After an anonymous Grand Jury of American citizens refused to indict us, Speaker Johnson still believes we should be.
My response:
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 — 776
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 · 112 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
The Grand Jury spoke. Now Attorney General Bondi and U.S. Attorney Pirro need to listen and move on. www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...
It takes a long time to build trust and an instant to lose it. We cannot keep kicking our allies in the teeth and cozying up to our authoritarian adversaries.
Listen to my interview from the Munich Security Conference.
The President, Stephen Miller, Secretary Noem and others are labeling people like Renee Good as domestic terrorists. ICE agents are saying that people are being added to a domestic terrorist list.
I asked ICE leadership about this.
But Spartans are resilient. And this spring, MSU will break ground on a beautiful memorial to honor those impacted by that terrible night. We will continue to honor their memory with action.
It’s been three years since the tragic shooting at Michigan State University that took the lives of Arielle, Brian, and Alexandria and injured many more. Like so many communities affected by gun violence, Spartans know that the pain never goes away — even after the cameras leave.
I am not supporting additional money for ICE until and unless they have significant reforms.
The President and his cabinet have suggested having masked ICE agents encircling polling places. It's not fantasy, and it's not made up. And we need to be clear-eyed about that.
Americans want common-sense enforcement of immigration laws. Not federal-style goons in our streets.
youtube.com/shorts/WMRy2...
On the heels of the failed indictment this week, today we have yet another victory.
I’m thrilled for my friend @captmarkkelly.bsky.social, but more importantly, for the most American of values -- the freedom of speech -- and the Constitution and rule of law.
Don’t give up the ship.
This week, a group of anonymous citizens stood up for the rule of law and refused to indict me. I am going on offense and I am leaving all options on the table.
Last year, I met Nick Baumgartner at the FIS Continental Cup - Pine Mountain Ski Jumps in the U.P. From Iron Mountain to Milan, Michigan is proud of your work and looking forward to watching your competition tomorrow. Good luck!
In the words of Nick: "Dreams don't work unless you do."
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Sen. Slotkin: " I appreciate Sen. Tillis saying something. He's gone further than anybody else. But it's a sad moment when anonymous grand jurors, citizens called at random in Washington, D.C., have more bravery to uphold basic rule of law than some of our Senate colleagues."
I know we will come through this moment in our country. But we're going to have to fight for it.
When the President threatens you and it results in threats to your family. That is enough to keep a lot of people quiet.
That's the point. The intimidation is the point. So others watch and say, "That's not for me."
But yesterday, a Grand Jury of anonymous citizens pushed back.
This is about doing what the President wants. This is not about real law—it's about weaponizing the justice system against people you disagree with.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Slotkin: "The president is using our justice system to weaponize it against his perceived enemies…Instead of looking to our president as an example, it is now up to individual citizens in their private capacity to uphold the values of democracy — free speech, liberty, justice."
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Sen. Elissa Slotkin: " The intimidation was the point…If the president can do this to us, to sitting senators, who else can he do it to? What can he do to a business leader, a community leader, or to the mom on TikTok who goes viral because she's criticizing the president?"
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Sen. Slotkin: "At the direction of President Trump, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro attempted to persuade a grand jury to indict us on criminal charges. If things had gone a different way, we'd be preparing for arrest. Fortunately, her attempt failed."
Yesterday, Jeanine Pirro tried to indict me on criminal charges.
That failed.
Here’s my response:
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History776 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
776 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-44) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-45) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-46) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (77-23) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-38) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-35) |
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.