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 — 782
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.
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...
Throughout our hearing, Secretary Hegseth expected the American people to just pretend like they don't know that there's a problem with the war in Iran. Meanwhile, gas is $4.99 a gallon.
The American people aren’t stupid.
Because of the war in Iran, gas in Michigan is $4.99. The cost of things like fertilizer and airline tickets keeps going up. Secretary Hegseth was gung-ho about this war, and now we're at a stalemate, and the American public is feeling it in their pocketbooks.
youtube.com/shorts/7Q-3Q...
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Sen. Slotkin questions Hegseth on whether he would seize ballots in 2026 election if Trump asked
www.ms.now/ms-now/watch...
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
SLOTKIN: If Trump asks you to seize voting machines during the 2026 election, will you stand up for the Constitution and say no?
HEGSETH: It's yet another gotcha hypothetical, which is your speciality
SLOTKIN: The guy you're performing for right now says he wishes he signed that EO in 2020!
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Sen Slotkin: "The administration has taken military action in 10 different places in the world…The difference with this war with Iran, is that the American public is feeling it in their pocketbooks. Gas in Michigan is $4.99 today. The cost of fertilizer, of airline tickets, things that are real to p
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
Sen. Slotkin presses Pete Hegseth about whether he would send the military to seize voting machines or ballots if ordered to do so by Trump: "Will you deploy the uniformed military to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines?…Dude, just answer the question."
In 2020, President Trump wrote an executive order that he didn't sign. It would have directed the Defense Secretary to seize ballots and voting machines. He has said he regretted not signing that order.
I asked Secretary Hegseth about that today and he refused to answer.
youtube.com/shorts/6sZTR...
WATCH: Secretary Hegseth is testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee to answer questions about the war in Iran and issues impacting our national security.
www.youtube.com/live/k0kQalo...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History782 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
782 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (81-15) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (87-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (87-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (21-75) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (15-81) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (14-81) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (45-50) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (42-53) |
| 2025-08-01 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (44-51) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-43) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-41) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-41) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (59-38) |
| 2025-07-30 | S.J. Res. 34 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34 | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Discharge Rejected (24-73) |
| 2025-07-30 | S.J. Res. 41 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41 | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Discharge Rejected (27-70) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-49) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-44) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-39) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-47) |
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.