Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works · Source
100%
of State House Democrats score to the right of Miller on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −1.63 (approximate range −1.66 to −1.60, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 7,910 donors and 570 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 Miller sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 4.8% of the 63 bills Miller sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of the Michigan House. 66% of Miller’s statements discuss policy, 1.7 times the State House Democrat average of 39%.
The measures on which Miller sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
−1.63
More liberal than 100% of State House Democrats · ± 0.03
Out of committee
4.8%
Michigan House average 32% · ranks 103rd of 107
Policy discussion
66%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 53rd of 764
From Michigan, 2026
35%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1869th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Party unity
81%
Michigan House average 93.2% · ranks 98th of 110 · 58 votes against the majority of Michigan House Democrats
Personal attacks
0%
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 584th of 764
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Miller, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Miller is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Miller says
Miller attacks opponents personally less than 76% of State House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 351 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 584th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Miller’s 351 statements in the MI 2025–26 session (351 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 MI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Miller
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion233 statements
66%
39%
53rd of 764
Credit claiming58 statements
17%
14%
295th of 764
Policy criticism42 statements
12%
10%
263rd of 764
Bipartisanship9 statements
3%
3%
297th of 764
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Miller | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 66% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 17% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
351
statements classified
351 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 351 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Miller; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Miller does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Miller used no extreme labels in 351 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 MI 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 | 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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Sep ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 15.4% | 76.9% | 15.4% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’25 | 9 | — (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 | 6 | — (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 | 15 | 0.0% | 53.3% | 80.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 13.0% | 60.9% | 4.3% | 34.8% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 92.3% | 0.0% | 46.2% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 46 | 0.0% | 26.1% | 71.7% | 4.3% | 21.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 64 | 0.0% | 1.6% | 57.8% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 39 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 79.5% | 2.6% | 10.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.8% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 35 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 71.4% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
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 MI 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; 4 of them have no statements.
In Miller’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Agriculture and Food · 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 351 statements
Newest first, the MI 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: 351 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Miller talks about most: 16% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.59 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 174th of 503).
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 Miller talks about. The bills Miller sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Miller talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MI 2025–26 session
0%35%
Miller
Peers
Government Operations and Politics37 statements
16%
15%
Agriculture and Food34 statements
15%
5%
Environmental Protection30 statements
13%
3%
Health29 statements
12%
15%
Education28 statements
12%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Miller | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 15% | 5% |
| Environmental Protection | 13% | 3% |
| Health | 12% | 15% |
| Education | 12% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Miller’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 35%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 15% | 13% | 8% |
| Agriculture and Food | 15% | 5% | 4% | 3% |
| Environmental Protection | 13% | 3% | 5% | 4% |
| Health | 12% | 15% | 11% | 15% |
| Education | 12% | 15% | 3% | 10% |
0.59
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 174th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Miller legislates on exactly the areas Miller 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 Miller sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Miller sits at −1.63 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 100% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.66 to −1.60, which understates the uncertainty; from 7,910 donors and 570 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”.
−1.63
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.66 to −1.60. From 7,910 donors and 570 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Miller, 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 Miller’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 Miller sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Michigan House110 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Miller |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 0% |
| Michigan House | 110 | +0.4 | 1% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 0% |
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 Miller 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 Miller.
Money
Miller reported $37.4K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 35% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
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.
$37.4K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 66 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)54 squares$20.3K
- PACs and other committees46 squares$17.2K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $20.3K | 54.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $17.2K | 45.9% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $513.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $1.8M |
| 2026 cycle | $37.4K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 35% came from Michigan.
- Michigan$7,187
- California$5,188
- District of Columbia$2,500
- Massachusetts$2,225
- Oregon$1,225
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 |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $7,187 |
| California | $5,188 |
| District of Columbia | $2,500 |
| Massachusetts | $2,225 |
| Oregon | $1,225 |
| Illinois | $1,026 |
| Mississippi | $500 |
| Texas | $333 |
| Pennsylvania | $25 |
| New York | $16 |
| Virginia | $13 |
| Minnesota | $13 |
| 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 |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Rhode Island | 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 |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West 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 |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Florida | No data |
66
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
35%
from Michigan
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 Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$10.2K 32 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MICHIGAN REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
- MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$4,500
- MICHIGAN LABORERS POLITICAL LEAGUE$2,500
- MICHIGAN BEER AND WINE WHOLESALERS STATE PAC$2,000
- MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$260 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Miller voted with the majority of Michigan House Democrats on 81% of party-line votes and missed none of 695 roll calls. Michigan House on average: 93.2% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Miller voted against the majority of Michigan House Democrats 58 times.
