Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
1.6%
of statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of State House Republicans
1.6% of 366 statements discuss policy (6 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 32%. Ranks 759th of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Shanks’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 0% of Shanks’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom tenth of State House Republicans (average 9.3%). 0.3% of Shanks’s statements claim credit, in the bottom tenth of State House Republicans (average 13%).
The measures on which Shanks sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
1.6%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 759th of 791
Policy criticism
0%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 735th of 791
Credit claiming
0.3%
State House Republicans average 13% · ranks 730th of 791
Itemized, 2026
$3,850
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 2230th of 2,521
Bipartisanship
0%
State House Republicans average 1.8% · ranks 677th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.38
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.08
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Shanks, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Shanks is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Shanks says
Shanks criticizes policies less than 92% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 0% of 366 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 735th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Shanks’s 366 statements in the MS 2025–26 session (366 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MS 2025–26 session
0%80%
Shanks
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks6 statements
2%
3%
340th of 791
Policy discussion6 statements
2%
32%
759th of 791
Credit claiming1 statements
0%
13%
730th of 791
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
9%
735th of 791
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
677th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Shanks | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
| Policy discussion | 2% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
366
statements classified
366 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 366 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Shanks; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Shanks does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Shanks used extreme labels in 0.5% of statements, 38% of the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at communist; peers 1.4%.
- “communist”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- communist1
- movie1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the MS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 21 | 4.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 34 | 2.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 41 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 23 | 4.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 24 | 4.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 4.2% |
| Dec ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 26 | 3.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the MS 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 9 months are hatched here.
In Shanks’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 1, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 5, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “woke” aimed at movie · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: EricLDaughSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: GrageDustinSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: saras76Source
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Blasey-FordSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: honestpollsterSource
All 366 statements
Newest first, the MS 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 366 posts on X.
Policy
Law is what Shanks talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 10.7 times the peer share. Peers give it 3.1%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Shanks talks about. The bills Shanks sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Shanks talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MS 2025–26 session
0%37%
Shanks
Peers
Law2 statements
33%
3%
Commerce1 statements
17%
4%
Crime and Law Enforcement1 statements
17%
11%
Economics and Public Finance1 statements
17%
12%
Environmental Protection1 statements
17%
2%
Show the data
| Row | Shanks | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Law | 33% | 3% |
| Commerce | 17% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 17% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 17% | 12% |
| Environmental Protection | 17% | 2% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Shanks’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 37%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law | 33% | 3% | 3% | 3% |
| Commerce | 17% | 4% | 8% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 17% | 11% | 17% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 17% | 12% | 2% | 2% |
| Environmental Protection | 17% | 2% | 0% | 3% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Shanks legislates on exactly the areas Shanks talks about, in the same proportions; 0 means no overlap. It does not say whether the bills match the positions in the statements, only the subjects. Bills Shanks sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Shanks sits at +0.38 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 54% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.29 to +0.46, which understates the uncertainty; from 1 donors and 1,182 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
+0.38
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.29 to +0.46. From 1 donors and 1,182 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Shanks, coloured by its side of 0 (blue left, red right, deeper further out); the bar through it is the approximate range (±1.96 standard errors), which understates the uncertainty; the grey ticks below are the medians of Shanks’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
What this means, and what it doesn’t
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Where Shanks sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Mississippi House117 · median +0.2
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Shanks |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 54% |
| Mississippi House | 117 | +0.2 | 75% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 75% |
How to read the strips
Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Shanks in every row; the rule is each group’s median. The table under the figure gives the share of each group to the left of Shanks.
Money
Shanks reported $3,850 in the 2026 cycle, 11% of the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$3,850
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 0 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- PACs and other committees100 squares$3,850
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| PACs and other committees | $3,850 | 100.0% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $2,900 |
| 2026 cycle | $3,850 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state.
No itemized donors with an address.
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
0
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Mississippi. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS$1,000
- CAPITAL ADVOCACY GROUP PAC$1,000
- MISS MEDICAL PAC$1,000
- ENPAC$350
- MS INDEPENDENT RX PAC$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Shanks voted with the majority of Mississippi House Republicans on 94.2% of party-line votes and missed 3.6% of 1,511 roll calls. Mississippi House on average: 90.1% party unity, 95.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Shanks voted against the majority of Mississippi House Republicans 13 times.
