CSIP score −0.04 (approximate range −0.07 to −0.02, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 0 donors and 120 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 Crosby sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
4 measures against the Mississippi House. 0% of the 14 bills Crosby sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of the Mississippi House. Crosby voted against the majority of Mississippi House Democrats 11 times; party unity 86%, in the bottom quarter of the Mississippi House (average 90.1%).
The measures on which Crosby sits furthest from the middle of the Mississippi House, 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 conservative than 98% of State House Democrats · ± 0.03
Out of committee
Mississippi House average 29% · ranks 96th of 99
Party unity
Mississippi House average 90.1% · ranks 92nd of 112 · 11 votes against the majority of Mississippi House Democrats
Attendance
Mississippi House average 95.7% · ranks 72nd of 112 · 777 roll calls
Statements
Roll calls
Compared with Mississippi House
Peer group: Mississippi House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Crosby, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Crosby is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Crosby says
No statements for the MS 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the MS 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Crosby sits at −0.04 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 98% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.07 to −0.02, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 120 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 −0.07 to −0.02. From 0 donors and 120 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Crosby, 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 Crosby’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 Crosby sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Crosby |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 98% |
| Mississippi House | 117 | +0.2 | 19% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 47% |
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 Crosby 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 Crosby.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Crosby voted with the majority of Mississippi House Democrats on 86% of party-line votes and missed 4.6% of 777 roll calls. Mississippi House on average: 90.1% party unity, 95.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Crosby voted against the majority of Mississippi House Democrats 11 times.
777 roll calls Crosby could vote on in the MS 2025–26 session, compared with Mississippi 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 Crosby voted with the majority of Mississippi House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Mississippi House Democrats
Party unity 86%, Mississippi House average 90.1%, ranks 92nd of 112. 777 roll calls in the MS 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Crosby, the thin grey bar the Mississippi House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Crosby | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.3% | 95.7% |
| Party unity | 86% | 90.1% |
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 MS 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 3–25 · R 63–6 · I 2–0Democrats 3 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 63 yea, 6 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Apr 15, 2026 | HC 65 Suspend deadlines for the further consideration of HB 938; extend repealers on several youth court statutes. Passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 19–8 · R 75–2 · I 1–0Democrats 19 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | HB 1761 Alcoholic beverages; extend repealers relating to festival wine permits. Adopt Conference Report | Yea | With majority | pass | D 35–2 · R 75–1 · I 2–0Democrats 35 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 1 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 39–0 · R 76–0 · I 2–0Democrats 39 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 76 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Apr 2, 2026 | SB 3410 City of Brandon and West Rankin Utility Authority; authorize to enter agreements w/data center for water & wastewater infrastructure. Passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 36–0 · R 72–0 · I 2–0Democrats 36 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 72 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 Crosby most often
- Kenji HollowayD722 shared votes99%
- Bart WilliamsR724 shared votes98%
- Bradford BlackmonD708 shared votes98%
- Otis AnthonyD708 shared votes98%
- Justis GibbsD701 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Crosby least often
- Omeria ScottD685 shared votes88%
- Stacey Hobgood-WilkesR661 shared votes90%
- Dan EubanksR702 shared votes92%
- Bob EvansD618 shared votes92%
- Tracy ArnoldR732 shared votes92%
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
MS 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Crosby sponsored 14 bills in the MS 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 14 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Mississippi House average 29%; 96th of 99).
The bills Crosby sponsored and cosponsored in the MS 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 MS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 14 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 14 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Crosby sponsored, ochre blocks bills Crosby 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
Mississippi House average 29%. Ranks 96th of 99.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Crosby, by number of shared bills in the MS 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Rickey Thompson16
- Tracy Arnold2
- Bryant Clark2
- John Faulkner2
- Timaka James-Jones2
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 Crosby’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 4036 | Bonds; authorize issuance to assist Alliance Training, Inc., with improvements to its worksite training facility. | Cosponsor | Feb 20, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Died In Committee Feb 25, 2026 |
| HB 1997 | Appropriation; MDA to establish Rural Broadband Pilot Grant Program. | Sponsor | Feb 17, 2026 | In committee | Science, Technology, Communications(model) | Died In Committee Feb 25, 2026 |
| HB 1996 | Mississippi Qualified Opportunity Zone Investment Incentive Program; establish. | Sponsor | Feb 17, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Died In Committee Feb 25, 2026 |
| HB 1995 | Appropriation; Monroe County for Egypt Road Improvement Project. | Sponsor | Feb 17, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Died In Committee Feb 25, 2026 |
| HB 1994 | Appropriation; Monroe County for Tenn-Tom Bike Trail Project. | Sponsor | Feb 17, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Died In Committee Feb 25, 2026 |
Online
The lab crawls Crosby’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 Crosby posts with a vision model.
Websites
No websites are tracked for this official.
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
No social accounts on file.
Images Crosby posted
No images from Crosby’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 Crosby is most unusual among Mississippi House, 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
- 2289ffac-b812-4f76-89a8-d8e77df4de2c
- Open States
- ocd-person/2289ffac-b812-4f76-89a8-d8e77df4de2c
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