CSIP score −0.18 (approximate range −0.20 to −0.16, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 7 donors and 300 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 Johnston sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. Johnston reported $2,000 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom tenth of State House Republicans (median $33.7K). 100% of Johnston’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from North Dakota, in the top quarter of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Johnston 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
More liberal than 99% of State House Republicans · ± 0.02
Attendance
North Dakota House average 96.7% · ranks 3rd of 88 · 1,171 roll calls
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 2343rd of 2,521
From North Dakota, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Party unity
North Dakota House average 79% · ranks 52nd of 88 · 303 votes against the majority of North Dakota House Republicans
Out of committee
North Dakota House average 61% · ranks 28th of 47
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Johnston, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Johnston is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Johnston says
No statements for the ND 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the ND 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Johnston sits at −0.18 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 99% of State House Republicans. Approximate range −0.20 to −0.16, which understates the uncertainty; from 7 donors and 300 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 −0.20 to −0.16. From 7 donors and 300 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Johnston, 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 Johnston’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 Johnston sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Johnston |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 1% |
| North Dakota House | 91 | 0.0 | 11% |
| 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 Johnston 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 Johnston.
Money
Johnston reported $2,000 in the 2026 cycle, 5.9% of the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. 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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 2 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)100 squares$2,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2,000 | 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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $15.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $2,000 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from North Dakota.
- North Dakota$2,000
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 | $2,000 |
| 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
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, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Johnston voted with the majority of North Dakota House Republicans on 79% of party-line votes and missed none of 1,171 roll calls. North Dakota House on average: 79% party unity, 96.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Johnston voted against the majority of North Dakota House Republicans 303 times.
1,171 roll calls Johnston 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 Johnston 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.
votes against the majority of North Dakota House Republicans
Party unity 79%, North Dakota House average 79%, ranks 52nd of 88. 1,171 roll calls in the ND 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Johnston, the thin grey bar the North Dakota House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Johnston | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 96.7% |
| Party unity | 79% | 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 | Nay | Against 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 Johnston most often
- Jared HendrixR1,166 shared votes87%
- Matt HeilmanR1,166 shared votes86%
- Dawson HolleR1,119 shared votes84%
- Ben KoppelmanR1,153 shared votes84%
- Andrew MarschallR1,113 shared votes83%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Johnston least often
- Karla Rose HansonD1,170 shared votes64%
- LaurieBeth HagerD1,167 shared votes64%
- Austin FossD1,156 shared votes65%
- Zac IstaD1,134 shared votes65%
- Collette BrownD1,038 shared votes66%
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
Johnston sponsored 11 bills in the ND 2025–26 session; 4 became law. Cosponsored 59 others. 55% of sponsored bills got out of committee (North Dakota House average 61%; 28th of 47).
The bills Johnston 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 | 11 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| Cosponsored | 59 | 57 | 25 | 14 | 14 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Johnston sponsored, ochre blocks bills Johnston 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
North Dakota House average 61%. Ranks 28th of 47.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Johnston, by number of shared bills in the ND 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Bob Paulson29
- Jared Hendrix19
- Matt Heilman19
- Nathan Toman19
- Claire Cory18
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 Johnston’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 3033 | A concurrent resolution directing the Legislative Management to consider studying personal legislative staff for the Legislative Assembly. | Cosponsor | Feb 25, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Second reading, failed to adopt Mar 26, 2025 |
| HCR 3028 | A concurrent resolution directing the Legislative Management to consider studying human trafficking victim service and re-entry programs. | Cosponsor | Jan 31, 2025 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 04/17 Apr 15, 2025 |
| HCR 3021 | A concurrent resolution to amend and reenact sections 3 and 13 of article VI of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to the judicial branch and supreme court. | Cosponsor | Jan 30, 2025 | In committee | Law(model) | Second reading, failed to adopt yeas 13 nays 80 Feb 24, 2025 |
| HCR 3026 | A concurrent resolution urging Congress and the President of the United States to pursue diplomatic efforts, in good faith and with respect for the sovereignty of all parties, to propose the peaceful annexation of Greenland as a territory of the United States of America. | Cosponsor | Jan 30, 2025 | In committee | International Affairs(model) | Second reading, failed to adopt yeas 36 nays 54 Feb 17, 2025 |
| SB 2392 | A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new chapter to title 15, a new chapter to title 15.1, a new section to chapter 54-10, and a new chapter to title 54 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the regulation of prohibited discriminatory practices; and to provide for a legislative management | Cosponsor | Jan 27, 2025 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 1 nays 46 Feb 24, 2025 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Johnston’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Johnston’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 Johnston posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
ndlegis.gov/assembly/65-2017/members/house/representative-daniel-johnstonLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
0changes 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 Johnston posted
No images from Johnston’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
61 turns, Jan 10, 2025 to Sep 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 Johnston 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
- 47e7d979-3c08-4c17-bd54-d9cb06f31d9e
- Open States
- ocd-person/47e7d979-3c08-4c17-bd54-d9cb06f31d9e
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