Attendance 76%; the average within the Arizona House is 93.0%. Ranks 59th of 60, where 1st has the highest attendance. 1,672 roll calls in the AZ 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Abeytia could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Arizona House. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
6 measures against the Arizona House. 64% of Abeytia’s itemized money in the 2024 cycle came from Arizona, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats. Abeytia sits at −0.78 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 72% of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Abeytia sits furthest from the middle of the Arizona House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
Arizona House average 93.0% · ranks 59th of 60 · 1,672 roll calls
From Arizona, 2024
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 128th of 149 State House Democrats
Party unity
Arizona House average 93.3% · ranks 11th of 60 · 97 votes against the majority of Arizona House Democrats
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 72% of State House Democrats · ± 0.07
Out of committee
Arizona House average 34% · ranks 40th of 56
Itemized, 2024
State House Democrats’ median $5,075 · ranks 88th of 163
Peer group: Arizona House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Abeytia, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Abeytia is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Abeytia claims credit less than 95% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 0% of 6 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 729th of 765.
An AI model reads each of Abeytia’s 6 statements in the AZ 2025–26 session (6 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 AZ 2025–26 session
| Row | Abeytia | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy criticism | 17% | 10% |
| Policy discussion | 17% | 39% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 14% |
statements classified
6 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 6 |
The thick bar is Abeytia; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Abeytia does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Abeytia used no extreme labels in 6 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 AZ 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 AZ 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 19 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 22, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Education; Transportation and Public Works · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
Newest first, the AZ 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: 6 posts on X.
Economics and Public Finance is what Abeytia talks about most: 100% of policy statements, 9.4 times the peer share. Peers give it 11%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 Abeytia talks about. The bills Abeytia sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the AZ 2025–26 session
| Row | Abeytia | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 100% | 11% |
| Education | 100% | 15% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 100% | 5% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 3% |
The thick bar is the share of Abeytia’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 100%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 100% | 11% | 0% | 2% |
| Education | 100% | 15% | 17% | 10% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 100% | 5% | 1% | 5% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% | 1% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 10% | 10% | 4% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Abeytia legislates on exactly the areas Abeytia 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 Abeytia sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Abeytia sits at −0.78 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 72% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.85 to −0.72, which understates the uncertainty; from 462 donors and 238 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 −0.85 to −0.72. From 462 donors and 238 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Abeytia, 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 Abeytia’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 Abeytia |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 28% |
| Arizona House | 60 | +0.2 | 18% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 12% |
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 Abeytia 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 Abeytia.
Abeytia reported $3,985 in the 2024 cycle, below the State House Democrats’ median of $5,075. State filings report no small-donation total. 64% of itemized individual money came from Arizona.
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 2024 cycle
From 250 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $5,075.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $3,985 | 100.0% |
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, 2022 to 2024. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2024.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $3,800 |
| 2024 cycle | $3,985 |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 64% came from Arizona.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Arizona | $2,535 |
| Illinois | $210 |
| California | $145 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Arizona
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 Arizona. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Abeytia voted with the majority of Arizona House Democrats on 97.8% of party-line votes and missed 24% of 1,672 roll calls. Arizona House on average: 93.3% party unity, 93.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Abeytia voted against the majority of Arizona House Democrats 97 times.
1,672 roll calls Abeytia could vote on in the AZ 2025–26 session, compared with Arizona 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 Abeytia voted with the majority of Arizona House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Arizona House Democrats
Party unity 97.8%, Arizona House average 93.3%, ranks 11th of 60. 1,672 roll calls in the AZ 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Abeytia, the thin grey bar the Arizona House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Abeytia | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 76% | 93.0% |
| Party unity | 97.8% | 93.3% |
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 AZ 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–22 · R 31–0Democrats 0 yea, 22 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | much discussed | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 17–5 · R 30–0Democrats 17 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 2–20 · R 31–0Democrats 2 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 2–20 · R 19–12Democrats 2 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 19 yea, 12 nay | party crossover | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 5–17 · R 31–0Democrats 5 yea, 17 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Abeytia most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Abeytia 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.
AZ 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Abeytia sponsored 14 bills in the AZ 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 249 others. 7.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Arizona House average 34%; 40th of 56).
The bills Abeytia sponsored and cosponsored in the AZ 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 AZ 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 14 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 249 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
Ink blocks are bills Abeytia sponsored, ochre blocks bills Abeytia 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
Arizona House average 34%. Ranks 40th of 56.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Abeytia, by number of shared bills in the AZ 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 Abeytia’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 4125 | marriage; minimum age | Cosponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Families(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HCR 2028 | permanent funds; land trust; distributions. | Cosponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Economics and Public Finance(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HB 4132 | ESAs; expenditures; enrollment; limitations. | Sponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Education(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HCR 2062 | same-sex marriage; constitutional right. | Cosponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HCR 2042 | expenditure limitation; school districts; repeal. | Cosponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Education(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Abeytia’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Abeytia’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 Abeytia posts with a vision model.
Official site
www.azleg.gov/house-member/?legislature=57&session=129&legislator=2366Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
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 Abeytia’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.
1 turn, Feb 25, 2026 to Feb 25, 2026
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 Abeytia is most unusual among Arizona 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
