Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 10, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: @IQTestBrain · Source
99%
of State House Republicans score to the right of Maki on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.16 (approximate range −0.18 to −0.14, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 5 donors and 295 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 Maki sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 0.2% of Maki’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of State House Republicans (average 32%). 0% of Maki’s statements claim credit, in the bottom 5% of State House Republicans (average 13%).
The measures on which Maki sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
−0.16
More liberal than 99% of State House Republicans · ± 0.02
Policy discussion
0.2%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 765th of 791
Credit claiming
0%
State House Republicans average 13% · ranks 764th of 791
Policy criticism
0%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 735th of 791
Bipartisanship
0%
State House Republicans average 1.8% · ranks 677th of 791
From North Dakota, 2024
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 51st of 214 State House Republicans
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Maki, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Maki is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Maki says
Maki claims credit less than 96% of State House Republicans. Credit claiming in 0% of 479 statements, against 13% for the average State House Republican; 764th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Maki’s 479 statements in the ND 2025–26 session (479 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the ND 2025–26 session
0%80%
Maki
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks5 statements
1%
3%
390th of 791
Policy discussion1 statements
0%
32%
765th of 791
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
9%
735th of 791
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
677th of 791
Credit claiming0 statements
0%
13%
764th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Maki | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
| Policy discussion | 0% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 13% |
479
statements classified
479 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 479 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Maki; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Maki does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Maki used extreme labels in 1.9% of statements, above the peer average. 9 statements, most often aimed at MAGAARMY; peers 1.4%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGAARMY1
- MagaTimes241
- MAGAVoice1
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 ND 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 | 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) |
| Apr ’25 | 136 | 1.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.7% |
| May ’25 | 53 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 82 | 1.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.2% |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’25 | 29 | 3.5% | 0.0% | 3.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 19 | 5.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’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) |
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 ND 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%. 11 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.
In Maki’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.
Dec 10, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; International Affairs · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 4, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at MAGAVoice · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: @IQTestBrainSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Barron TrumpooSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: JFK JrSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: atensnutSource
All 479 statements
Newest first, the ND 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: 479 posts on X.
Policy
International Affairs is what Maki talks about most: 100% of policy statements, 54.6 times the peer share. Peers give it 1.8%. 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 Maki talks about. The bills Maki sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Maki talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the ND 2025–26 session
0%100%
Maki
Peers
International Affairs1 statements
100%
2%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
4%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues0 statements
0%
6%
Commerce0 statements
0%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Maki | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| International Affairs | 100% | 2% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 4% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 6% |
| Commerce | 0% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Maki’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 100%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Affairs | 100% | 2% | 3% | 1% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 5% | 3% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 0% | 11% | 13% | 11% |
| Education | 0% | 15% | 47% | 9% |
| Environmental Protection | 0% | 2% | 3% | 3% |
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 Maki legislates on exactly the areas Maki 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 Maki sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Maki sits at −0.16 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 99% of State House Republicans. Approximate range −0.18 to −0.14, which understates the uncertainty; from 5 donors and 295 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”.
−0.16
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.18 to −0.14. From 5 donors and 295 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Maki, 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 Maki’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 Maki sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
North Dakota House91 · median 0.0
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Maki |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 1% |
| North Dakota House | 91 | 0.0 | 12% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 44% |
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 Maki 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 Maki.
Money
Maki reported $8,171 in the 2024 cycle, below the State House Republicans’ median of $10.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from North Dakota.
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.
$8,171
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 5 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $10.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)94 squares$7,671
- Party committees6 squares$500
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $7,671 | 93.9% |
| Party committees | $500 | 6.1% |
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, 2024 to 2024. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $8,171 |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from North Dakota.
- North Dakota$7,671
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 |
|---|---|
| North Dakota | $7,671 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
5
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from North Dakota
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 North Dakota. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
- ND REPUBLICAN HOUSE CAUCUS$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Maki voted with the majority of North Dakota House Republicans on 80% of party-line votes and missed 0.9% of 1,171 roll calls. North Dakota House on average: 79% party unity, 96.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Maki voted against the majority of North Dakota House Republicans 250 times.
