Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 26, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Economics and Public Finance; Energy · Source
99%
of State House Republicans score to the right of Lems on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.17 (approximate range −0.19 to −0.16, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 24 donors and 601 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Lems sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. The policy areas Lems talks about and legislates on agree at 0.46 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans. Lems reported $21.6K in the 2024 cycle, in the top half of State House Republicans (median $10.7K).
The measures on which Lems 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.
CSIP ideology
−0.17
More liberal than 99% of State House Republicans · ± 0.02
Party unity
96.1%
South Dakota House average 76% · ranks 9th of 69 · 125 votes against the majority of South Dakota House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.46
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 379th of 504
Itemized, 2024
$21.6K
State House Republicans’ median $10.7K · ranks 70th of 240
Out of committee
77%
South Dakota House average 81% · ranks 49th of 69
Attendance
99.8%
South Dakota House average 96.6% · ranks 25th of 70 · 640 roll calls
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Lems, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Lems is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Lems says
Lems attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 92 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Lems’s 92 statements in the SD 2025–26 session (92 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 SD 2025–26 session
0%80%
Lems
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion33 statements
36%
32%
321st of 791
Policy criticism23 statements
25%
9%
65th of 791
Credit claiming3 statements
3%
13%
617th of 791
Bipartisanship1 statements
1%
2%
393rd of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Lems | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 36% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 25% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 3% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
92
statements classified
92 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 92 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Lems; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Lems does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Lems used no extreme labels in 92 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 SD 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 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) |
| Feb ’25 | 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) |
| Mar ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 10.5% | 31.6% | 0.0% | 15.8% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 6.7% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 46.7% | 46.7% | 6.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 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 ’25 | 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) |
| Sep ’25 | 2 | — (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 ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 2 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 2 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 1 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 SD 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%. 18 months are hatched here; 5 of them have no statements.
In Lems’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 7, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Commerce; Agriculture and Food · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 26, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 92 statements
Newest first, the SD 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: 92 posts on X.
Policy
Environmental Protection is what Lems talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 14.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.46 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 379th 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 Lems talks about. The bills Lems sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Lems talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the SD 2025–26 session
0%35%
Lems
Peers
Environmental Protection9 statements
27%
2%
Government Operations and Politics7 statements
21%
18%
Taxation7 statements
21%
8%
Energy6 statements
18%
4%
Agriculture and Food5 statements
15%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Lems | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Protection | 27% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 18% |
| Taxation | 21% | 8% |
| Energy | 18% | 4% |
| Agriculture and Food | 15% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Lems’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Protection | 27% | 2% | 3% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 18% | 28% | 12% |
| Taxation | 21% | 8% | 5% | 11% |
| Energy | 18% | 4% | 5% | 3% |
| Agriculture and Food | 15% | 4% | 10% | 3% |
0.46
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 379th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Lems legislates on exactly the areas Lems 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 Lems sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Lems sits at −0.17 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 99% of State House Republicans. Approximate range −0.19 to −0.16, which understates the uncertainty; from 24 donors and 601 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”.
−0.17
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.19 to −0.16. From 24 donors and 601 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Lems, 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 Lems’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 Lems sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
South Dakota House70 · median +0.1
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Lems |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 1% |
| South Dakota House | 70 | +0.1 | 16% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 44% |
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 Lems 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 Lems.
Money
Lems reported $21.6K in the 2024 cycle, 2.0 times the State House Republicans’ median of $10.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 97% of itemized individual money came from South 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.
$21.6K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 19 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $10.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)70 squares$15.2K
- PACs and other committees24 squares$5,150
- Party committees6 squares$1,270
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $15.2K | 70.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $5,150 | 23.9% |
| Party committees | $1,270 | 5.9% |
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 2024. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $17.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $21.6K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 97% came from South Dakota.
- South Dakota$14.7K
- Wisconsin$300
- Nebraska$200
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 |
|---|---|
| South Dakota | $14.7K |
| Wisconsin | $300 |
| Nebraska | $200 |
| 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 |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | 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 |
| 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 |
19
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
97%
from South 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 South 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.
