Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 24, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Housing and Community Development · Source
16%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Connecticut House
16% of 31 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Connecticut House is 35%. Ranks 131st of 150, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Luxenberg sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Connecticut House. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against the Connecticut House. Luxenberg reported $7,256 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats (median $40.4K). Luxenberg sits at −0.87 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 82% of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Luxenberg sits furthest from the middle of the Connecticut House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
99.4%
Connecticut House average 95.0% · ranks 13th of 151 · 8 votes against the majority of Connecticut House Democrats
Out of committee
16%
Connecticut House average 35% · ranks 131st of 150
Itemized, 2026
$7,256
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1736th of 2,082
CSIP ideology
−0.87
More liberal than 82% of State House Democrats · ± 0.06
Attendance
98.4%
Connecticut House average 96.7% · ranks 85th of 151 · 754 roll calls
From Connecticut, 2026
93%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 993rd of 1,983 State House Democrats
Peer group: Connecticut House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Luxenberg, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Luxenberg is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Luxenberg says
Luxenberg stresses bipartisanship less than 88% of State House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0% of 41 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Democrat; 676th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Luxenberg’s 41 statements in the CT 2025–26 session (41 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.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the CT 2025–26 session
0%80%
Luxenberg
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion9 statements
22%
39%
612th of 764
Policy criticism3 statements
7%
10%
403rd of 764
Credit claiming3 statements
7%
14%
507th of 764
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 764
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Luxenberg | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 22% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 7% | 14% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
41
statements classified
41 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 41 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Luxenberg; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Luxenberg does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Luxenberg used no extreme labels in 41 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 CT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 0 | — (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 | 1 | — (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 | 4 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’25 | 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) |
| Aug ’25 | 2 | — (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 ’25 | 2 | — (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 ’25 | 4 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 1 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 ’26 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 ’26 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 1 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 1 | — (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 CT 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%. 21 months are hatched here; 8 of them have no statements.
In Luxenberg’s words
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.
Nov 13, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Housing and Community Development · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 28, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 41 statements
Newest first, the CT 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: 41 posts on X.
Policy
Housing and Community Development is what Luxenberg talks about most: 100% of policy statements, 16.2 times the peer share. Peers give it 6.2%. 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 Luxenberg talks about. The bills Luxenberg sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Luxenberg talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the CT 2025–26 session
0%100%
Luxenberg
Peers
Housing and Community Development9 statements
100%
6%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues1 statements
11%
10%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
3%
Commerce0 statements
0%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Luxenberg | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Housing and Community Development | 100% | 6% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 3% |
| Commerce | 0% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Luxenberg’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.
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 100%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Housing and Community Development | 100% | 6% | 6% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 10% | 6% | 4% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% | 6% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 0% | 8% | 6% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 0% | 11% | 3% | 2% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Luxenberg legislates on exactly the areas Luxenberg 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 Luxenberg sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Luxenberg sits at −0.87 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 82% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.94 to −0.81, which understates the uncertainty; from 541 donors and 397 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”.
−0.87
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.94 to −0.81. From 541 donors and 397 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Luxenberg, 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 Luxenberg’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 Luxenberg sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Connecticut House151 · median −0.7
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Luxenberg |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 18% |
| Connecticut House | 151 | −0.7 | 28% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 8% |
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 Luxenberg 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 Luxenberg.
Money
Luxenberg reported $7,256 in the 2026 cycle, 18% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Connecticut.
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.
$7,256
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 202 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)100 squares$7,256
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $7,256 | 100.0% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $5,975 |
| 2022 cycle | $7,140 |
| 2024 cycle | $6,006 |
| 2026 cycle | $7,256 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Connecticut.
- Connecticut$6,751
- Missouri$320
- Arizona$100
- Massachusetts$50
- Florida$25
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 |
|---|---|
| Connecticut | $6,751 |
| Missouri | $320 |
| Arizona | $100 |
| Massachusetts | $50 |
| Florida | $25 |
| Pennsylvania | $10 |
| 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 |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | 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 |
202
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
from Connecticut
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 Connecticut. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$1,424 54 donors
- PRESIDENT$620 3 donors
- LOBBYIST$255 3 donors
- UNEMPLOYED$110 3 donors
- CASHIER$15 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- TOWN OF MANCHESTER$195 6 donors
- STATE OF CONNECTICUT$190 5 donors
- UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT$130 4 donors
- STATE OF CT$55 5 donors
- HARTFORD HEALTHCARE$20 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Luxenberg voted with the majority of Connecticut House Democrats on 99.4% of party-line votes and missed 1.6% of 754 roll calls. Connecticut House on average: 95.0% party unity, 96.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Luxenberg voted against the majority of Connecticut House Democrats 8 times.
