Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 27, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism · Source
85
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans
Party unity 85%, in the bottom tenth of the Pennsylvania House (average 95.1%). 1,497 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
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 Ortitay voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans; it is ranked within the Pennsylvania House. The count covers every roll call where Ortitay voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. The policy areas Ortitay talks about and legislates on agree at 0.41 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans. 100% of Ortitay’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Pennsylvania, in the top quarter of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Ortitay 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.
Party unity
85%
Pennsylvania House average 95.1% · ranks 189th of 203 · 85 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.41
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 437th of 504
From Pennsylvania, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Extreme labels
0%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 618th of 791
Bipartisanship
2.4%
State House Republicans average 1.8% · ranks 214th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.35
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Ortitay, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Ortitay is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Ortitay says
Ortitay claims credit less than 68% of State House Republicans. Credit claiming in 5.3% of 376 statements, against 13% for the average State House Republican; 543rd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Ortitay’s 376 statements in the PA 2025–26 session (376 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 PA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Ortitay
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion104 statements
28%
32%
444th of 791
Policy criticism41 statements
11%
9%
253rd of 791
Credit claiming20 statements
5%
13%
543rd of 791
Personal attacks11 statements
3%
3%
238th of 791
Bipartisanship9 statements
2%
2%
214th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Ortitay | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 28% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 11% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 5% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
376
statements classified
376 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 376 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Ortitay; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Ortitay does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Ortitay used no extreme labels in 376 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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 36.4% | 40.9% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 42 | 9.5% | 16.7% | 28.6% | 2.4% | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 4.8% | 14.3% | 0.0% | 4.8% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 21 | 4.8% | 4.8% | 28.6% | 4.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 22 | 9.1% | 13.6% | 36.4% | 4.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 49 | 0.0% | 24.5% | 38.8% | 6.1% | 10.2% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 57 | 3.5% | 8.8% | 49.1% | 0.0% | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 28 | 3.6% | 14.3% | 17.9% | 0.0% | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 8 | — (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 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 9.1% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 9.1% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 8 | — (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 | 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) |
| Jul ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 PA 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%. 11 months are hatched here.
In Ortitay’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 11, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Families · 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: DMcIntyreWWESource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TaylorSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Scott PaternoSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: SandersSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Scott PaternoSource
All 376 statements
Newest first, the PA 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: 376 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Ortitay talks about most: 81% of policy statements, 5.4 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.41 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 437th 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 Ortitay talks about. The bills Ortitay sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Ortitay talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the PA 2025–26 session
0%89%
Ortitay
Peers
Education84 statements
81%
15%
Economics and Public Finance7 statements
7%
12%
Science, Technology, Communications6 statements
6%
2%
Families4 statements
4%
4%
Crime and Law Enforcement2 statements
2%
11%
Show the data
| Row | Ortitay | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 81% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 7% | 12% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 6% | 2% |
| Families | 4% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 2% | 11% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Ortitay’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 89%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 81% | 15% | 22% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 7% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 6% | 2% | 6% | 1% |
| Families | 4% | 4% | 13% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 2% | 11% | 13% | 11% |
0.41
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 437th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Ortitay legislates on exactly the areas Ortitay 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 Ortitay sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Ortitay sits at +0.35 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 50% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.32 to +0.38, which understates the uncertainty; from 85 donors and 1,193 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”.
+0.35
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.32 to +0.38. From 85 donors and 1,193 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Ortitay, 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 Ortitay’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 Ortitay sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Pennsylvania House203 · median −0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Ortitay |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 50% |
| Pennsylvania House | 203 | −0.3 | 57% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 72% |
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 Ortitay 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 Ortitay.
Money
Ortitay reported $57.2K 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 Pennsylvania.
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.
$57.2K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 10 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)30 squares$16.9K
- PACs and other committees70 squares$40.3K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $16.9K | 29.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $40.3K | 70.4% |
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 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $99.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $84.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $78.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $57.2K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania$16.9K
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 |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $16.9K |
| 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 |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
10
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- OWNER$13.0K 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- LOCAL 66 PAC CLUB$10.0K
- BALD KNOB PAC$2,500
- OPERATORS FOR SKILL PAC$2,500
- SCARMAZZI BELMENT LLC$2,500
- GREATER PA CARPENTERS PEC$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Ortitay voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans on 85% of party-line votes and missed none of 1,497 roll calls. Pennsylvania House on average: 95.1% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Ortitay voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans 85 times.
