64% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2024 cycle came from donors with an address in North Dakota. Ranks 101st of 109, where 1st is the highest share. 16 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in North Dakota, ranked among State Senate Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
5 measures against State Senate Republicans. Cory sits at +0.04 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 89% of State Senate Republicans. Cory voted against the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans 87 times; party unity 73%, in the bottom quarter of the North Dakota Senate (average 79%).
The measures on which Cory sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From North Dakota, 2024
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 101st of 109 State Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 89% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.02
Attendance
North Dakota Senate average 98.3% · ranks 7th of 46 · 998 roll calls
Party unity
North Dakota Senate average 79% · ranks 35th of 46 · 87 votes against the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans
Itemized, 2024
State Senate Republicans’ median $28.3K · ranks 41st of 112
Statements
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Cory, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Cory is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Cory says
No statements for the ND 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the ND 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Cory sits at +0.04 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 89% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.02 to +0.06, which understates the uncertainty; from 18 donors and 600 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.02 to +0.06. From 18 donors and 600 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Cory, 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 Cory’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 Cory sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Cory |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 11% |
| North Dakota Senate | 47 | +0.1 | 34% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 49% |
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 Cory 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 Cory.
Money
Cory reported $41.1K in the 2024 cycle, above the State Senate Republicans’ median of $28.3K. State filings report no small-donation total. 64% of itemized individual money came from North Dakota.
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.
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 16 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $28.3K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)34 squares$14.1K
- PACs and other committees36 squares$14.8K
- Party committees30 squares$12.2K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $14.1K | 34.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $14.8K | 36.0% |
| Party committees | $12.2K | 29.8% |
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, 2020 to 2024. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $14.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $250 |
| 2024 cycle | $41.1K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 64% came from North Dakota.
- North Dakota$9,050
- Montana$3,500
- Minnesota$1,000
- Florida$500
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 |
|---|---|
| North Dakota | $9,050 |
| Montana | $3,500 |
| Minnesota | $1,000 |
| Florida | $500 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from North Dakota
Of itemized individual dollars
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 North Dakota. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
- SENATE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS$7,000
- NORTH DAKOTA REPUBLICAN PARTY$4,000
- AFC VICTORY FUND$3,000
- GRAND FORKS REPUBLICAN WOMEN$2,500
- ND OIL PAC$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Cory voted with the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans on 73% of party-line votes and missed none of 998 roll calls. North Dakota Senate on average: 79% party unity, 98.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cory voted against the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans 87 times.
998 roll calls Cory could vote on in the ND 2025–26 session, compared with North Dakota Senate. 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 Cory voted with the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans
Party unity 73%, North Dakota Senate average 79%, ranks 35th of 46. 998 roll calls in the ND 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Cory, the thin grey bar the North Dakota Senate average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Cory | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 98.3% |
| Party unity | 73% | 79% |
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 ND 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2026 | HB 1628 AN ACT to create and enact a new subdivision to subsection 2 of section 12-60-24, subdivision lll of subsection 3 of section 19-03.1-05, and chapter 51-38 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to criminal history record checks, the scheduling of kratom alkaloid derivatives as a schedule I contr Motion for Final Passage on HB 1628 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 41–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 2026 | SB 2407 AN ACT to provide an appropriation to the state historical society for the North Dakota military museum project; to amend and reenact section 55-01-02.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to jurisdiction of the heritage center; to repeal subsection 3 of section 6 of chapter 17 of the 2025 Se Motion for Final Passage on SB 2407 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 2–3 · R 37–5Democrats 2 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 37 yea, 5 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Sep 3, 2026 | SB 2405 A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 57-02-08.9, section 57-20-09, and subsection 1 of section 57-55-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the order of application of the primary residence credit and discount for early payment of tax; and to provide an effective Motion for Final Passage on SB 2405 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 4–1 · R 23–19Democrats 4 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 19 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 3, 2026 | SB 2406 A BILL for an Act to create and enact chapter 44-04.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to prohibiting agencies from entering nondisclosure agreements concerning data centers and industrial projects; to provide a penalty; to provide an effective date; and to provide an expiration date. Motion for Final Passage on SB 2406 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 5–0 · R 10–32Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 32 nay | party crossover |
| Jan 23, 2026 | HB 1621 AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 15.1-21-01 and section 15.1-21-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to requiring the presidential physical fitness test in physical education courses in elementary, middle, and high schools and providing exceptions to the test; and to prov Motion for Final Passage on HB 1621 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–1 · R 39–2Democrats 4 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 39 yea, 2 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 Cory most often
- Scott MeyerR947 shared votes91%
- Terry WanzekR971 shared votes91%
- David HogueR964 shared votes90%
- Jeff BartaR986 shared votes90%
- Diane LarsonR979 shared votes90%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cory least often
- Jeff MagrumR998 shared votes67%
- Tim MathernD997 shared votes82%
- Kathy HoganD977 shared votes84%
- Ryan BraunbergerD977 shared votes84%
- Josh BoscheeD988 shared votes84%
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
ND 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Cory sponsored 4 bills in the ND 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 76 others.
The bills Cory sponsored and cosponsored in the ND 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 ND 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 76 | 72 | 46 | 41 | 39 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Cory sponsored, ochre blocks bills Cory cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Cory, by number of shared bills in the ND 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Steve Vetter25
- Dan Johnston18
- Ben Koppelman18
- Scott Meyer15
- Nels Christianson13
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 Cory’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HCR 3028 | A concurrent resolution directing the Legislative Management to consider studying human trafficking victim service and re-entry programs. | Cosponsor | Jan 31, 2025 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 04/17 Apr 15, 2025 |
| HCR 3019 | A concurrent resolution congratulating Donald J. Trump on his inauguration as President of the United States. | Cosponsor | Jan 30, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Filed with Secretary Of State 03/21 Mar 20, 2025 |
| SB 2383 | A BILL for an Act to create and enact four new sections to chapter 14-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to parental rights and responsibilities, equal residential responsibility, and the presumption of fitness; to amend and reenact sections 14-09-00.1, 14-09-06.2, and 14-09-07 of the Nor | Sponsor | Jan 27, 2025 | In committee | Families(model) | Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 12 nays 35 Feb 19, 2025 |
| SB 2384 | A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 53-06.1-14, subsection 11 of section 53-06.2-01, and sections 53-06.2-07 and 53-06.2-10 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the maintenance of electronic pull tab devices and the elimination of dog racing; and to provide an effective date. | Sponsor | Jan 27, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Commerce(model) | Division B lost Mar 31, 2025 |
| SB 2360 | AN ACT to provide for a legislative management study regarding geothermal energy. | Cosponsor | Jan 27, 2025 | Became law | Energy(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 04/03 Apr 4, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Cory’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Cory’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 Cory posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes 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
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/ClaireCoryforDistrict42Senate
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/claire.cory
- Instagramclairecorynd
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/claire-cory-953a28155/
- Emailclairecory@ndlegis.gov
Images Cory posted
No images from Cory’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
84 turns, Apr 21, 2023 to May 1, 2025
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 Cory is most unusual among State Senate 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
- 00d22ac4-d0e4-4b26-a521-729b177b3a01
- Open States
- ocd-person/00d22ac4-d0e4-4b26-a521-729b177b3a01
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