9.4% of 64 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Texas House is 49%. Ranks 144th of 145, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Goodwin sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Texas House. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
6 measures against State House Democrats. Goodwin reported $2.3M in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of State House Democrats (median $40.4K). 26% of Goodwin’s statements criticize a policy, 2.5 times the State House Democrat average of 10%.
The measures on which Goodwin sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
Texas House average 49% · ranks 144th of 145
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 17th of 2,082
Policy criticism
State House Democrats average 10% · ranks 61st of 764
Party unity
Texas House average 85% · ranks 11th of 143 · 249 votes against the majority of Texas House Democrats
Policy discussion
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 124th of 764
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Goodwin, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Goodwin is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Goodwin criticizes policies more than 92% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 26% of 560 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 61st of 764.
An AI model reads each of Goodwin’s 560 statements in the TX 2025–26 session (560 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the TX 2025–26 session
| Row | Goodwin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 59% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 26% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 13% | 14% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
statements classified
560 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 560 |
The thick bar is Goodwin; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Goodwin does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Goodwin used extreme labels in 1.3% of statements, above the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 1.0%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the TX 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 36.0% | 64.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 47 | 4.3% | 38.3% | 70.2% | 0.0% | 19.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 49 | 2.0% | 38.8% | 75.5% | 4.1% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 36.0% | 76.0% | 0.0% | 16.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 37 | 5.4% | 35.1% | 62.2% | 2.7% | 13.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 31.6% | 42.1% | 5.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 27.8% | 63.9% | 2.8% | 11.1% | 5.6% |
| Aug ’25 | 35 | 2.9% | 37.1% | 57.1% | 2.9% | 17.1% | 2.9% |
| Sep ’25 | 23 | 4.3% | 13.0% | 47.8% | 8.7% | 4.3% | 4.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 20.8% | 58.3% | 0.0% | 20.8% | 8.3% |
| Nov ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 30.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 17.4% | 60.9% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 10.3% | 37.9% | 3.5% | 31.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 22 | 4.5% | 18.2% | 40.9% | 0.0% | 13.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 57.1% | 0.0% | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 28 | 3.6% | 7.1% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 16 | 6.3% | 37.5% | 56.3% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 15 | 6.7% | 6.7% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 18 | 5.6% | 11.1% | 72.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 36 | 13.9% | 8.3% | 63.9% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 2.8% |
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 TX 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%. 2 months are hatched here.
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.
Feb 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Water Resources Development; Energy; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Armed Forces and National Security; Taxation; extreme label “radical” aimed at Donald Trump; target: Dan Patrick · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · Taxation · extreme label “radical” aimed at Donald Trump · target: Dan PatrickSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: DanSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Dan PatrickSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · Economics and Public Finance · Education · Health · target: DanSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Science, Technology, Communications · target: Dan PatrickSource
Newest first, the TX 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 560 posts on X.
Education is what Goodwin talks about most: 30% of policy statements, 2.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 100th of 503).
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 Goodwin talks about. The bills Goodwin sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the TX 2025–26 session
| Row | Goodwin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 30% | 15% |
| Health | 19% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 8% | 10% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 8% | 8% |
The thick bar is the share of Goodwin’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 30% | 15% | 14% | 10% |
| Health | 19% | 15% | 10% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 15% | 9% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 8% | 10% | 7% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 8% | 8% | 16% | 9% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 100th of 503.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Goodwin legislates on exactly the areas Goodwin 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 Goodwin sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Goodwin sits at −0.78 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 72% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.80 to −0.75, which understates the uncertainty; from 17,749 donors and 880 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 −0.80 to −0.75. From 17,749 donors and 880 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Goodwin, 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 Goodwin’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Goodwin |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 28% |
| Texas House | 148 | +0.3 | 5% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 13% |
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 Goodwin 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 Goodwin.
