Today is Juneteenth, when we recognize the day Union soldiers entered Galveston, Texas, to notify slaves of their freedom, two whole years after the Emancipation Proclamation, on June 19, 1865. On Juneteenth, we celebrate and honor the day that turned the page on the horrible chapter of slavery.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan
Elissa Slotkin
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 846
Yes36%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align92%
Cross-party7%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Elissa Slotkin
U.S. SenatorDemocratMichigan
SoupScore
Elissa's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 22 sponsored · 122 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Thank you to @baldwin.senate.gov @padilla.senate.gov @gallego.senate.gov for joining me in announcing this important legislation.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., says Trump's threat to block FISA reauthorization is like "cutting off your nose to spite your face." n.pr/4vWMvDw
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Slotkin, Senate Democrats seek curb on troop deployments at polling places
michiganadvance.com/2026/06/18/r...
Instead of waiting to see what happens in 2026, we are taking action with our Protect Our Polls Act to make it impossible for the President to use the military to steal an election.
Our bill stops that in three ways.
Why am I introducing the Protect Our Polls Act? Because the President is saying the quiet part out loud. And after January 6, 2021, we cannot afford more strongly worded letters or failures of imagination.
I am glad to be joined by Senators from across the country, especially states like Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota and Wisconsin which, along with Michigan, the president has targeted. All states that may very well decide who controls the House and Senate.
That's why today I am introducing the Protect our Polls Act. Our legislation prevents President Trump from weaponizing our military and armed federal officers to interfere in our elections.
President Trump has been saying the quiet part out loud: he wants to undermine our elections any way he can, and he refuses to rule out sending uniformed military to the polls or to collect ballots and voting machines.
youtu.be/vdTAlcArXiQ
I am glad to be joined by Senators from across the country, especially states like Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota and Wisconsin which, along with Michigan, the president has targeted. All states that may very well decide who controls the House and Senate.
That's why today I am introducing the Protect our Polls Act. Our legislation prevents President Trump from weaponizing our military and armed federal officers to interfere in our elections.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
The cost of this war is being borne by the American citizens
We can't afford health care or groceries here
Yet Trump wants to send $300 billion to Iran
Watch @slotkin.senate.gov lay it out:
When it comes to President Trump's war in Iran, we need to be clear about what we put into it and what we get out of it.
The deal on the table is not even comparable to the Obama deal. It's worse by a lot. By about $300 billion and a bunch of vague language.
The total damage from the ice storm Michigan had a year and a half ago was $440 million. We can’t have a system where you get a bigger or faster payout if you’re in a Republican state. Let’s keep disasters apolitical.
youtube.com/shorts/DSK9o...
Thanks for having me on!
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Sen. Slotkin grills OMB nominee on rejecting federal grants over "anti-American" values:
"The idea that the administration would put out that kind of language to intimidate and scare people out of freedom of speech is the most anti-American thing I've seen in a long time."
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
SLOTKIN: Do you believe mail voting is safe & secure?
GALLO: Uh. That's a very good question. I would say, it's not- under proper guidance & monitoring, yes
S: Trump won my state in 2024 & there was a ton of mail voting. Was that voting for President Trump safe & secure?
G: It was safe and secure
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
OMB nominee Hal Duncan: “This administration is committed to gold standard science and wants to advance the best cancer research that we possibly can.”
Sen. Slotkin: “Slashing cancer research…is not a way to uphold a gold standard for cancer research.”
Watch my full Intel Briefing here:
The dangers of screwworm, cost of Trump's war, and Trump's playbook to hold on to power
youtu.be/sz82xnLZB-4
Watch my full Intel Briefing here:
The dangers of screwworm, cost of Trump's war, and Trump's playbook to hold on to power
youtu.be/sz82xnLZB-4
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History846 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
846 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-32) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-32) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-04-07 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-39) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (5-94) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 26 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-83) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 33 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-82) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (53-42) |
| 2025-04-02 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-04-02 | S.J. Res. 37 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-03-31 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-03-27 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-03-26 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
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.