Watch our full Intel Briefing here: youtu.be/wdZ1V8xbkR8
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 — 772
Yes34%
No63%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align92%
Cross-party8%
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 · 20 sponsored · 111 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
It's a lot easier to get into a war than it is to get out. And we are living that with Iran.
The American people cannot rely on the courts alone to protect their rights. The only real remedy is for Congress to do its job: pass laws that protect the Voting Rights Act, and ban partisan gerrymandering once and for all.
Politicians shouldn't get to draw the lines of the districts they plan to run in. Nobody gets to cook the books for their party. And the only antidote to what we're seeing now is to pass a federal law that calls on all states to do the same.
This comes as President Trump kicked off a partisan redistricting war that has rippled across the nation.
Here in Michigan, voters made their voices heard in 2018 when we passed a ballot initiative -- with overwhelming bipartisan support -- that ended partisan gerrymandering altogether.
The Supreme Court again attacked the right to fair representation in Congress. By again slicing away at the protections of the Voting Rights Act, communities of color in Michigan and across the country could see their voices diminished and lose the ability to elect a representative of their choice.
I have a real problem with political gerrymandering. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled to limit parts of the Voting Rights Act. Ultimately, this will make it easier for states to dilute the votes of Black voters and other minority groups.
We need to outlaw gerrymandering. Period.
The risk of Chinese cars being hacked and remotely controlled is not just theoretical. That’s why Senator Moreno and I have introduced a bill to ban them in the United States.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
I’m so impressed by my friend Senator Elissa Slotkin protecting our democracy and destroying Pete Hegseth!
The Pentagon is asking for a $1.4 trillion budget next year. It’s an astronomical amount of money. It is our responsibility to push back and understand exactly what they’re spending it on and whether it will actually prepare us for the future.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
"Dude, just answer the question." Slotkin pressed Pete Hegseth on troops at polls in the midterm elections. https://www.wlns.com/news/politics/senate-hearing-defense-budget/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=bluesky_
Senator Moreno and I don’t agree on everything. But as midwesterners, we agree that Chinese cars are both a national security and economic security issue.
In this week’s Intel Brief, we dig into a few big topics:
1️⃣ An update on the war in Iran
2️⃣ The status of U.S.-China relations, and why it matters
3️⃣ My bipartisan bill to ban Chinese vehicles from the U.S.
4️⃣ The Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act
youtu.be/wdZ1V8xbkR8
This is a good first step, and I'm pleased to see the Senate take bipartisan action that impacts the Senate. Now we need to pass a wider-reaching law, with teeth, to ensure ALL Members of Congress, their staff, and Executive branch officials are banned from insider trading on prediction markets.
Michigan has watched as thousands of manufacturing jobs moved offshore to China. That's because the Chinese Communist Party is subsidizing its products, flooding the market and creating a monopoly. We can never let that happen to Michigan's auto industry and our workers.
The level of intimidation we’re seeing from the President of the United States is straight out of the authoritarian playbook.
I do not believe there's any reason why the active duty military should ever be deployed to the polls. Secretary Hegseth couldn’t even agree with that.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) joins Katy Tur to share her reaction to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's testimony today where she asked whether he would deploy troops to the polls in the 2026 midterm elections if President Trump were to order him to do so.
www.ms.now/katy-tur-rep...
I asked Secretary Hegseth if he would deploy the uniform military to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines. It wasn’t a hypothetical question, it was based on an executive order President Trump drafted but didn’t sign in 2020.
He refused to answer.
youtube.com/shorts/NhOsz...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-03-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (41-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (49-41, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-20 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (47-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-18 | S.J. Res. 118 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 118 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-17 | S. 1383 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (89-10) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (82-11, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (84-10) |
| 2026-03-10 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-10 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2026-03-09 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-28) |
| 2026-03-05 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-04 | S.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 104 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-04 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8) |
| 2026-03-02 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-33) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-34) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2026-02-24 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 142 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-47) |
| 2026-02-11 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-02-10 | S.J. Res. 95 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2026-02-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-02-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (58-39) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-39) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-40) |
| 2026-02-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (71-29, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 4287) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (67-33) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (32-67) |
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.