I know we will come through this moment in our country. But we're going to have to fight for it.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Michigan
Elissa Slotkin
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes36%
No62%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align92%
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 · 28 sponsored · 131 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
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.
Watch Senator Kelly and me speak to the press LIVE at 12 PM today from the Senate.
www.youtube.com/live/zqjCPef...
Last November, we released a 90-second video that simply quoted the law.
Yesterday, after months of legal and physical threats, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case against us should not proceed.
Today, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed. Hopefully, this ends this politicized investigation for good.
Meeting students from across Downriver high schools earlier this week at the Southern Wayne County Regional Chamber Legislative Forum was the shot in the arm I needed. Hearing their questions, ideas, and perspectives gives me a lot of optimism about where Michigan is headed.
Just a few years later, he’s representing the USA in the Olympics. And he and fellow Michigander Emilea Zingas performed a beautiful routine yesterday.
Read his story: www.wkrg.com/sports/italy...
This is the dream.
Our office frequently helps Michiganders with federal paperwork– things dealing with the IRS, Department of Education, Veterans’ Affairs, immigration, and more.
Vadym Kolesnik moved to Michigan at the age of fifteen from Ukraine. Our office helped him gain citizenship.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-05-08 | S. 1582 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-05-08 | H.J. Res. 60 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-43) |
| 2025-05-08 | S.J. Res. 7 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-38) |
| 2025-05-07 | S.J. Res. 13 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-47) |
| 2025-05-06 | H.J. Res. 60 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-05-06 | S.J. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-05-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-05-06 | S.J. Res. 13 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-05-06 | H.J. Res. 61 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (55-45) |
| 2025-05-05 | H.J. Res. 61 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-05-01 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-05-01 | S.J. Res. 31 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-46) |
| 2025-05-01 | H.J. Res. 75 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-30 | S.J. Res. 31 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-40) |
| 2025-04-30 | S.J. Res. 49 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (49-49, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2025-04-30 | S.J. Res. 49 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (49-49) |
| 2025-04-30 | H.J. Res. 75 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-04-30 | H.J. Res. 42 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-46) |
| 2025-04-29 | H.J. Res. 42 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (83-14) |
| 2025-04-29 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-13) |
| 2025-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (60-36) |
| 2025-04-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-36) |
| 2025-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2025-04-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (59-39) |
| 2025-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (67-29) |
| 2025-04-28 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (64-27) |
| 2025-04-11 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (60-25) |
| 2025-04-11 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-25) |
| 2025-04-11 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (59-26) |
| 2025-04-11 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (59-25) |
| 2025-04-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-46) |
| 2025-04-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-04-10 | H.J. Res. 20 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (53-44) |
| 2025-04-09 | H.J. Res. 20 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-42) |
| 2025-04-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-04-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-04-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-04-09 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (60-37) |
| 2025-04-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2025-04-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-42) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-37) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-32) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-32) |
| 2025-04-08 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-04-07 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-39) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
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.