Gary C. Peters headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Michigan
Born
December 1, 1958
Age 67
Phone
(202) 224-6221
Office
724 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan

Gary C. Peters

Gary Charles Peters is an American politician, lawyer, and former naval officer serving as the senior United States senator from Michigan, a seat he has held since 2015. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the U.S. representative for Michigan's 14th congressional district, which included the eastern half of Detroit, the Grosse Pointes, Hamtramck, Southfield, and Pontiac, from 2009 to 2015.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 851
Yes33%
No65%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Gary C. Peters headshot
Gary C. Peters
U.S. SenatorDemocratMichigan
SoupScore
Gary C.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 79 sponsored · 124 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

I am deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life in Texas from the recent flash floods. My heart is with the victims and their families, and I’m thankful for the first responders who are putting themselves in harm’s way to save lives and find those who are still missing.
The bill President Trump just signed into law will kick millions off their health care, and make it harder for folks in Michigan and across the country to afford groceries and power bills. It’s a betrayal of hardworking Americans.
The bill Republicans passed yesterday will blow up the deficit, kick millions off their health care and make it harder for families across the country to afford food and energy bills. That’s not what Americans sent us here to do.
No matter which way you slice it, the President just rammed through a bill that will make Michiganders pay in every part of their lives. All so the wealthiest among us can get a tax break.
The bill that Republicans just passed is an unconscionable betrayal of folks in Michigan and across the country. It will gut health care for millions of Americans and make it harder for families all over the U.S. to afford food and energy bills. My full statement:
The tax cuts for billionaires in President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” would add more than $3 trillion to our deficit – leaving us unprepared to face of an emergency like another pandemic or financial crisis. That’s just reckless.
Nobody in Michigan wants to cut food assistance and health care to finance a tax cut for billionaires — but that's exactly what Republicans are trying to do.   @slotkin.senate.gov and I are going to fight this ridiculous bill every step of the way.
Let’s be clear. Republicans are trying to pay for their tax cuts for billionaires by gutting health care for millions of Americans. This would hurt kids, seniors, and hardworking families all across Michigan. I’ll never support that.
Every dollar of SNAP food assistance generates more than $1.50 in economic activity. This bill wouldn’t just jeopardize families’ ability to put food on the table — it would hurt farmers, local grocery stores, and the entire food supply chain. That doesn’t make any sense.
This is the most harmful bill that I can ever remember debating in all the years I've served in the U.S. Senate.   Giving billionaires a tax cut at the expense of hardworking Americans is reprehensible — and not what our constituents sent us here to do.
Hundreds of thousands of Michiganders could lose their health care if Republicans cut Medicaid. They're shouting from the rooftops about the devastating consequences they'd face. Here are some of their stories.
The Trump Admin. wants to keep rural Americans in the dark by cutting funding for local public TV & radio stations that share emergency alerts to keep folks safe during storms & disasters. When I pressed Trump's budget director on this, he just refused to answer my question.
3 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. As a result, women today have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers did. We must pass the Women’s Health Protection Act to restore every woman’s right to make their own health care decisions, no matter where they live.
10 years ago, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision affirmed that love is love, and that marriage equality is a fundamental right in this country. Today, we celebrate a decade of progress and recommit ourselves to the fight for equality.
When officers carrying out immigration enforcement cover their faces and don't identify themselves, it risks escalation. That's dangerous for both law enforcement officers and the individuals being detained. They must identify themselves for everyone’s safety.
Modernizing the Soo Locks is long overdue, especially because an unscheduled outage of the Poe Lock would be devastating to our national economy. I’m going to keep working to make sure construction of the new Lock gets across the finish line.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
851 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
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-04-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-42)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-04-08End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-37)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-32)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-04-07End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-39)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-52)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (5-94)
2025-04-04H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
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 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 amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-51)
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. 26NONOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-83)
2025-04-03S.J. Res. 33 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33NONOMotion to Discharge Rejected (15-82)
2025-04-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-04-03H.J. Res. 24 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint 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)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint 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 debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture 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)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-48)
2025-03-26S.J. Res. 18 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)

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.

← PrevPage 14 / 18Next →