1,497 roll calls Ortitay could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania 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 Ortitay voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
85
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans
Party unity 85%, Pennsylvania House average 95.1%, ranks 189th of 203. 1,497 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Ortitay, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Ortitay
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.9%
96th of 203
Party unity
85%
95.1%
189th of 203
Show the data
| Row | Ortitay | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 85% | 95.1% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1431 An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Game Commission, further providing for Game Commission officers and employees; and, in enforcement, further providing for powers and duties of enforcement officers. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 922 An Act amending the act of January 28, 1988 (P.L.24, No.11), known as the Private Academic Schools Act, further providing for application for license, for issuance and renewal of license and for promulgation of rules and regulations. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–2 · R 100–0Democrats 101 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1328 An Act requiring automated external defibrillators at utility or electrical worksites; imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry; and imposing penalties. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 94–6Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 94 yea, 6 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 764 An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in alteration of territory or corporate entity and dissolution, further providing for conduct of referenda and for court review of transitional plan. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2593 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in general provisions relating to powers and duties of the Department of Health and its departmental administrative and advisory boards, providing for prostate health public education campaign; and FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 88–12Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 12 nay | 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 Ortitay most often
- Jesse TopperR1,496 shared votes95%
- Bryan CutlerR1,497 shared votes95%
- Jeff OlsommerR1,497 shared votes95%
- Natalie MihalekR1,497 shared votes95%
- Sheryl DelozierR1,496 shared votes95%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Ortitay least often
- Dan MillerD725 shared votes66%
- Josh SiegelD725 shared votes67%
- Wendy FinkR1,497 shared votes68%
- Dan GoughnourD1,440 shared votes69%
- Danilo BurgosD1,497 shared votes69%
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
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Ortitay sponsored 39 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 40 others. 31% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania House average 40%; 102nd of 171).
The bills Ortitay sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 39 | 39 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 40 | 38 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Ortitay sponsored, ochre blocks bills Ortitay cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
31%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Pennsylvania House average 40%. Ranks 102nd of 171.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Ortitay, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Joe Ciresi24
- Tarik Khan13
- Andrew Kuzma12
- Lee James12
- Valerie Gaydos12
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 Ortitay’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 2856 | An Act amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in bonds and recognizances, further providing for right to bail. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Referred to Judiciary Oct 14, 2026 |
| HB 2855 | An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons and for use or possession of electric or electronic incapacitation device. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Referred to Judiciary Oct 14, 2026 |
| HB 2845 | An Act amending Title 4 (Amusements) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in fantasy contests, further providing for definitions, for conditions of licensure and for prohibitions. | Cosponsor | Oct 7, 2026 | In committee | Commerce(model) | Referred to Gaming Oversight Oct 7, 2026 |
| HB 1939 | An Act amending the act of June 13, 1967 (P.L.31, No.21), known as the Human Services Code, in public assistance, providing for fee schedule rates. | Cosponsor | Oct 6, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Laid on the table Oct 6, 2026 |
| HB 2534 | An Act providing for artificial intelligence transparency, for duties of covered providers of generative artificial intelligence systems and for large online platforms and generative artificial intelligence system hosting platforms; and imposing a penalty. | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Science, Technology, Communications(model) | Laid on the table Sep 30, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 25 times in 90 days. Ortitay’s official site had 22 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Ortitay’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 Ortitay posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 22
pages crawled
25changes in 90 days
- 10
pages crawled
14changes 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
- XJasonOrtitay
- FacebookPA-State-Rep-Jason-Ortitay
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/reportitay
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/citizensforjason/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/jortitay/
Images Ortitay posted
No images from Ortitay’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
32 turns, Feb 3, 2020 to Apr 29, 2026
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 Ortitay 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
- 1871b5c7-35c4-4d32-9e09-9febf8ba3f66
- Open States
- ocd-person/1871b5c7-35c4-4d32-9e09-9febf8ba3f66
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