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.

There is NOTHING ‘America First’ about selling out some of our most pristine waters so a Chilean mining company can come in, take our minerals, ship them to China for processing, then sell them off. All while polluting the Boundary Waters in the process.
This Administration’s attacks on Minnesota continue, this time by threatening to allow copper-sulfide mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters when a majority of Minnesotans have made it clear they don't want this mine. Not this mine. Not this place. Keep public lands in public hands.
“The first of several students detained by immigration officers...” shouldn’t even be a sentence
Federal authorities are releasing fourth-grader Elizabeth Zuna, the first of several students detained by immigration officers in the Minneapolis suburb of Columbia Heights, the school district's superintendent said.
A first step, sure. But there’s usually only 150 in the entire state. This drawdown means there will still be around 2,300 (15x the normal amount) unaccountable federal agents roaming our streets.
A first step, sure. But there’s usually only 150 in the entire state. This drawdown means there will still be around 2,300 (15x the normal amount) unaccountable federal agents roaming our streets.
Homan in Minneapolis: "Effective immediately, we will draw down 700 people effective today."
ICE detained multiple kids (all under the age of 10!) in the last week alone. Still kidnapping people based solely on the way they look. Still arresting parents at school pick up. Nothing has changed in Minnesota. Nice words from the Admin won’t change that. ICE leaving will.
Bovino needs to go. Noem needs to go. Miller needs to go. But firing or impeaching any of these people will not unilaterally change what’s happening in Minnesota. That’s why Congress needs to exert some muscle over DHS/ICE funding.
Reposted byTina Smith
In @nytopinion.nytimes.com “We need to rip ICE down to the studs and start over,” Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota writes. “In the wake of this catastrophe, there is no reason we can’t come up with a way of enforcing our laws that doesn’t trample on our values and our Constitution.”
People are still being profiled. People are still being wrongfully detained. People still can’t go to work or school out of fear.   Do not look away and do not buy any political spin coming out of DHS.   ICE OUT OF MINNESOTA.
Predicting that this week we’ll hear more conciliatory words from the Administration regarding Minnesota (since they’re starting to realize that ICE has become politically toxic) but everyone outside of Minnesota needs to know that nothing on the ground has changed.
Thank you @joaquincastrotx.bsky.social for bringing Liam back to his friends and families. He endured more than any 5-year-old ever should. Now more than ever, we need to get ICE out of Minnesota.
Liam Conejo Ramos sitting on a coach smiling at the camera and Congressman Joaquin Castro standing behind the couch smiling at Liam.
ICE needs to be ripped down to the studs. We need to start over and hold this Administration accountable for this mess.   Nothing has changed. Minnesota is still suffering and sending in a new guy to run ICE won’t change that – but Congress can.
"We need to rip ICE down to the studs and start over," Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota writes. "In the wake of this catastrophe, there is no reason we can’t come up with a way of enforcing our laws that doesn’t trample on our values and our Constitution."
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
2025-06-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (58-33)
2025-06-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-06-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-06-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-46)
2025-06-17S. 1582 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (68-30)
2025-06-17Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-06-17Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (57-40)
2025-06-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-06-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (46-39)
2025-06-16End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (44-33)
2025-06-12S. 1582 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-27, 3/5 majority required)
2025-06-12S. 1582 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (67-30)
2025-06-12Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 2307)NONOMotion Agreed to (64-33, 3/5 majority required)
2025-06-12S. 1582 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Failed (45-52)
2025-06-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-06-11S.J. Res. 54 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 54YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (39-56)
2025-06-11S.J. Res. 53 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 53YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (39-56)
2025-06-11S. 1582 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (68-30, 3/5 majority required)
2025-06-11End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-06-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-43)
2025-06-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-44)
2025-06-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-44)
2025-06-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (48-45)
2025-06-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-41)
2025-06-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-06-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-41)
2025-06-05End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-40)
2025-06-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-43)
2025-06-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-43)
2025-06-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-43)
2025-06-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (57-38)
2025-06-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-46)
2025-06-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-06-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-37)
2025-06-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-06-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (72-26)
2025-06-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (66-28)
2025-06-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-36)
2025-06-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-37)
2025-06-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-06-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 89 (119th)Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 89NONOJoint Resolution Passed (49-46)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 89 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 87 (119th)Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 87NONOJoint Resolution Passed (51-45)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 87 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-05-22H.J. Res. 88 (119th)Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 88NONOJoint Resolution Passed (51-44)
2025-05-21H.J. Res. 88 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 55NONOJoint Resolution Passed (51-46)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Point of Order S.J.Res. 55NONOPoint of Order Sustained (51-46)
2025-05-21S.J. Res. 55 (119th)Point of Order S.J.Res. 55NONOPoint of Order Sustained (51-46)

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 10 / 16Next →