CSIP score −0.97 (approximate range −1.03 to −0.92, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 426 donors and 581 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 Smith sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
4 measures against State House Democrats. 74% of Smith’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Maryland, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats. 48% of the 107 bills Smith sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom half of the Maryland House.
The measures on which Smith sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 89% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
From Maryland, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1635th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Out of committee
Maryland House average 49% · ranks 84th of 140
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 954th of 2,082
Statements
47 posts on X
Bills sponsored
and 0 cosponsored
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Smith, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Smith is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Smith stresses bipartisanship less than 88% of State House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0% of 47 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Democrat; 676th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Smith’s 47 statements in the MD 2025–26 session (47 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the MD 2025–26 session
| Row | Smith | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 15% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 9% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 6% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 4% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
statements classified
47 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 47 |
The thick bar is Smith; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Smith does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Smith used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, 2.2 times the peer average. 1 statement; peers 1.0%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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.
Share of statements per month, the MD 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 MD 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 8 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 8, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Education · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 17, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” · Source
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: CommanderSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Deion SandersSource
Newest first, the MD 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 47 posts on X.
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues is what Smith talks about most: 29% of policy statements, 2.9 times the peer share. Peers give it 9.8%. 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 Smith talks about. The bills Smith sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the MD 2025–26 session
| Row | Smith | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 29% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 29% | 15% |
| Commerce | 14% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 11% |
| Education | 14% | 15% |
The thick bar is the share of Smith’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. 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.
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 Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 29% | 10% | 9% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 29% | 15% | 5% | 8% |
| Commerce | 14% | 3% | 6% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 11% | 0% | 2% |
| Education | 14% | 15% | 14% | 10% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Smith legislates on exactly the areas Smith 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 Smith sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Smith sits at −0.97 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 89% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.03 to −0.92, which understates the uncertainty; from 426 donors and 581 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 −1.03 to −0.92. From 426 donors and 581 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Smith, 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 Smith’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Smith |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 11% |
| Maryland House | 141 | −0.6 | 11% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 5% |
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 Smith 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 Smith.
Smith reported $47.2K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 74% of itemized individual money came from Maryland.
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 2026 cycle
From 115 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $43.9K | 93.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,300 | 7.0% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $9,056 |
| 2022 cycle | $101.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $51.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $47.2K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 74% came from Maryland.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Maryland | $32.3K |
| Texas | $750 |
| New York | $290 |
| Michigan | $270 |
| Florida | $250 |
| Virginia | $175 |
| Georgia | $50 |
| Massachusetts | $25 |
| 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 |
| Rhode Island | 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 |
| 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 |
| Hawaii | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Maryland
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Maryland. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
No roll-call votes for the MD 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Smith sponsored 107 bills in the MD 2025–26 session; 29 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 48% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Maryland House average 49%; 84th of 140).
The bills Smith sponsored and cosponsored in the MD 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.
Counts for the MD 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 107 | 107 | 51 | 31 | 29 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Smith sponsored, ochre blocks bills Smith cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Maryland House average 49%. Ranks 84th of 140.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Smith, by number of shared bills in the MD 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Smith’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 1559 | Children in Unlicensed Settings and Pediatric Hospital Overstay Patients - Placement | Sponsor | Feb 13, 2026 | Became law | Families(model) | Approved by the Governor - Chapter 160 Apr 28, 2026 |
| HB 1490 | Family Investment Program - Temporary Cash Assistance - Good Cause and Adequate Reason Exceptions | Sponsor | Feb 13, 2026 | Became law | Families(model) | Approved by the Governor - Chapter 763 May 26, 2026 |
| HB 1521 | Income Tax - Credit for Contributions, Volunteerism, and Employment Initiatives for At-Risk Youth | Sponsor | Feb 13, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Hearing 3/10 at 1:00 p.m. Feb 16, 2026 |
| HB 1389 | Public Health - Female Genital Mutilation | Sponsor | Feb 13, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Approved by the Governor - Chapter 29 Apr 14, 2026 |
| HB 1575 | Correctional Services and Public Safety - Immigration Enforcement - Prohibitions (Community Trust Act) | Sponsor | Feb 13, 2026 | In committee | Immigration(model) | Hearing 2/25 at 1:00 p.m. Feb 16, 2026 |
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Smith’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Smith’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 Smith posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Smith’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Smith is most unusual among State House Democrats, 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
