Elissa Slotkin headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Michigan
Born
July 10, 1976
Age 49
Phone
(202) 224-4822
Office
291 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan

Elissa Slotkin

Elissa Blair Slotkin is an American politician and former intelligence analyst serving since 2025 as the junior United States senator from Michigan. A member of the Democratic Party, she served in the United States House of Representatives from 2019 to 2025.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 851
Yes36%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align92%
Cross-party7%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Elissa Slotkin headshot
Elissa Slotkin
U.S. SenatorDemocratMichigan
SoupScore
Elissa's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 22 sponsored · 123 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

This kind of focus on civilians is exactly what we accuse our adversaries of doing and what our military trains to avoid. It’s built into the rigorous drilling and routines that our military are trained on from their first weeks.
The President of the United States is taking his threats against the Iranian people to new extremes. Targeting civilians en masse would be a clear violation of the law of armed conflict as laid out in the Geneva Conventions, as well as the Pentagon's Law of War Manual.
Inviting Chinese automakers to set up in the US is bad for Michigan and our economy. The Chinese Communist Party makes these cars dirt cheap with state subsidies, and they're a national security risk: collecting video + driver location data, which could be sent back to Beijing.
Pres. Trump's latest threats on Truth Social, if carried out, would violate the law of armed conflict as laid out in the Geneva Conventions and the DoD Law of War Manual. It is both irresponsible and wrong to indiscriminately kill civilians in Iran and destroy civilian infrastructure. My statement:
Giving anyone the ability to wager and make money if U.S. service members are rescued or not is sick and twisted. We need to ban these prediction market companies from hosting "markets" like this to begin with, and we need to ban any politician or government official from insider trading.
Sec. Hegseth fired over 20 top generals and admirals, including a top Army general who served 7 presidents this week. Purging generals to settle personal or political vendettas is what happens in China or Russia, not America. I broke down why this is dangerous back in November:
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
2025-07-30End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNOT_VOTINGNONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-49)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-44)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-07-28Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-39)
2025-07-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-47)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (48-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-47)
2025-07-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-47)
2025-07-23H.R. 3944 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-23Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-41)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (61-35)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-07-22H.R. 3944 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (91-7, 3/5 majority required)
2025-07-22H.R. 3944 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-48)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-07-22Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)
2025-07-21End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (44-43)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (46-36)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-34)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (57-31)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-40)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-43)
2025-07-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (51-48)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-50)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-51)
2025-07-17H.R. 4 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESMotion to Recommit Rejected (48-51)
2025-07-16H.R. 4 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)

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 9 / 18Next →