Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
99%
of State Senate Republicans score to the right of Blanc on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.26 (approximate range −0.29 to −0.22, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 37 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 Blanc sits among State Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 88% of the 34 bills Blanc sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the South Dakota Senate. Blanc reported $14.9K in the 2024 cycle, in the bottom half of State Senate Republicans (median $28.3K).
The measures on which Blanc sits furthest from the middle of State Senate 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
−0.26
More liberal than 99% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
Party unity
94.4%
South Dakota Senate average 76% · ranks 5th of 35 · 105 votes against the majority of South Dakota Senate Republicans
Out of committee
88%
South Dakota Senate average 78% · ranks 7th of 34
Attendance
99.8%
South Dakota Senate average 96.6% · ranks 12th of 35 · 567 roll calls
Itemized, 2024
$14.9K
State Senate Republicans’ median $28.3K · ranks 78th of 112
From South Dakota, 2024
91%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 61st of 109 State Senate Republicans
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Blanc, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Blanc is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Blanc says
Blanc criticizes policies less than 93% of State Senate Republicans. Policy criticism in 0% of 15 statements, against 9.5% for the average State Senate Republican; 331st of 354.
An AI model reads each of Blanc’s 15 statements in the SD 2025–26 session (15 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the SD 2025–26 session
0%80%
Blanc
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion7 statements
47%
37%
112th of 354
Credit claiming6 statements
40%
15%
16th of 354
Bipartisanship1 statements
7%
2%
26th of 354
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
272nd of 354
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
9%
331st of 354
Show the data
| Row | Blanc | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 47% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 40% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 7% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 9% |
15
statements classified
15 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 15 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Blanc; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Blanc does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Blanc used no extreme labels in 15 statements. The peer average is 1.3%.
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 SD 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 | 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) |
| Mar ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 38.5% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 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 ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’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) |
| 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 | 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 ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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 SD 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; 19 of them have no statements.
In Blanc’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 18, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 18, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · 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 15 statements
Newest first, the SD 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: 15 posts on X.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Blanc talks about most: 43% of policy statements, 6.6 times the peer share. Peers give it 6.5%. 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 Blanc talks about. The bills Blanc sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Blanc talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the SD 2025–26 session
0%47%
Blanc
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security3 statements
43%
6%
Education2 statements
29%
14%
Energy1 statements
14%
6%
Government Operations and Politics1 statements
14%
17%
Public Lands and Natural Resources1 statements
14%
2%
Show the data
| Row | Blanc | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 43% | 6% |
| Education | 29% | 14% |
| Energy | 14% | 6% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 17% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 14% | 2% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Blanc’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 47%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 43% | 6% | 3% | 2% |
| Education | 29% | 14% | 13% | 10% |
| Energy | 14% | 6% | 0% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 17% | 23% | 12% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 14% | 2% | 0% | 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 Blanc legislates on exactly the areas Blanc 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 Blanc sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Blanc sits at −0.26 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 99% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range −0.29 to −0.22, which understates the uncertainty; from 37 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”.
−0.26
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.29 to −0.22. From 37 donors and 300 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Blanc, 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 Blanc’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 Blanc sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
South Dakota Senate35 · median +0.1
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Blanc |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 1% |
| South Dakota Senate | 35 | +0.1 | 9% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 41% |
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 Blanc 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 Blanc.
Money
Blanc reported $14.9K in the 2024 cycle, below the State Senate Republicans’ median of $28.3K. State filings report no small-donation total. 91% of itemized individual money came from South 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.
$14.9K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 37 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $28.3K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)77 squares$11.5K
- PACs and other committees23 squares$3,400
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $11.5K | 77.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,400 | 22.8% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $14.9K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 91% came from South Dakota.
- South Dakota$10.5K
- California$1,000
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 |
|---|---|
| South Dakota | $10.5K |
| California | $1,000 |
| 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 |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | 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 |
| 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 |
37
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
91%
from South 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 South 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.
- LIBERTY TREE PAC$1,000
- SOUTH DAKOTA RIGHT TO LIFE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- BLACK HILLS CORPORATION$500
- STAND FOR THE FAMILY SOUTH DAKOTA$500
- FRIENDS OF TINA MULALLY$200
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Blanc voted with the majority of South Dakota Senate Republicans on 94.4% of party-line votes and missed 0.2% of 567 roll calls. South Dakota Senate on average: 76% party unity, 96.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Blanc voted against the majority of South Dakota Senate Republicans 105 times.
