Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
98%
of State House Democrats score to the right of González-Rojas on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −1.31 (approximate range −1.38 to −1.25, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 0 donors and 880 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 González-Rojas sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. The policy areas González-Rojas talks about and legislates on agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale, in the top 5% of State House Democrats. 1.6% of González-Rojas’s statements use an extreme label, 1.7 times the State House Democrat average of 1.0%.
The measures on which González-Rojas 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
−1.31
More liberal than 98% of State House Democrats · ± 0.07
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.71
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 17th of 503
Extreme labels
1.6%
State House Democrats average 1.0% · ranks 143rd of 764
Credit claiming
24%
State House Democrats average 14% · ranks 166th of 764
Policy discussion
54%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 168th of 764
Personal attacks
2.7%
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 221st of 764
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is González-Rojas, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which González-Rojas is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What González-Rojas says
González-Rojas claims credit more than 78% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 24% of 1,003 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 166th of 764.
An AI model reads each of González-Rojas’s 1,003 statements in the NY 2025–26 session (1,003 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 NY 2025–26 session
0%80%
González-Rojas
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion539 statements
54%
39%
168th of 764
Credit claiming237 statements
24%
14%
166th of 764
Policy criticism111 statements
11%
10%
284th of 764
Personal attacks27 statements
3%
3%
221st of 764
Bipartisanship25 statements
2%
3%
310th of 764
Show the data
| Row | González-Rojas | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 54% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 24% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 11% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
1,003
statements classified
1,003 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,003 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is González-Rojas; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means González-Rojas does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
González-Rojas used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, above the peer average. 16 statements, most often aimed at ICE; peers 1.0%.
- “fascist”12
- “MAGA”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- ICE2
- Trump2
- fascism1
- Fascists1
- loud socialist1
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 NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 64 | 1.6% | 21.9% | 62.5% | 6.3% | 54.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 50 | 12.0% | 38.0% | 80.0% | 2.0% | 34.0% | 2.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 50 | 6.0% | 30.0% | 70.0% | 2.0% | 24.0% | 4.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 39 | 2.6% | 23.1% | 64.1% | 5.1% | 33.3% | 2.6% |
| May ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 60.0% | 8.0% | 64.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 70 | 5.7% | 11.4% | 40.0% | 1.4% | 15.7% | 4.3% |
| Jul ’25 | 30 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 46.7% | 3.3% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 45.8% | 4.2% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 44 | 6.8% | 11.4% | 38.6% | 4.5% | 18.2% | 2.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 48 | 8.3% | 2.1% | 41.7% | 0.0% | 27.1% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 13.8% | 31.0% | 0.0% | 24.1% | 13.8% |
| Dec ’25 | 43 | 2.3% | 7.0% | 53.5% | 0.0% | 16.3% | 2.3% |
| Jan ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 6.8% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 59 | 0.0% | 8.5% | 44.1% | 0.0% | 23.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 40 | 0.0% | 2.5% | 37.5% | 7.5% | 15.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 47 | 0.0% | 14.9% | 74.5% | 2.1% | 21.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 49 | 0.0% | 4.1% | 40.8% | 4.1% | 18.4% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 58 | 1.7% | 1.7% | 37.9% | 3.5% | 25.9% | 1.7% |
| Jul ’26 | 53 | 0.0% | 7.5% | 50.9% | 3.8% | 11.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 55 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 63.6% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 1.8% |
| Sep ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 4.8% | 52.4% | 0.0% | 11.9% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 40 | 7.5% | 2.5% | 67.5% | 0.0% | 7.5% | 2.5% |
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 NY 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%.
In González-Rojas’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.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; Housing and Community Development · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Immigration; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Labor and Employment; extreme label “MAGA” 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 · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Bruce BlakemanSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Taxation · target: Bruce BlakemanSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Hiram MonserrateSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Senator RamosSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Immigration · Government Operations and Politics · target: Vickie PaladinoSource
All 1,003 statements
Newest first, the NY 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: 1,003 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what González-Rojas talks about most: 24% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 17th 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 González-Rojas talks about. The bills González-Rojas sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What González-Rojas talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NY 2025–26 session
0%35%
González-Rojas
Peers
Health131 statements
24%
15%
Immigration89 statements
17%
4%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues88 statements
16%
10%
Labor and Employment84 statements
16%
6%
Education56 statements
10%
15%
Show the data
| Row | González-Rojas | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 24% | 15% |
| Immigration | 17% | 4% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 16% | 10% |
| Labor and Employment | 16% | 6% |
| Education | 10% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of González-Rojas’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 24% | 15% | 23% | 15% |
| Immigration | 17% | 4% | 2% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 16% | 10% | 8% | 4% |
| Labor and Employment | 16% | 6% | 6% | 6% |
| Education | 10% | 15% | 7% | 10% |
0.71
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 17th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means González-Rojas legislates on exactly the areas González-Rojas 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 González-Rojas sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
González-Rojas sits at −1.31 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 98% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.38 to −1.25, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 880 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”.