1,171 roll calls Maki could vote on in the ND 2025–26 session, compared with North Dakota 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 Maki voted with the majority of North Dakota House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
250
votes against the majority of North Dakota House Republicans
Party unity 80%, North Dakota House average 79%, ranks 46th of 88. 1,171 roll calls in the ND 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Maki, the thin grey bar the North Dakota House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Maki
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.0%
96.7%
32nd of 88
Party unity
80%
79%
46th of 88
Show the data
| Row | Maki | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.0% | 96.7% |
| Party unity | 80% | 79% |
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 ND 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2026 | HB 1628 AN ACT to create and enact a new subdivision to subsection 2 of section 12-60-24, subdivision lll of subsection 3 of section 19-03.1-05, and chapter 51-38 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to criminal history record checks, the scheduling of kratom alkaloid derivatives as a schedule I contr Motion for Final Passage on HB 1628 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 10–1 · R 81–0Democrats 10 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 81 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 4, 2026 | SB 2408 A BILL for an Act to create and enact subdivision lll of subsection 3 of section 19-03.1-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the scheduling of kratom alkaloids and kratom alkaloid derivatives as a schedule I controlled substance; to amend and reenact section 19-03.1-22.3 and subsection Motion for Final Passage on SB 2408 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 7–4 · R 39–42Democrats 7 yea, 4 nay; Republicans 39 yea, 42 nay | close vote · party crossover |
| Sep 4, 2026 | SB 2407 AN ACT to provide an appropriation to the state historical society for the North Dakota military museum project; to amend and reenact section 55-01-02.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to jurisdiction of the heritage center; to repeal subsection 3 of section 6 of chapter 17 of the 2025 Se Motion for Final Passage on SB 2407 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 3–8 · R 68–13Democrats 3 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 68 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Sep 3, 2026 | HB 1628 AN ACT to create and enact a new subdivision to subsection 2 of section 12-60-24, subdivision lll of subsection 3 of section 19-03.1-05, and chapter 51-38 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to criminal history record checks, the scheduling of kratom alkaloid derivatives as a schedule I contr Motion for Final Passage on HB 1628 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 8–3 · R 78–2Democrats 8 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jan 23, 2026 | SB 2402 AN ACT to create and enact two new sections to chapter 43-15 and a new subsection to section 43-48-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the prescriptive authority of pharmacists and therapeutic substitution; to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 26.1-36.11-01 and section 43-15-01 Motion for Final Passage on SB 2402 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 10–0 · R 81–1Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 81 yea, 1 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 Maki most often
- Ben KoppelmanR1,143 shared votes86%
- Andrew MarschallR1,106 shared votes86%
- Macy BolinskeR1,121 shared votes85%
- Dawson HolleR1,108 shared votes84%
- SuAnn OlsonR1,118 shared votes84%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Maki least often
- Karla Rose HansonD1,159 shared votes67%
- LaurieBeth HagerD1,156 shared votes68%
- Jayme DavisD970 shared votes68%
- Zac IstaD1,130 shared votes69%
- Collette BrownD1,027 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
ND 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Maki sponsored 5 bills in the ND 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 12 others. 80% of sponsored bills got out of committee (North Dakota House average 61%; 14th of 47).
The bills Maki sponsored and cosponsored in the ND 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 ND 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 12 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Maki sponsored, ochre blocks bills Maki cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
80%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
North Dakota House average 61%. Ranks 14th of 47.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Maki, by number of shared bills in the ND 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Doug Osowski7
- Matt Heilman5
- Desiree Morton5
- Jeff Magrum5
- Dori Hauck4
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 Maki’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HCR 3011 | A concurrent resolution urging Congress to provide veterans with medical coverage for hyperbaric oxygenation therapy. | Cosponsor | Jan 29, 2025 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 03/21 Mar 18, 2025 |
| HB 1497 | AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 50-11.1-21 and section 50-11.1-23 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to age requirements for an approved four-year old program; and eligibility for the best in class program. | Sponsor | Jan 20, 2025 | Became law | Education(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 03/27 Mar 31, 2025 |
| HB 1562 | AN ACT to amend and reenact section 15.1-07-34 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to training for mandated reporters of suspected child abuse or neglect; and to repeal section 15.1-19-29 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to training for mandated reporters of suspected child abuse or | Cosponsor | Jan 20, 2025 | Became law | Families(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 04/16 Apr 21, 2025 |
| HB 1498 | AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 15-20.2-07 and 15.1-09-33.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the powers and duties of center boards and the authority of a school board to pay a first-year signing bonus for teachers; and to declare an emergency. | Sponsor | Jan 20, 2025 | Became law | Education(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 04/23 Apr 25, 2025 |
| HB 1527 | A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 15.1-21 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to required Holocaust education. | Sponsor | Jan 20, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Education(model) | Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 22 nays 24 Apr 11, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Maki’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Maki’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 Maki posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Maki posted
No images from Maki’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
5 turns, Jan 14, 2025 to Apr 8, 2025
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 Maki is most unusual among State House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 3bf442fa-fe42-48c3-b10a-6e94bc20e23d
- Open States
- ocd-person/3bf442fa-fe42-48c3-b10a-6e94bc20e23d
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