBP without massive, agency-wide changes.
Reposted byTina Smith
Today is day 127 of the ICE occupation of MN. ICE is still here. Neighbors are still being abducted. So we’re here too. Still carrying whistles. Still standing watch in our neighborhoods. Still doing mutual aid. Still fighting for ICE OUT EVERYWHERE.
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
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-53)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (51-48)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-04-03H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-04-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 26 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26YESNOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-83)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 33 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33YESNOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-82)
2025-04-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-04-03H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 24NONOJoint Resolution Passed (53-42)
2025-04-02H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-04-02S.J. Res. 37 (119th)Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 37YESYESJoint Resolution Passed (51-48)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-04-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-03-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-42)
2025-03-27Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-03-27End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-03-27S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 18NONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-48)
2025-03-26S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-03-26H.J. Res. 25 (119th)Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 25NONOJoint Resolution Passed (70-28)
2025-03-26H.J. Res. 25 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28)
2025-03-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-43)
2025-03-26End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-03-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-03-26End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-03-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-03-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (56-44)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-44)
2025-03-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-03-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (74-25)
2025-03-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (73-25)
2025-03-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-31)
2025-03-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (62-30)
2025-03-14End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (63-32)
2025-03-14End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (64-33)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (54-46)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (27-73)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-38, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-14S. 331 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Passed (84-16)
2025-03-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-40)
2025-03-14End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-39)
2025-03-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-03-13S. 331 (119th)End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (84-15, 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 13 / 16Next →