Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; Law · Source
1.6×
the State House Republican rate of policy discussion
52% of 227 statements discuss policy (117 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 32%. Ranks 107th of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Echols’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. Echols missed 12% of 2,668 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Louisiana House (average 90.7%). 36% of the 33 bills Echols sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom half of the Louisiana House.
The measures on which Echols 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.
Policy discussion
52%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 107th of 791
Party unity
96.9%
Louisiana House average 89% · ranks 13th of 102 · 36 votes against the majority of Louisiana House Republicans
Attendance
88%
Louisiana House average 90.7% · ranks 81st of 102 · 2,668 roll calls
Out of committee
36%
Louisiana House average 48% · ranks 74th of 101
Itemized, 2026
$65.3K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 799th of 2,521
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 Echols, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Echols is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Echols says
Echols stresses bipartisanship about as often as the median State House Republican. Bipartisanship in 0.9% of 227 statements, against 1.8% for the average State House Republican; 425th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Echols’s 227 statements in the LA 2025–26 session (227 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 LA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Echols
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion117 statements
52%
32%
107th of 791
Policy criticism19 statements
8%
9%
324th of 791
Credit claiming19 statements
8%
13%
437th of 791
Personal attacks6 statements
3%
3%
259th of 791
Bipartisanship2 statements
1%
2%
425th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Echols | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 52% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 8% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
227
statements classified
227 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 227 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Echols; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Echols does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Echols used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 31% of the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Leftists; peers 1.4%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Leftists1
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 LA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Apr ’25 | 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 ’25 | 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) |
| Jun ’25 | 29 | 3.5% | 17.2% | 41.4% | 3.5% | 10.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 24 | 4.2% | 20.8% | 58.3% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 44.4% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 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) |
| Nov ’25 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 10.5% | 31.6% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 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) |
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 LA 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%. 16 months are hatched here.
In Echols’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.
Mar 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 9, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Leftists · 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: Josh PutterSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: ceoSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: BluTrades11Source
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: BluTrades11Source
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: BluTrades11Source
All 227 statements
Newest first, the LA 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: 227 posts on X.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Echols talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.53 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 266th 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 Echols talks about. The bills Echols sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Echols talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the LA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Echols
Peers
Economics and Public Finance27 statements
23%
12%
Health24 statements
21%
10%
Agriculture and Food19 statements
16%
4%
Commerce17 statements
15%
4%
Government Operations and Politics16 statements
14%
18%
Show the data
| Row | Echols | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 12% |
| Health | 21% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 16% | 4% |
| Commerce | 15% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 18% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Echols’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 12% | 3% | 2% |
| Health | 21% | 10% | 24% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 16% | 4% | 5% | 3% |
| Commerce | 15% | 4% | 3% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 18% | 1% | 12% |
0.53
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 266th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Echols legislates on exactly the areas Echols 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 Echols sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Echols sits at +0.35 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 51% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.32 to +0.38, which understates the uncertainty; from 516 donors and 959 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 516 donors and 959 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Echols, 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 Echols’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 Echols sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Louisiana House103 · median +0.2
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Echols |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 49% |
| Louisiana House | 103 | +0.2 | 74% |
| 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 Echols 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 Echols.
Money
Echols reported $65.3K in the 2026 cycle, 1.9 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 92% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.
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.
$65.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 34 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)55 squares$36.1K
- PACs and other committees45 squares$29.2K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $36.1K | 55.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $29.2K | 44.7% |
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 | $134.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $69.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $61.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $65.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 92% came from Louisiana.
- Louisiana$33.3K
- Texas$2,500
- Florida$300
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 |
|---|---|
| Louisiana | $33.3K |
| Texas | $2,500 |
| Florida | $300 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
34
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
92%
from Louisiana
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 Louisiana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- LOUISIANA NURSING HOME PAC$5,000
- TPG PAC INC.$3,000
- NORPAC LLC$2,500
- LOUISIANA COUNCIL ON LEGISLATIVE ACTION$2,000
- ACADIAN AMBULANCE EMPLOYEE PAC$1,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Echols voted with the majority of Louisiana House Republicans on 96.9% of party-line votes and missed 12% of 2,668 roll calls. Louisiana House on average: 89% party unity, 90.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Echols voted against the majority of Louisiana House Republicans 36 times.