- SOUTH DAKOTA FREEDOM CAUCUS PAC$2,000
- LINCOLN COUNTY REPUBLICANS$1,000
- SD CHIROPRACTIC PAC$800
- HOUSE GOP PAC$750
- SIOUX EMPIRE FRIENDS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Lems voted with the majority of South Dakota House Republicans on 96.1% of party-line votes and missed 0.2% of 640 roll calls. South Dakota House on average: 76% party unity, 96.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Lems voted against the majority of South Dakota House Republicans 125 times.
640 roll calls Lems could vote on in the SD 2025–26 session, compared with South Dakota 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 Lems voted with the majority of South Dakota House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
125
votes against the majority of South Dakota House Republicans
Party unity 96.1%, South Dakota House average 76%, ranks 9th of 69. 640 roll calls in the SD 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Lems, the thin grey bar the South Dakota House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Lems
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.8%
96.6%
25th of 70
Party unity
96.1%
76%
9th of 69
Show the data
| Row | Lems | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.8% | 96.6% |
| Party unity | 96.1% | 76% |
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 SD 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 46–15 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 15 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Mar 12, 2026 | HB 1051 revise property tax levies for school districts and to revise the state aid to general and special education formulas. Do Pass Amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 60–1 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 60 yea, 1 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 12, 2026 | HB 1326 appropriate money for the ordinary expenses of the legislative, judicial, and executive departments of the state, the current expenses of state institutions, interest on the public debt, and common schools. Do Pass | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 44–17 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 44 yea, 17 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Mar 9, 2026 | SB 219 require that a state agency consult with the Aeronautics Commission prior to purchasing, transferring, or disposing of a state owned and operated aircraft. Do Pass Amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 61–2 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 61 yea, 2 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 9, 2026 | SB 245 create the homeowner property tax reduction fund, and to transfer moneys to the homeowner property tax reduction fund. Do Pass Amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 1–4 · R 40–23 · O 1–0Democrats 1 yea, 4 nay; Republicans 40 yea, 23 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Lems most often
- Jon HansenR637 shared votes94%
- Julie AuchR637 shared votes91%
- Kaley NolzR629 shared votes91%
- Tesa SchwansR637 shared votes90%
- Josephine GarciaR631 shared votes89%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lems least often
- Kadyn WittmanD632 shared votes56%
- Erin HealyD637 shared votes56%
- Erik MuckeyD634 shared votes57%
- Nicole Uhre-BalkD637 shared votes58%
- Jeff BathkeR313 shared votes59%
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
SD 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Lems sponsored 47 bills in the SD 2025–26 session; 12 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 77% of sponsored bills got out of committee (South Dakota House average 81%; 49th of 69).
The bills Lems sponsored and cosponsored in the SD 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 SD 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 47 | 39 | 18 | 14 | 12 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Lems sponsored, ochre blocks bills Lems cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
77%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
South Dakota House average 81%. Ranks 49th of 69.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Lems, by number of shared bills in the SD 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Carl Perry27
- Heather Baxter21
- Scott Moore20
- Aaron Aylward18
- Travis Ismay16
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 Lems’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SC 824 | honoring the 2025-2026 Canton C-Hawks boys wrestling team. | Sponsor | Mar 4, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | S.J. 471 Mar 4, 2026 |
| HC 8023 | honoring the legacy and strength of grandmothers in this state. | Sponsor | Mar 4, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | H.J. 517 Mar 4, 2026 |
| SC 819 | honoring the 2025-2026 Canton C-Hawk girls wrestling team. | Sponsor | Mar 4, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | S.J. 471 Mar 4, 2026 |
| SC 823 | honoring the achievements of Canton C-Hawks wrestling team coach Jeremy Ask. | Sponsor | Mar 4, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | S.J. 471 Mar 4, 2026 |
| SC 817 | honoring the 2025-2026 Canton C-Hawk girls wrestling team. | Sponsor | Mar 3, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Withdrawn at the Request of the Prime Sponsor , Passed, S.J. 449 Mar 3, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Lems’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Lems’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 Lems posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
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 Lems posted
No images from Lems’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 Lems 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
- 0c864308-04a8-4b22-af5b-5d718046b99f
- Open States
- ocd-person/0c864308-04a8-4b22-af5b-5d718046b99f
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