Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Immigration; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
0.27
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the bottom 5% of State House Republicans
Agreement 0.27 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State House Republicans is 0.53. Ranks 495th of 504, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Wadsworth’s statements matches the mix in the bills Wadsworth sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State House Republicans.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 38% of the 8 bills Wadsworth sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of the Alabama House. 5.6% of Wadsworth’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom tenth of State House Republicans (average 32%).
The measures on which Wadsworth 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.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.27
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 495th of 504
Out of committee
38%
Alabama House average 67% · ranks 96th of 99
Policy discussion
5.6%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 735th of 791
Credit claiming
0.2%
State House Republicans average 13% · ranks 733rd of 791
Personal attacks
9.2%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 70th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.32
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Wadsworth, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Wadsworth is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Wadsworth says
Wadsworth claims credit less than 92% of State House Republicans. Credit claiming in 0.2% of 2,206 statements, against 13% for the average State House Republican; 733rd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Wadsworth’s 2,206 statements in the AL 2025–26 session (2,206 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 AL 2025–26 session
0%80%
Wadsworth
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks202 statements
9%
3%
70th of 791
Policy discussion123 statements
6%
32%
735th of 791
Policy criticism73 statements
3%
9%
536th of 791
Credit claiming4 statements
0%
13%
733rd of 791
Bipartisanship3 statements
0%
2%
552nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Wadsworth | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 9% | 3% |
| Policy discussion | 6% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 3% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
2,206
statements classified
2,206 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 2,206 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Wadsworth; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Wadsworth does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Wadsworth used extreme labels in 1.3% of statements, close to the peer average. 29 statements, most often aimed at Bob Murphy; peers 1.4%.
- “woke”12
- “MAGA”2
- “communist”2
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Bob Murphy2
- MAGA2
- Woketown2
- bonchieredstate1
- Brilyn Hollyhand1
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 AL 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 37 | 5.4% | 13.5% | 16.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 25 | 12.0% | 4.0% | 8.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 32 | 6.3% | 6.3% | 9.4% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 22 | 4.5% | 9.1% | 9.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 36 | 2.8% | 13.9% | 13.9% | 2.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 74 | 12.2% | 9.5% | 8.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.4% |
| Jul ’25 | 62 | 3.2% | 3.2% | 11.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 139 | 2.9% | 0.7% | 1.4% | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 124 | 4.8% | 2.4% | 1.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.6% |
| Oct ’25 | 96 | 5.2% | 2.1% | 2.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 55 | 7.3% | 1.8% | 3.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 103 | 10.7% | 0.0% | 4.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 91 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 12.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 191 | 10.0% | 5.2% | 7.3% | 0.5% | 0.0% | 3.1% |
| Mar ’26 | 381 | 12.9% | 3.1% | 3.9% | 0.0% | 0.3% | 2.1% |
| Apr ’26 | 247 | 9.7% | 2.4% | 7.3% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.8% |
| May ’26 | 192 | 25.0% | 6.8% | 6.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.6% |
| Jun ’26 | 87 | 6.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.3% |
| Jul ’26 | 61 | 4.9% | 1.6% | 3.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 68 | 2.9% | 0.0% | 7.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 51 | 2.0% | 0.0% | 3.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 32 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
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 AL 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%.
In Wadsworth’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.
Mar 4, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Law · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “communist” aimed at Bob Murphy · 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: Arch ManningSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: ThePMGNSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Italian guySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Hunter BidenSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: PlatnerSource
All 2,206 statements
Newest first, the AL 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: 2,206 posts on X.
Policy
International Affairs is what Wadsworth talks about most: 25% of policy statements, 13.4 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.27 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 495th of 504).
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 Wadsworth talks about. The bills Wadsworth sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Wadsworth talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the AL 2025–26 session
0%35%
Wadsworth
Peers
International Affairs30 statements
25%
2%
Armed Forces and National Security29 statements
24%
5%
Economics and Public Finance17 statements
14%
12%
Law17 statements
14%
3%
Government Operations and Politics12 statements
10%
18%
Show the data
| Row | Wadsworth | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| International Affairs | 25% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 24% | 5% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 12% |
| Law | 14% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 18% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Wadsworth’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 35%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Affairs | 25% | 2% | 0% | 1% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 24% | 5% | 0% | 2% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Law | 14% | 3% | 25% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 18% | 13% | 12% |
0.27
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 495th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Wadsworth legislates on exactly the areas Wadsworth 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 Wadsworth sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Wadsworth sits at +0.32 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 55% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.29 to +0.36, which understates the uncertainty; from 41 donors and 668 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”.
+0.32
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.29 to +0.36. From 41 donors and 668 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Wadsworth, 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 Wadsworth’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 Wadsworth sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Alabama House104 · median +0.2
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Wadsworth |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 45% |
| Alabama House | 104 | +0.2 | 68% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 69% |
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 Wadsworth 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 Wadsworth.
Money
Wadsworth reported $42.7K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Alabama.
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.
$42.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 1 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.
- Individuals (itemized)$180
- PACs and other committees100 squares$42.5K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $180 | 0.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $42.5K | 99.6% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $178.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $300 |
| 2026 cycle | $42.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Alabama.
- Alabama$180
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 |
|---|---|
| Alabama | $180 |
| 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 |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
1
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Alabama
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 Alabama. 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.
- ALABAMA VOICE OF TEACHERS FOR EDUCATION$10.0K
- ALABAMA BUILDERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,500
- ALAPAC - ALABAMA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION$2,500
- BANKPAC$2,500
- CAREPAC$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the AL 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Wadsworth sponsored 8 bills in the AL 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 38% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Alabama House average 67%; 96th of 99).
The bills Wadsworth sponsored and cosponsored in the AL 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 AL 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 8 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Wadsworth sponsored, ochre blocks bills Wadsworth cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
38%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Alabama House average 67%. Ranks 96th of 99.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Wadsworth, by number of shared bills in the AL 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Wadsworth’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 611 | Winston County, lodging tax authorized, fire protection fee imposed, collection and distribution provided, referendum provided | Sponsor | Mar 11, 2026 | Became law | Taxation(model) | Enacted Apr 13, 2026 |
| HB 512 | Solid waste utility fees; remedies for nonpayment of fees provided, penalties for failure to pay fees revised | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection(model) | Read for the first time and referred to the House Committee on County and Municipal Government Feb 26, 2026 |
| HB 482 | Secondary metals theft; requirements for sale and recycling of certain secondary metals, including copper, further provided; penalties for violations, further provided | Sponsor | Feb 19, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Read for the Second Time and placed on the Calendar (Economic Development and Tourism) Mar 5, 2026 |
| HB 375 | Adult Protective Services; Department of Human Resources required to create dementia training, certain employees and contractors required to complete | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Re-referred to Committee in House of Origin (Children and Senior Advocacy) Feb 5, 2026 |
| HB 206 | Trusts; amend Alabama Principal and Income Act, permit trustee to adjust between principal and income | Sponsor | Jan 14, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Read for the Second Time and placed on the Calendar (Financial Services) Jan 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Wadsworth’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Wadsworth’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 Wadsworth posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
alison.legislature.state.al.us/house-leaders-members?tab=1&search=wadsworthLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 2
pages crawled
0changes 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
Images Wadsworth posted
No images from Wadsworth’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 Wadsworth 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
- 04f7bd8e-094b-433c-9e91-7ebe64c75604
- Open States
- ocd-person/04f7bd8e-094b-433c-9e91-7ebe64c75604
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