Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 28, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Commerce · Source
98%
of State House Republicans score to the right of Holle on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.12 (approximate range −0.13 to −0.10, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 17 donors and 589 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 Holle sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 100% of the 6 bills Holle sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of the North Dakota House. The policy areas Holle talks about and legislates on agree at 0.39 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Holle 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
−0.12
More liberal than 98% of State House Republicans · ± 0.02
Out of committee
100%
North Dakota House average 61% · ranks 3rd of 47
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.39
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 448th of 504
Attendance
95.5%
North Dakota House average 96.7% · ranks 68th of 88 · 1,171 roll calls
From North Dakota, 2026
93%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1468th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Party unity
80%
North Dakota House average 79% · ranks 49th of 88 · 211 votes against the majority of North Dakota House Republicans
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Holle, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Holle is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Holle says
Holle stresses bipartisanship more than 86% of State House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 3.9% of 153 statements, against 1.8% for the average State House Republican; 107th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Holle’s 153 statements in the ND 2025–26 session (153 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%
Holle
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion77 statements
50%
32%
122nd of 791
Credit claiming28 statements
18%
13%
204th of 791
Policy criticism18 statements
12%
9%
232nd of 791
Bipartisanship6 statements
4%
2%
107th of 791
Personal attacks3 statements
2%
3%
307th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Holle | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 50% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 18% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
153
statements classified
153 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 153 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Holle; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Holle does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Holle used extreme labels in 3.3% of statements, 2.3 times the peer average. 5 statements, most often aimed at America; peers 1.4%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- America1
- MAGA1
- ND1
- SWAMP1
- unelected elites1
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 | 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) |
| Feb ’25 | 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) |
| Mar ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’25 | 32 | 3.1% | 12.5% | 62.5% | 6.3% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 66.7% | 4.8% | 14.3% | 19.1% |
| Sep ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 44 | 4.5% | 18.2% | 47.7% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 2.3% |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 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 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| 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 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%. 18 months are hatched here; 6 of them have no statements.
In Holle’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 17, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Families · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; extreme label “extreme” aimed at MAGA · 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: CacoccsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: EconVonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Yvonne HooperSource
All 153 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: 153 posts on X.
Policy
Agriculture and Food is what Holle talks about most: 86% of policy statements, 19.4 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.39 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 448th of 504).
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 Holle talks about. The bills Holle sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Holle talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the ND 2025–26 session
0%94%
Holle
Peers
Agriculture and Food66 statements
86%
4%
Commerce5 statements
6%
4%
Families4 statements
5%
4%
Foreign Trade and International Finance4 statements
5%
1%
Economics and Public Finance3 statements
4%
12%
Show the data
| Row | Holle | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 86% | 4% |
| Commerce | 6% | 4% |
| Families | 5% | 4% |
| Foreign Trade and International Finance | 5% | 1% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 4% | 12% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Holle’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 94%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 86% | 4% | 26% | 3% |
| Commerce | 6% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
| Families | 5% | 4% | 11% | 2% |
| Foreign Trade and International Finance | 5% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 4% | 12% | 2% | 2% |
0.39
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 448th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Holle legislates on exactly the areas Holle 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 Holle sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Holle sits at −0.12 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 98% of State House Republicans. Approximate range −0.13 to −0.10, which understates the uncertainty; from 17 donors and 589 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”.
−0.12
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.13 to −0.10. From 17 donors and 589 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Holle, 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 Holle’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 Holle 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 Holle |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 2% |
| North Dakota House | 91 | 0.0 | 22% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 45% |
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 Holle 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 Holle.
Money
Holle reported $31.5K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% 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.
$31.5K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 16 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)60 squares$18.8K
- PACs and other committees19 squares$6,181
- Party committees21 squares$6,500
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $18.8K | 59.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $6,181 | 19.6% |
| Party committees | $6,500 | 20.6% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $3,100 |
| 2024 cycle | $333 |
| 2026 cycle | $31.5K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from North Dakota.
