Independent unions like the UAW are banned in China. Workers who try to fight for better wages or benefits are often imprisoned or disappeared. It’s one of the many ways the Chinese Communist Party works to undercut American manufacturing.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan
Elissa Slotkin
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 903
Yes36%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align93%
Cross-party7%
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 · 30 sponsored · 133 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Ban the pardon. It’s just straight-up bribery at this point.
Our top military general has been clear that he will not deploy troops to polling locations.
Hegseth remains silent.
I wanted to hear very clearly from Secretary Hegseth and from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that they would not respond to an illegal order and deploy the uniformed military at polling locations. Chairman Caine came back and said that very clearly.
I’m happy to be insulted for protecting Michigan workers and Michigan’s economic security.
For the life of me, I don’t get why you’re rolling out the red carpet for Chinese companies to build factories in the United States.
From Paula Red apples and fresh-cut dahlias to Great Lakes whitefish caught by fifth-generation Native American commercial fisherman, Michigan’s farmers and producers have some pretty incredible stories.
Hot dogs are a big deal in the Slotkin family. When my great-grandfather first came to the U.S., he founded a meat company called Hygrade Foods, which specialized in hot dogs.
Wishing a heartfelt Shana Tovah and happy new year to all who celebrate. As we gather with loved ones, let’s welcome a sweeter year ahead with hope, strength, and purpose.
I was in Manhattan on September 11. It changed my life. That was the day I, and so many others of my generation, decided to completely change our lives and sign up to serve our country.
The Postal Service should be delivering the mail. Not deciding who gets to vote by mail and who doesn’t.
President Trump should not be deciding who gets to vote by mail. That is up to the states and to Congress. His new rule limiting vote by mail is unconstitutional.
President Trump’s continued tariffs on Canada are hurting American families and businesses. Read my joint statement with @coons.senate.gov, @shaheen.senate.gov, @klobuchar.senate.gov and @murray.senate.gov:
I say this everywhere I go, including in Ironwood in the UP. If you need help with any federal agency, get in touch with our team. We have staffers, and all they do is help people solve their problems with the federal government. It often means banging pots and pans until we get an answer.
USPS should stop its new rule, limiting who can vote by mail and provide Congress answers about its ballot verification system.
Read more: www.slotkin.senate.gov/2026/09/09/s...
It’s an absolute must to visit Stormy Kromer, one of Michigan's most famous brands, when you’re in Ironwood. You can even get a tour if you’ve got the time.
All the way up in Ironwood, folks are feeling the impacts of the president’s war in Iran. And I heard plenty about it.
Mail-in voting is safe and secure. The Constitution gives Congress and the states authority over federal elections. Not the President. It’s why I joined my colleagues in filing a brief challenging President Trump’s executive order and the USPS rule seeking to control how mail-in ballots are handled.
I know there’s a lot of news every week, but this one deserves some real pause:
In Germany, Chinese owned car companies only entered the market in 2021. Today, they own around 8% of the market. As a result, Volkswagen, is cutting 50,000 jobs.
50,000.
Michigan is already leading the way in supporting local agriculture and bringing fresh food into people’s lives. I saw that firsthand at the Midland Farmers Market. And through a bipartisan Farm Bill, we can build on that work.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History903 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
903 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-07-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | S.J. Res. 196 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-52) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2026-06-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2026-06-23 | H. Con. Res. 86 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-06-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2026-06-22 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Accept House changes | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Agreed to (85-5) |
| 2026-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-39) |
| 2026-06-18 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-8, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-17 | S. Res. 616 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.Res. 616 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (44-50) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-39) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-16 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (87-8) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 172 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 172 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-48) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 190 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-48) |
| 2026-06-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-06-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Lee Amdt. No. 5804) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 1318 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (52-47) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schiff Amdt. No. 5740) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 5632) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (45-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cassidy Amdt. No. 5812) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Coons Amdt. No. 5457) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Durbin Amdt. No. 5806) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Booker Amdt. No. 5803) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 5485) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5451) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (45-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Warnock Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kim Amdt. No. 5545) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 5501) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-47, 3/5 majority required) |
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.