Especially this year, it was so important I join everyone at the Grand Rapids Hispanic Festival. Great food, music and people! If you didn't go this year, be sure to go next year, and support all the small businesses that make this event possible.
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 — 789
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 · 116 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Had a great time at the 47th Annual Hispanic Festival in Grand Rapids hosted by the Hispanic Center. It was great to join so many Michiganders in recognizing the contributions of our Hispanic communities and to listen to the stories, fears, challenges, and dreams that continue to shape West MI.
In our Intel Briefing this week, we hit three important things I am watching closely:
1️⃣ Trump’s latest tariffs and declining US manufacturing jobs
2️⃣ The national security threat of selling AI chips to China
3️⃣ Banning corporate PACs and Members of Congress from trading stocks
youtu.be/2-toUnJKEFM
President Trump’s tariffs are doing the opposite of lowering costs and creating manufacturing jobs.
In our Intel Briefing this week, we hit three important things I am watching closely:
1️⃣ Trump’s latest tariffs and declining US manufacturing jobs
2️⃣ The national security threat of selling AI chips to China
3️⃣ Banning corporate PACs and Members of Congress from trading stocks
youtu.be/2-toUnJKEFM
I’m one of just six Senators who have never taken corporate PAC checks. Our campaign finance system is broken.
If we want to regain the trust of Americans on the left, right and center, it’s a no brainer: ban corporate PAC donations to anyone running for office.
www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
Trump savings accounts a ‘back door for privatizing Social Security,’ Bessent says - The Washington Post
The Trump Administration is again saying the quiet part loud about privatizing your Social Security. They are looking for a “back door” to go after benefits you have worked for your entire life. www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
Read my letter to Secretary Lutnick here: www.slotkin.senate.gov/wp-content/u...
The Trump Administration’s decision to let Nvidia sell its AI chips to China should be immediately reversed.
This decision undercuts the American military, American AI dominance, and American jobs, just to pad one company’s bottom line.
People don't believe that we are here for the right reasons. That we are here to enrich ourselves.
That's why we should ban Members of Congress, the President, and VP from trading stocks.
We got one step closer to doing just that this week. wzmq19.com/news/351388/...
My statement on the Senate votes to block arms sales to Israel. (1/5)
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly) on Tuesday sent a letter to foreign affairs officials calling for immediate action to prevent a further humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, enclosing a proposal from Jewish and Muslim leaders in the state.
Story from @kdavidsonjrn.bsky.social
Today, I wrote the Trump Administration with a concrete proposal to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This plan was brought to me jointly by leaders from Michigan’s Jewish and Muslim communities, based on the values both communities hold dear.
www.detroitnews.com/story/news/p...
The American people think ALL politicians, Democrats and Republicans, use our position to enrich ourselves.
Today, we sent a bill to the Senate floor that bans Members of Congress, the President, and VP from trading stocks. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good first step. We should pass it into law.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History789 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
789 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-10-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (58-40) |
| 2025-10-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-10-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-10-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-45) |
| 2025-10-23 | S. 3012 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-10-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-10-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-39) |
| 2025-10-22 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-21 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2025-10-21 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-21 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-21 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-32) |
| 2025-10-20 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-43, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-16 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-34) |
| 2025-10-16 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-15 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-14 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (49-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (77-20, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (10-88, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (53-43, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (14-83, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-10-09 | H.J. Res. 106 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-46) |
| 2025-10-09 | H.J. Res. 106 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-10-09 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.J. Res. 105 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-45) |
| 2025-10-08 | S.J. Res. 83 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 83 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-10-08 | S.J. Res. 71 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (47-51) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.J. Res. 105 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-10-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-08 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-47) |
| 2025-10-07 | H.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-10-07 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-10-06 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-10-06 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-42, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-06 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-03 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-03 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-03 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-10-01 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
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.