- North Dakota$17.6K
- Montana$1,000
- Minnesota$250
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 | $17.6K |
| Montana | $1,000 |
| Minnesota | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | 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 |
16
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
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.
- NORTH DAKOTA REPUBLICAN PARTY - DISTRICT 31$6,500
- ND REPUBLICAN HOUSE CAUCUS$1,500
- PRIMACY PAC$1,250
- BISMARCK MANDAN REPUBLICAN WOMEN$850
- SWIONTEK, STEVEN$781
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Holle voted with the majority of North Dakota House Republicans on 80% of party-line votes and missed 4.4% of 1,171 roll calls. North Dakota House on average: 79% party unity, 96.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Holle voted against the majority of North Dakota House Republicans 211 times.
1,171 roll calls Holle 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 Holle 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.
211
votes against the majority of North Dakota House Republicans
Party unity 80%, North Dakota House average 79%, ranks 49th of 88. 1,171 roll calls in the ND 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Holle, the thin grey bar the North Dakota House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Holle
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.5%
96.7%
68th of 88
Party unity
80%
79%
49th of 88
Show the data
| Row | Holle | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.5% | 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 Holle most often
- Ben KoppelmanR1,101 shared votes89%
- Macy BolinskeR1,080 shared votes89%
- Andrew MarschallR1,061 shared votes89%
- Jared HendrixR1,114 shared votes87%
- Kathy FrelichR1,109 shared votes87%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Holle least often
- Karla Rose HansonD1,118 shared votes70%
- Jayme DavisD929 shared votes71%
- Austin FossD1,104 shared votes71%
- Collette BrownD987 shared votes71%
- Zac IstaD1,082 shared votes71%
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
Holle sponsored 6 bills in the ND 2025–26 session; 5 became law. Cosponsored 39 others. 100% of sponsored bills got out of committee (North Dakota House average 61%; 3rd of 47).
The bills Holle 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 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| Cosponsored | 39 | 38 | 22 | 17 | 17 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Holle sponsored, ochre blocks bills Holle cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
100%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
North Dakota House average 61%. Ranks 3rd of 47.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Holle, by number of shared bills in the ND 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Don Schaible10
- Karen Rohr10
- Collette Brown10
- Lisa Finley-DeVille9
- Jayme Davis9
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 Holle’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 2403 | AN ACT to amend and reenact section 6-09-47 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a medical facility emergency operating loan program under the medical facility infrastructure loan fund; to provide an appropriation; to provide a transfer; to provide an effective date; and to provide an expir | Cosponsor | Jan 21, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 01/23 Jan 28, 2026 |
| SCR 4029 | A concurrent resolution directing the Legislative Management to consider studying the costs and effects of planting and tending to sterile monoculture invasive plants and native plants within the state. | Cosponsor | Mar 7, 2025 | In committee | Environmental Protection(model) | Second reading, failed to adopt Mar 14, 2025 |
| HCR 3020 | A concurrent resolution urging North Dakota to acknowledge the Kingship of Jesus Christ. | Cosponsor | Jan 30, 2025 | In committee | Unassigned | Second reading, failed to adopt yeas 31 nays 59 Feb 18, 2025 |
| HCR 3019 | A concurrent resolution congratulating Donald J. Trump on his inauguration as President of the United States. | Sponsor | Jan 30, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Filed with Secretary Of State 03/21 Mar 20, 2025 |
| SB 2386 | AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 23-09.5-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to cottage food transactions; and to declare an emergency. | Cosponsor | Jan 27, 2025 | Became law | Agriculture and Food(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 03/20 Mar 24, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Holle’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Holle’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 Holle posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
- 14
pages crawled
3changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
- XDawsonHolle
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/dawsonholle2house/
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/dawson.holle.7
- Instagramholle2house
- Instagramdawsonholle
Images Holle posted
No images from Holle’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
38 turns, Jan 16, 2023 to Jan 23, 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 Holle 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
- 5938951d-3c45-4913-8612-aa70ba790f88
- Open States
- ocd-person/5938951d-3c45-4913-8612-aa70ba790f88
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