695 roll calls Miller could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan 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 Miller voted with the majority of Michigan House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
58
votes against the majority of Michigan House Democrats
Party unity 81%, Michigan House average 93.2%, ranks 98th of 110. 695 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Miller, the thin grey bar the Michigan House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Miller
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.9%
55th of 110
Party unity
81%
93.2%
98th of 110
Show the data
| Row | Miller | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 81% | 93.2% |
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 MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6302 Education: school districts; requirement to display an American flag in classrooms; provide for. Amends sec. 1347 of 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1347). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #374 Yeas 76 Nays 27 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 20–26 · R 56–1Democrats 20 yea, 26 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6259 Criminal procedure: sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for criminal sexual conduct; modify. Amends sec. 16y, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.16y). TIE BAR WITH: HB 6261'26, HB 6262'26 passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #375 Yeas 77 Nays 26 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 21–25 · R 56–1Democrats 21 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6260 Crimes: criminal sexual conduct; penalties for criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; modify. Amends sec. 520b of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.520b). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #376 Yeas 79 Nays 24 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | — | pass | D 23–23 · R 56–1Democrats 23 yea, 23 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6282 Public employees and officers: ethics; moratorium on former legislators accepting employment with an entity that receives a grant from the utility consumer participation board; provide for. Creates new act. passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #373 Yeas 88 Nays 15 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 32–14 · R 56–1Democrats 32 yea, 14 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6262 Crimes: criminal sexual conduct; penalties for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; modify. Amends sec. 520d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.520d). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #378 Yeas 77 Nays 26 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 21–25 · R 56–1Democrats 21 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | 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 Miller most often
- Matt KoleszarD692 shared votes93%
- Stephen WoodenD617 shared votes92%
- John FitzgeraldD695 shared votes92%
- Betsy CoffiaD546 shared votes91%
- Jennifer ConlinD668 shared votes91%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Miller least often
- Steve CarraR695 shared votes43%
- Jaime GreeneR598 shared votes59%
- Jim DeSanaR662 shared votes61%
- Matt MaddockR684 shared votes64%
- Joseph FoxR681 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
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Miller sponsored 63 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 483 others. 4.8% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan House average 32%; 103rd of 107).
The bills Miller sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 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 MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 63 | 63 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 483 | 483 | 159 | 12 | 11 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Miller sponsored, ochre blocks bills Miller cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
4.8%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Michigan House average 32%. Ranks 103rd of 107.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Miller, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Carrie Rheingans226
- Veronica Paiz184
- Sharon MacDonell174
- Kelly Breen149
- Erin Byrnes128
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 Miller’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 6427 | Businesses: other; Michigan zoning enabling act; make subject to the data center local decision protection act. Amends secs. 205 & 606 of 2006 PA 110 (MCL 125.3205 & 125.3606). TIE BAR WITH: HB 6426'26 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/30/2026 Oct 1, 2026 |
| HB 6426 | Businesses: other; data center local decision protection act; create. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6427'26 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Commerce(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/30/2026 Oct 1, 2026 |
| HB 6425 | Elections: petitions; petition circulator to include village or postal city on the certificate of circulator; allow. Amends sec. 544c of 1954 PA 116 (MCL 168.544c). | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/30/2026 Oct 1, 2026 |
| HB 6392 | Torts: liability; liability for artificial intelligence misidentification; establish. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 2980. | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/24/2026 Sep 29, 2026 |
| HB 6391 | Businesses: other; siting requirements for certain data centers; provide for. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 6388'26 | Sponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Commerce(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/24/2026 Sep 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Miller’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Miller’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 Miller posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 10
pages crawled
6changes 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 Miller posted
No images from Miller’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 Miller is most unusual among State House Democrats, 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
- 50d75ced-0a70-4f88-aada-57015d799fd0
- Open States
- ocd-person/50d75ced-0a70-4f88-aada-57015d799fd0
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