Goodwin reported $2.3M in the 2026 cycle, 57.0 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 88% 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 15,127 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2.3M | 97.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $50.4K | 2.2% |
| Party committees | $1,100 | 0.0% |
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $691.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $303.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $283.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $2.3M |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 88% came from Texas.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Texas | $2.0M |
| Virginia | $168.5K |
| California | $20.5K |
| Oklahoma | $15.7K |
| Massachusetts | $5,998 |
| New York | $5,198 |
| Florida | $4,482 |
| Washington | $4,268 |
| Colorado | $3,771 |
| Illinois | $2,967 |
| New Mexico | $2,723 |
| Arizona | $2,684 |
| Maryland | $2,264 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,854 |
| North Carolina | $1,789 |
| Connecticut | $1,665 |
| Oregon | $1,537 |
| Minnesota | $1,349 |
| New Jersey | $1,263 |
| District of Columbia | $1,261 |
| Michigan | $1,229 |
| Ohio | $1,167 |
| Georgia | $1,164 |
| Wisconsin | $998 |
| Missouri | $893 |
| Tennessee | $882 |
| Idaho | $878 |
| Hawaii | $828 |
| South Carolina | $525 |
| Maine | $476 |
| Utah | $468 |
| Kentucky | $462 |
| Indiana | $439 |
| Alabama | $418 |
| New Hampshire | $365 |
| Kansas | $353 |
| Rhode Island | $351 |
| Louisiana | $346 |
| Mississippi | $313 |
| Delaware | $278 |
| Iowa | $242 |
| Vermont | $238 |
| Nevada | $237 |
| Alaska | $178 |
| Montana | $157 |
| Arkansas | $148 |
| Nebraska | $147 |
| South Dakota | $120 |
| Wyoming | $91 |
| West Virginia | $70 |
| North Dakota | $15 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Texas
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Goodwin voted with the majority of Texas House Democrats on 96.4% of party-line votes and missed 4.5% of 3,700 roll calls. Texas House on average: 85% party unity, 93.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Goodwin voted against the majority of Texas House Democrats 249 times.
3,700 roll calls Goodwin could vote on in the TX 2025–26 session, compared with Texas 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 Goodwin voted with the majority of Texas House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Texas House Democrats
Party unity 96.4%, Texas House average 85%, ranks 11th of 143. 3,700 roll calls in the TX 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Goodwin, the thin grey bar the Texas House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Goodwin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.5% | 93.1% |
| Party unity | 96.4% | 85% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the TX 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2025 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 44–1 · R 46–37Democrats 44 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 37 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 45–0 · R 76–8Democrats 45 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 76 yea, 8 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 1–40 · R 78–7Democrats 1 yea, 40 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 7 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | SB 5 Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. adopt the conference committee report on SB 5. | Yea | With majority | pass | D 43–0 · R 86–0Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 86 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 45–1 · R 41–41Democrats 45 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 41 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Goodwin most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Goodwin least often
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.
TX 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Goodwin sponsored 64 bills in the TX 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 45 others. 9.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Texas House average 49%; 144th of 145).
The bills Goodwin 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.
Counts for the TX 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 64 | 57 | 6 | 2 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 45 | 45 | 29 | 18 | 14 |
Ink blocks are bills Goodwin sponsored, ochre blocks bills Goodwin 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 House average 49%. Ranks 144th of 145.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Goodwin, by number of shared bills in the TX 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Goodwin’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 5 | Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. | Cosponsor | Aug 16, 2025 | In committee | Emergency Management(model) | Laid on the table subject to call Aug 21, 2025 |
| HB 1 | Relating to youth camp emergency plans and preparedness; authorizing penalties. | Cosponsor | Aug 15, 2025 | Became law | Emergency Management(model) | Effective immediately Sep 5, 2025 |
| SB 5 | Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. | Cosponsor | Aug 15, 2025 | Became law | Emergency Management(model) | Effective immediately Sep 18, 2025 |
| HB 2 | Relating to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery, including required training for justices of the peace and responding to mass fatality events; requiring a license; authorizing fees. | Cosponsor | Aug 15, 2025 | In committee | Emergency Management(model) | Laid on the table subject to call Aug 21, 2025 |
| HB 3 | Relating to the interoperability of emergency communication equipment and infrastructure in this state, including the creation and operation of the Texas Interoperability Council, a grant program administered by the council, and the purchase of certain public safety radio communication systems. | Cosponsor | Aug 15, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Emergency Management(model) | Meeting cancelled Aug 27, 2025 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Goodwin’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Goodwin’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 Goodwin posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
No images from Goodwin’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline is the measure on which Goodwin is most unusual among State House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
