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.
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 — 783
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 · 113 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
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:
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.
youtube.com/shorts/InwgC...
My father taught me two things. He taught me right from wrong, and he taught me to love this country.
Weaponizing the legal system against people for basic freedom of speech goes against everything this country stands for.
Watch Senator Kelly and me speak to the press LIVE at 12 PM today from the Senate.
www.youtube.com/live/zqjCPef...
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin said citizens “upheld the rule of law” after U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro failed to obtain a federal grand jury indictment against her and five other Democrats who encouraged military and intelligence personnel to refuse illegal orders from the Trump administration.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
The Trump Administration continues to disparage my colleagues who have served our nation.
It’s an honor to serve with Senator Kelly and Senator Slotkin.
Threatening them with punishment is an insult to service members and public servants everywhere.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
NEW: Sen. Elissa Slotkin denounced the Trump administration as she announced a grand jury declined to indict her and five other Democrats who appeared in a video urging service members to reject unlawful orders.
Reposted bySenator Elissa Slotkin
BREAKING: @carolleonnig.bsky.social reports a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. declined to indict Sens. Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin on charges of seditious conspiracy Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the proceedings.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History783 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
783 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Motion (Schumer Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair H.R. 1 | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-30 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Amdt. 2360 to H.R. 1 (No short title on file) | NO | NO | ✓ | Decision of Chair Sustained (53-47) |
| 2025-06-28 | H.R. 1 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-06-27 | S.J. Res. 59 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 59 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-06-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-40) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (61-35) |
| 2025-06-23 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-33) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-46) |
| 2025-06-17 | S. 1582 (119th) | Final passage | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Bill Passed (68-30) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-40) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (46-39) |
| 2025-06-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (44-33) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-27, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Amendment Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 2307) | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion Agreed to (64-33, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (45-52) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 54 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 54 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 53 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 53 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-30, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-43) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-41) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-41) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-38) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-46) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-37) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (72-26) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (59-36) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (59-37) |
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.