−1.31
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.38 to −1.25. From 0 donors and 880 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is González-Rojas, 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 González-Rojas’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 González-Rojas sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
New York House150 · median −0.5
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of González-Rojas |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 2% |
| New York House | 150 | −0.5 | 1% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 1% |
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 González-Rojas 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 González-Rojas.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
González-Rojas voted with the majority of New York House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 6.4% of 2,019 roll calls. New York House on average: 92.9% party unity, 93.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, González-Rojas voted against the majority of New York House Democrats 23 times.
2,019 roll calls González-Rojas could vote on in the NY 2025–26 session, compared with New York 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 González-Rojas voted with the majority of New York House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
23
votes against the majority of New York House Democrats
Party unity 99.3%, New York House average 92.9%, ranks 56th of 149. 2,019 roll calls in the NY 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is González-Rojas, the thin grey bar the New York House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
González-Rojas
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.6%
93.9%
106th of 149
Party unity
99.3%
92.9%
56th of 149
Show the data
| Row | González-Rojas | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 93.6% | 93.9% |
| Party unity | 99.3% | 92.9% |
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 NY 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10001 Provides for a license to sell liquor at retail for consumption on certain premises Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 85–2 · R 43–0Democrats 85 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10655 Relates to the compensation, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of certain state officers and employees; repealer Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 64–23 · R 30–13Democrats 64 yea, 23 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 66–21 · R 30–13Democrats 66 yea, 21 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 nay | became law · 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 González-Rojas most often
- Yudelka TapiaD1,888 shared votes100%
- Alicia HyndmanD1,805 shared votes100%
- Claire ValdezD1,371 shared votes100%
- Phara Souffrant ForrestD1,826 shared votes100%
- Marcela MitaynesD1,847 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as González-Rojas least often
- Dave DiPietroR1,854 shared votes71%
- Chris FriendR1,739 shared votes72%
- Sam PirozzoloR1,870 shared votes77%
- Ari BrownR1,799 shared votes77%
- Lester ChangR1,885 shared votes78%
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
NY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
González-Rojas sponsored 91 bills in the NY 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 610 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New York House average 20%; 97th of 148).
The bills González-Rojas sponsored and cosponsored in the NY 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 NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 91 | 90 | 12 | 2 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 610 | 610 | 47 | 34 | 11 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills González-Rojas sponsored, ochre blocks bills González-Rojas cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
13%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
New York House average 20%. Ranks 97th of 148.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with González-Rojas, by number of shared bills in the NY 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Jo Anne Simon217
- Karines Reyes147
- Dana Levenberg146
- MaryJane Shimsky144
- Harvey Epstein143
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 González-Rojas’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| A 11647 | Establishes the 2-1-1 essential community services hotline system | Cosponsor | Jul 29, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | REFERRED TO SOCIAL SERVICES Jul 29, 2026 |
| A 11645 | Enacts the "just energy transition act" | Cosponsor | Jul 29, 2026 | In committee | Energy(model) | REFERRED TO ENERGY Jul 29, 2026 |
| K 1565 | Commemorating the 34th Anniversary of Queens Pride Parade on June 7, 2026 | Sponsor | Jun 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED Jun 2, 2026 |
| K 1557 | Memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 11, 2026, as Coming Out Day in the State of New York, in conjunction with the observance of National Coming Out Day | Cosponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED Jun 2, 2026 |
| A 11362 | Relates to retail premises of lithium-ion batteries, bicycles with electric assist, micromobility devices, and limited use motorcycles | Cosponsor | May 13, 2026 | In committee | Emergency Management(model) | REFERRED TO CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND PROTECTION May 13, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. González-Rojas’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls González-Rojas’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 González-Rojas posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 29
pages crawled
17changes 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
- Xvotejgr
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/VoteJGR/
- Instagramvotejgr
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/jessica-gonz%C3%A1lez-rojas-41738b4/
- Emailgonzalezrojasj@nyassembly.gov
Images González-Rojas posted
No images from González-Rojas’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
360 turns, Feb 2, 2021 to Jun 5, 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 González-Rojas 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
- 5a115673-aa3c-4518-94bc-b2a5dadeb8af
- Open States
- ocd-person/5a115673-aa3c-4518-94bc-b2a5dadeb8af
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