2,668 roll calls Echols could vote on in the LA 2025–26 session, compared with Louisiana 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 Echols voted with the majority of Louisiana House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
36
votes against the majority of Louisiana House Republicans
Party unity 96.9%, Louisiana House average 89%, ranks 13th of 102. 2,668 roll calls in the LA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Echols, the thin grey bar the Louisiana House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Echols
Peers
Rank
Attendance
88%
90.7%
81st of 102
Party unity
96.9%
89%
13th of 102
Show the data
| Row | Echols | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 88% | 90.7% |
| Party unity | 96.9% | 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 LA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2026 | SB 237 CHILDREN: Provides relative to child welfare. (8/1/26) (EN NO IMPACT See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1848) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 28–2 · R 68–0Democrats 28 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 68 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 132 SCHOOLS: Provides that each public school board is to install exterior master key boxes to allow for rapid entry, response, and rescue by law enforcement and first responders during a school crisis. (8/1/26) (EN INCREASE GF EX See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1650) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 28–0 · R 65–0Democrats 28 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 228 LOCAL FINANCE: Constitutional amendment to allow for the use of public funds to replace drinking water utility service lines located on private property. (2/3 - CA13s1(A)) (EN SEE FISC NOTE LF EX) FINAL PASSAGE (#1647) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 52–13Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 202 ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT: Provides for the increase of parish board of election supervisor meetings in certain parishes for certain races. (8/1/26) (EN +$192,000 GF EX See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1634) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–0 · R 68–0Democrats 25 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 68 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 513 PUBLIC CONTRACTS: Provides for public works project delivery methods. (8/1/26) FINAL PASSAGE (#1644) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–20 · R 66–2Democrats 5 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 2 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 Echols most often
- Chris TurnerR2,302 shared votes98%
- Skip BroussardR1,325 shared votes98%
- Paul SawyerR1,303 shared votes98%
- Kim CarverR2,320 shared votes98%
- Vinney St. BlancR2,320 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Echols least often
- Matt WillardD952 shared votes84%
- Wilford CarterD1,266 shared votes85%
- Tammy PhelpsD1,968 shared votes85%
- Candace NewellD2,194 shared votes85%
- Joy WaltersD1,593 shared votes86%
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
LA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Echols sponsored 33 bills in the LA 2025–26 session; 4 became law. Cosponsored 76 others. 36% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Louisiana House average 48%; 74th of 101).
The bills Echols sponsored and cosponsored in the LA 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 LA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 33 | 32 | 12 | 5 | 4 |
| Cosponsored | 76 | 67 | 63 | 47 | 39 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Echols sponsored, ochre blocks bills Echols cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
36%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Louisiana House average 48%. Ranks 74th of 101.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Echols, by number of shared bills in the LA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Beryl Amedée16
- Rodney Schamerhorn15
- Chuck Owen15
- Rhonda Butler12
- Mike Bayham12
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 Echols’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SCR 80 | SCHOOLS: Creates and provides for a task force to study the minimum foundation program formula and recommend permanent, predictable funding for pay raises for teachers and support staff. | Cosponsor | May 26, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Education(model) | Read by title, concurred in by vote of 94 yeas, 0 nays. Jun 1, 2026 |
| HCR 54 | WILDLIFE/HABITAT: Urges and requests the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to study the impact of flooded corn on migratory waterfowl behavior and to reinstate the enforcement mechanism that restricted the growth of hunting over intentionally flooding standing crops | Cosponsor | May 18, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | Taken by the Clerk of the House and presented to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Rules of the House. Jun 2, 2026 |
| HCR 79 | WILDLIFE & FISHERIES: Memorializes Congress and the United States Forest Service to take such actions as are necessary to allow the use of dogs for hunting in the Kisatchie National Forest | Cosponsor | May 18, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | Taken by the Clerk of the House and presented to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Rules of the House. Jun 5, 2026 |
| HB 1247 | CRIME/SEX OFFENSES: Creates a statewide Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Coordinator | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Signed by the Governor. Becomes Act No. 724. Jun 3, 2026 |
| HCR 72 | HEALTH SERVICES: Memorialize the United States Congress to research treatment methods for Acute Myeloid Leukemia | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Health(model) | Taken by the Clerk of the House and presented to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Rules of the House. May 28, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Echols’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Echols’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 Echols posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 7
pages crawled
2changes 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 Echols posted
No images from Echols’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 Echols 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
- 22590bd7-29fe-454d-b61d-2c54c4562274
- Open States
- ocd-person/22590bd7-29fe-454d-b61d-2c54c4562274
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