567 roll calls Blanc could vote on in the SD 2025–26 session, compared with South Dakota Senate. 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 Blanc voted with the majority of South Dakota Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
105
votes against the majority of South Dakota Senate Republicans
Party unity 94.4%, South Dakota Senate average 76%, ranks 5th of 35. 567 roll calls in the SD 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Blanc, the thin grey bar the South Dakota Senate average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Blanc
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.8%
96.6%
12th of 35
Party unity
94.4%
76%
5th of 35
Show the data
| Row | Blanc | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.8% | 96.6% |
| Party unity | 94.4% | 76% |
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 SD 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2026 | HB 1326 appropriate money for the ordinary expenses of the legislative, judicial, and executive departments of the state, the current expenses of state institutions, interest on the public debt, and common schools. Do Pass | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 3–0 · R 22–9Democrats 3 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 9 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Mar 12, 2026 | HB 1051 revise property tax levies for school districts and to revise the state aid to general and special education formulas. Do Pass Amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 3–0 · R 31–0Democrats 3 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 12, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 3–0 · R 23–8Democrats 3 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 8 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Mar 9, 2026 | HB 1006 create a taskforce to study the creation of Indian medicaid managed care entities in the state. Do Pass Amended | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 3–0 · R 29–2Democrats 3 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 29 yea, 2 nay | became law |
| Mar 9, 2026 | HB 1241 modify the requirements for public notice of a hearing prior to a vote to impose an excess tax levy, and to modify requirements to refer an excess tax levy of a school district to a vote. Do Pass Amended | Yea | With majority | fail | D 1–2 · R 16–15Democrats 1 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 15 nay | close vote · party crossover |
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 Blanc most often
- Sam MartyR565 shared votes92%
- Lauren NelsonR566 shared votes89%
- Joy HohnR556 shared votes88%
- Mark LapkaR542 shared votes88%
- Curt VoightR559 shared votes87%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Blanc least often
- Liz LarsonD566 shared votes60%
- Jamie SmithD562 shared votes60%
- Brandon WipfR299 shared votes63%
- Randy DeibertR566 shared votes65%
- Stephanie SauderR566 shared votes65%
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
SD 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Blanc sponsored 34 bills in the SD 2025–26 session; 8 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 88% of sponsored bills got out of committee (South Dakota Senate average 78%; 7th of 34).
The bills Blanc sponsored and cosponsored in the SD 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 SD 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 34 | 33 | 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Blanc sponsored, ochre blocks bills Blanc cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
88%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
South Dakota Senate average 78%. Ranks 7th of 34.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Blanc, by number of shared bills in the SD 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Heather Baxter23
- Phil Jensen21
- Aaron Aylward17
- John Carley16
- Dylan Jordan15
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 Blanc’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 1274 | prohibit the dispensing, distribution, sale, or advertisement of certain articles or things for purposes of an unlawful abortion and provide a criminal and civil penalty therefor. | Sponsor | Feb 25, 2026 | Became law | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Signed by the Governor on 2026-03-30 H.J. 579 Mar 30, 2026 |
| HB 1313 | require education in prenatal human growth and development. | Sponsor | Feb 17, 2026 | Became law | Education(model) | Signed by the Governor on 2026-03-30 H.J. 579 Mar 30, 2026 |
| SB 218 | provide for the establishment of charter schools. | Sponsor | Feb 4, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Senate Reconsidered , Passed, YEAS 17, NAYS 16 S.J. 339 Feb 20, 2026 |
| SB 177 | clarify the requirements for marking an optical scan ballot. | Sponsor | Jan 29, 2026 | Became law | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Signed by the Governor on 2026-03-12 S.J. 529 Mar 12, 2026 |
| HCR 6009 | urging Congress to repeal the estate tax. | Sponsor | Jan 29, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Taxation Tabled , Passed, YEAS 13, NAYS 0 H.J. 7 Feb 10, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Blanc’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Blanc’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 Blanc posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 2
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 Blanc posted
No images from Blanc’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
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Blanc is most unusual among State Senate 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
- 4a052dc7-31aa-4a24-b72d-7e922ce7bf8b
- Open States
- ocd-person/4a052dc7-31aa-4a24-b72d-7e922ce7bf8b
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