754 roll calls Luxenberg could vote on in the CT 2025–26 session, compared with Connecticut 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 Luxenberg voted with the majority of Connecticut House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
8
votes against the majority of Connecticut House Democrats
Party unity 99.4%, Connecticut House average 95.0%, ranks 13th of 151. 754 roll calls in the CT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Luxenberg, the thin grey bar the Connecticut House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Luxenberg
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.4%
96.7%
85th of 151
Party unity
99.4%
95.0%
13th of 151
Show the data
| Row | Luxenberg | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.4% | 96.7% |
| Party unity | 99.4% | 95.0% |
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 CT 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2026 | SB 391 AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF BREAST CANCER SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT SERVICES FOR WOMEN COMMITTED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. House Roll Call Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–0 · R 49–0Democrats 101 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 6, 2026 | HB 5563 AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROPOSALS, CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL FOR AIRPORTS, HELIPORTS, VERTIPORTS, RESTRICTED LANDING AREAS AND OTHER AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES, POLICE COLLABORATION WITH SOCIAL WORKERS, SURVEILLANCE PRICING, EDUCATION COST SHARING AND WITHHOLDING OF House Roll Call Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–0 · R 49–0Democrats 101 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 6, 2026 | SB 307 AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS TO THE COMMERCE STATUTES AND PROHIBITING SCHOLARSHIP DISPLACEMENT FOR CERTAIN STUDENTS AT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. House Roll Call Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 100–0 · R 49–0Democrats 100 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 6, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–0 · R 47–2Democrats 101 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay | became law | |
| May 6, 2026 | SB 220 AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM. House Roll Call Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 100–1 · R 49–0Democrats 100 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 49 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 Luxenberg most often
- Larry PembertonD340 shared votes99%
- Eilish Collins MainD655 shared votes99%
- M.J. ShannonD742 shared votes99%
- Matt BlumenthalD734 shared votes99%
- Liz LinehanD724 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Luxenberg least often
- Gale MastrofrancescoR700 shared votes63%
- Anne DauphinaisR740 shared votes63%
- Craig FishbeinR658 shared votes67%
- John PiscopoR742 shared votes68%
- Cara Pavalock-D'AmatoR721 shared votes69%
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
CT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Luxenberg sponsored 31 bills in the CT 2025–26 session; 4 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 16% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Connecticut House average 35%; 131st of 150).
The bills Luxenberg sponsored and cosponsored in the CT 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 CT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 31 | 31 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Luxenberg sponsored, ochre blocks bills Luxenberg cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
16%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Connecticut House average 35%. Ranks 131st of 150.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Luxenberg, by number of shared bills in the CT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- M.D. Rahman4
- Eleni DeGraw3
- Nick Gauthier3
- Saud Anwar3
- M.J. Shannon3
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 Luxenberg’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 5114 | AN ACT ESTABLISHING A REFUNDABLE CREDIT AGAINST THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX FOR A PORTION OF ANNUAL RENT PAYMENTS MADE BY A TAXPAYER FOR A PRIMARY RESIDENCE IN THE STATE. | Sponsor | Apr 1, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | FILE NO. 663 Apr 16, 2026 |
| HB 5306 | AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCE REDUCTION OR RELIEF FOR SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, STALKING OR HUMAN TRAFFICKING. | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | FILE NO. 598 Apr 13, 2026 |
| SB 90 | AN ACT REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING THE HATE CRIMES STATUTES. | Sponsor | Mar 24, 2026 | Became law | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | SIGNED BY GOVERNOR May 26, 2026 |
| SB 397 | AN ACT CONCERNING DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE USE AND RETENTION OF DATA DERIVED FROM AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEMS. | Sponsor | Mar 24, 2026 | Became law | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | TRANSMITTED TO SECRETARY OF THE STATE May 6, 2026 |
| HB 5328 | AN ACT ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP TO ADDRESS ANTI-MUSLIM AND ANTI-ARAB RACISM IN SCHOOLS. | Sponsor | Mar 23, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | FILE NO. 516 Apr 8, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. Luxenberg’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Luxenberg’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 Luxenberg posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
3changes 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 Luxenberg posted
No images from Luxenberg’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
761 turns, Feb 26, 2020 to May 4, 2026
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 Luxenberg is most unusual among Connecticut 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
- 37f6cb6c-888c-44c1-8c21-b273d967a62d
- Open States
- ocd-person/37f6cb6c-888c-44c1-8c21-b273d967a62d
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