1,511 roll calls Shanks could vote on in the MS 2025–26 session, compared with Mississippi House. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Shanks voted with the majority of Mississippi House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
13
votes against the majority of Mississippi House Republicans
Party unity 94.2%, Mississippi House average 90.1%, ranks 76th of 112. 1,511 roll calls in the MS 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Shanks, the thin grey bar the Mississippi House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Shanks
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.3%
95.7%
67th of 112
Party unity
94.2%
90.1%
76th of 112
Show the data
| Row | Shanks | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.3% | 95.7% |
| Party unity | 94.2% | 90.1% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the MS 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 3–25 · R 63–6 · I 2–0Democrats 3 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 63 yea, 6 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Apr 15, 2026 | HC 65 Suspend deadlines for the further consideration of HB 938; extend repealers on several youth court statutes. Passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 19–8 · R 75–2 · I 1–0Democrats 19 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | HB 1761 Alcoholic beverages; extend repealers relating to festival wine permits. Adopt Conference Report | Yea | With majority | pass | D 35–2 · R 75–1 · I 2–0Democrats 35 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 1 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 39–0 · R 76–0 · I 2–0Democrats 39 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 76 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Apr 2, 2026 | SB 3410 City of Brandon and West Rankin Utility Authority; authorize to enter agreements w/data center for water & wastewater infrastructure. Passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 36–0 · R 72–0 · I 2–0Democrats 36 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 72 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | became law |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Shanks most often
- Price WallaceR1,443 shared votes100%
- Perry BaileyR774 shared votes99%
- Clay MansellR1,454 shared votes99%
- Kevin FordR1,430 shared votes99%
- Trey LamarR1,335 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Shanks least often
- Omeria ScottD1,313 shared votes80%
- Zakiya SummersD1,157 shared votes86%
- Bob EvansD1,211 shared votes86%
- Solomon OsborneD1,373 shared votes87%
- Kabir KarriemD1,284 shared votes89%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
MS 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Shanks sponsored 85 bills in the MS 2025–26 session; 12 became law. Cosponsored 27 others. 45% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Mississippi House average 29%; 24th of 99).
The bills Shanks sponsored and cosponsored in the MS 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the MS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 85 | 85 | 38 | 15 | 12 |
| Cosponsored | 27 | 27 | 14 | 8 | 8 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Shanks sponsored, ochre blocks bills Shanks cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
45%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Mississippi House average 29%. Ranks 24th of 99.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Shanks, by number of shared bills in the MS 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Price Wallace12
- Gene Newman10
- Lance Varner10
- Stephanie Foster9
- Jonathan McMillan9
What this means, and what it doesn’t
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Shanks’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 130 | City of Greenwood and Leflore County; commend 70th anniversary of the economic development partnership. | Sponsor | Mar 18, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Enrolled Bill Signed Mar 26, 2026 |
| HR 92 | United States Congress; urge to authorize a comprehensive reliability report on Marine Highway 65 in the Water Resources Development Act of 2026. | Sponsor | Mar 10, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Enrolled Bill Signed Mar 12, 2026 |
| HC 51 | United States Constitutional Convention under Article V; apply for congressional term limits. | Cosponsor | Mar 3, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Died On Calendar Apr 15, 2026 |
| HB 4014 | Income tax; exclude NIL compensation from gross income. | Cosponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Taxation(model) | Died In Committee Mar 17, 2026 |
| HB 4099 | Income tax; exclude NIL compensation from gross income. | Sponsor | Feb 25, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Died In Committee Feb 25, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Shanks’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Shanks’s official and campaign websites (weekly for Congress, monthly for the states) and keeps every page’s text, so changes can be read later; it also records social accounts and describes the images Shanks posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
- Xfredshanks
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/fred.shanks
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/fredshanks01/
- Emailfshanks@house.ms.gov
Images Shanks posted
No images from Shanks’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Shanks is most unusual among State House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 002bdecd-2374-44d8-8280-e0636c5f4897
- Open States
- ocd-person/002bdecd-2374-44d8-8280-e0636c5f4897
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
Freshness of this profile’s data
- What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
- Roll calls (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; aggregates only.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
How the measures work
- What politicians say
- Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
- Extreme labels
- A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
- Policy areas and agreement
- Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
- Ideology (CSIP)
- Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
- Campaign money
- Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
- Votes and key votes
- Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
- Peers and ranks
- Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab