The median for State Senate Democrats is $55.5K. Ranks 18th of 746, where 1st raised the most. 6,979 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State Senate Democrats. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 54% of the 188 bills Eckhardt sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Texas Senate. Eckhardt missed 3.2% of 1,357 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Texas Senate (average 97.9%).
The measures on which Eckhardt sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 18th of 746
Out of committee
Texas Senate average 65% · ranks 23rd of 28
Attendance
Texas Senate average 97.9% · ranks 22nd of 28 · 1,357 roll calls
Party unity
Texas Senate average 89% · ranks 9th of 28 · 234 votes against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats
From Texas, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 484th of 714 State Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 53% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.03
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Eckhardt, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Eckhardt is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Eckhardt says
No statements for the TX 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the TX 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Eckhardt sits at −0.63 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 53% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.66 to −0.61, which understates the uncertainty; from 8,141 donors and 552 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.66 to −0.61. From 8,141 donors and 552 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Eckhardt, 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 Eckhardt’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 Eckhardt sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Eckhardt |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 53% |
| Texas Senate | 30 | +0.4 | 3% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 23% |
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 Eckhardt 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 Eckhardt.
Money
Eckhardt reported $1.0M in the 2026 cycle, 18.1 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 87% of itemized individual money came from Texas.
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 6,979 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)93 squares$930.5K
- PACs and other committees7 squares$72.2K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $930.5K | 92.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $72.2K | 7.2% |
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $539.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $458.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $486.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $1.0M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 87% came from Texas.
- Texas$811.5K
- Virginia$74.2K
- California$6,701
- Kentucky$5,665
- Colorado$4,368
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 |
|---|---|
| Texas | $811.5K |
| Virginia | $74.2K |
| California | $6,701 |
| Kentucky | $5,665 |
| Colorado | $4,368 |
| New Mexico | $3,022 |
| Florida | $2,910 |
| Nevada | $2,614 |
| New York | $1,733 |
| Illinois | $1,692 |
| Massachusetts | $1,624 |
| New Jersey | $1,406 |
| North Carolina | $1,108 |
| Maryland | $1,044 |
| Washington | $1,009 |
| Connecticut | $896 |
| Arizona | $766 |
| Pennsylvania | $669 |
| Indiana | $667 |
| Oregon | $640 |
| Michigan | $581 |
| Wisconsin | $576 |
| Georgia | $469 |
| District of Columbia | $433 |
| Minnesota | $419 |
| Ohio | $401 |
| Missouri | $326 |
| Louisiana | $308 |
| Tennessee | $306 |
| Oklahoma | $236 |
| Rhode Island | $230 |
| Hawaii | $229 |
| Alabama | $215 |
| Utah | $214 |
| Kansas | $178 |
| Alaska | $172 |
| Maine | $141 |
| Delaware | $128 |
| South Carolina | $112 |
| Arkansas | $90 |
| South Dakota | $83 |
| Idaho | $76 |
| Montana | $75 |
| New Hampshire | $45 |
| Nebraska | $44 |
| Vermont | $34 |
| Iowa | $28 |
| Wyoming | $21 |
| Mississippi | $13 |
| North Dakota | $10 |
| West Virginia | $5 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Texas
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 Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$125.9K 29 donors
- ATTORNEY$26.2K 6 donors
- RETIRED$17.5K 10 donors
- SELF EMPLOYED$4,536 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ECKHARDT FOR CONGRESS$18.4K
- JAMES TALARICO CAMPAIGN$10.0K
- ANNIE'S LIST$5,000
- TEXAS AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS COPE FUND$5,000
- TEXAS SANDS PAC$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Eckhardt voted with the majority of Texas Senate Democrats on 99.1% of party-line votes and missed 3.2% of 1,357 roll calls. Texas Senate on average: 89% party unity, 97.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Eckhardt voted against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats 234 times.
1,357 roll calls Eckhardt could vote on in the TX 2025–26 session, compared with Texas Senate. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Eckhardt voted with the majority of Texas Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats
Party unity 99.1%, Texas Senate average 89%, ranks 9th of 28. 1,357 roll calls in the TX 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Eckhardt, the thin grey bar the Texas Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Eckhardt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.7% | 97.9% |
| Party unity | 99.1% | 89% |
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 TX 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2025 | HB 18 Relating to a restriction on the acceptance of political contributions and the making of certain political expenditures by a member of the legislature and certain political committees during certain periods in which a member is absent from a legislative session; authorizing a civil penalty. final passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 0–8 · R 18–0Democrats 0 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 18 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 2025 | SB 5 Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. passage | Did not vote | — | pass | — | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 18 Relating to a restriction on the acceptance of political contributions and the making of certain political expenditures by a member of the legislature and certain political committees during certain periods in which a member is absent from a legislative session; authorizing a civil penalty. passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 0–8 · R 18–0Democrats 0 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 18 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 7 Relating to prohibitions on the manufacture and provision of abortion-inducing drugs, including the jurisdiction of and effect of certain judgments by courts within and outside this state with respect to the manufacture and provision of those drugs, and to protections from certain counteractions und final passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 0–8 · R 17–0Democrats 0 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 17 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 1 Relating to youth camp emergency plans and preparedness; authorizing penalties. Senate Rule 7.18 and the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended and that CSHB 1 be placed on its third reading and final passage. | Did not vote | — | pass | — | became law · much discussed |
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 Eckhardt most often
- Molly CookD1,259 shared votes92%
- Roland GutierrezD1,213 shared votes82%
- Carol AlvaradoD1,258 shared votes80%
- Borris MilesD1,227 shared votes79%
- José MenéndezD1,244 shared votes79%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Eckhardt least often
- Bryan HughesR1,258 shared votes10%
- Mayes MiddletonR1,259 shared votes17%
- Kevin SparksR1,259 shared votes22%
- Brandon CreightonR1,256 shared votes23%
- Brent HagenbuchR1,259 shared votes23%
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
TX 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Eckhardt sponsored 188 bills in the TX 2025–26 session; 11 became law. Cosponsored 92 others. 54% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Texas Senate average 65%; 23rd of 28).
The bills Eckhardt sponsored and cosponsored in the TX 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 TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 188 | 171 | 101 | 16 | 11 |
| Cosponsored | 92 | 92 | 75 | 50 | 46 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Eckhardt sponsored, ochre blocks bills Eckhardt 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
Texas Senate average 65%. Ranks 23rd of 28.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Eckhardt, by number of shared bills in the TX 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- José Menéndez56
- Royce West55
- Carol Alvarado53
- Molly Cook52
- Chuy Hinojosa52
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 Eckhardt’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SR 75 | Recognizing Richard San Jose on the occasion of his retirement. | Sponsor | Aug 28, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Sep 4, 2025 |
| SR 59 | Recognizing Sheryl Pace on the occasion of her retirement. | Sponsor | Aug 26, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Sep 4, 2025 |
| SR 56 | In memory of Ronald Edward Dugger. | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Sep 4, 2025 |
| SR 54 | Recognizing Children's Emergency Relief International on the occasion of its ribbon-cutting ceremony and dedication of the George M. Cowden Building. | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Sep 4, 2025 |
| SR 55 | Recognizing Antone's Nightclub on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Sep 4, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Eckhardt’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Eckhardt’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 Eckhardt posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 20
pages crawled
42changes 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
- Xurl?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=
- XSarahEckhardtTX%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Egoogle%257Ctwcamp%255Eserp%257Ctwgr%255Eauthor&ved=2ahUKEwjdx-rYiI6GAxVbGFkFHXWaDVcQ6F56BAgWEAE&usg=AOvVaw2NcUlTPDNs4IlzVadtNnVz
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/saraheckhardtaustin/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/saraheckhardttx/
- YouTubewww.youtube.com/channel/UCx-j7jFQZigjSl4pmvkE3pg
Images Eckhardt posted
No images from Eckhardt’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 Eckhardt is most unusual among State Senate 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 20cda9bf-a1e6-4427-8115-e5655ddd8eb0
- Open States
- ocd-person/20cda9bf-a1e6-4427-8115-e5655ddd8eb0
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