Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
3.5%
of statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of State Senate Republicans
3.5% of 347 statements discuss policy (12 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 37%. Ranks 344th of 354, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Meyer’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 1.1% of Meyer’s statements claim credit, in the bottom tenth of State Senate Republicans (average 15%). Meyer missed 5.1% of 998 roll calls, attendance in the bottom tenth of the North Dakota Senate (average 98.3%).
The measures on which Meyer sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
3.5%
State Senate Republicans average 37% · ranks 344th of 354
Credit claiming
1.1%
State Senate Republicans average 15% · ranks 323rd of 354
Attendance
94.8%
North Dakota Senate average 98.3% · ranks 42nd of 46 · 998 roll calls
Policy criticism
0.6%
State Senate Republicans average 9.5% · ranks 301st of 354
Personal attacks
3.5%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 85th of 354
CSIP ideology
+0.18
More liberal than 75% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Meyer, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Meyer is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Meyer says
Meyer criticizes policies less than 84% of State Senate Republicans. Policy criticism in 0.6% of 347 statements, against 9.5% for the average State Senate Republican; 301st of 354.
An AI model reads each of Meyer’s 347 statements in the ND 2025–26 session (347 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the ND 2025–26 session
0%80%
Meyer
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks12 statements
3%
2%
85th of 354
Policy discussion12 statements
3%
37%
344th of 354
Credit claiming4 statements
1%
15%
323rd of 354
Policy criticism2 statements
1%
9%
301st of 354
Bipartisanship1 statements
0%
2%
258th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Meyer | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 3% | 2% |
| Policy discussion | 3% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 1% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 1% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
347
statements classified
347 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 347 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Meyer; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Meyer does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Meyer used extreme labels in 0.6% of statements, below the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at commie22; peers 1.3%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- commie221
- left1
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 | 22 | 9.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 14.3% | 7.1% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 7 | — (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 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.2% |
| Oct ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 6.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 42 | 7.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 19 | 10.5% | 0.0% | 5.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 19 | 5.3% | 0.0% | 5.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 21 | 9.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 32 | 3.1% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.1% |
| Apr ’26 | 8 | — (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 | 12 | 8.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 7 | — (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 | 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) |
| Oct ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 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 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%. 7 months are hatched here.
In Meyer’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.
Oct 19, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at left · 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: RandleSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Tim WalzSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: brhodesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: not specifiedSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Jacob FreySource
All 347 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: 347 posts on X.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Meyer talks about most: 42% of policy statements, 6.4 times the peer share. Peers give it 6.5%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Meyer talks about. The bills Meyer sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Meyer talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the ND 2025–26 session
0%46%
Meyer
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security5 statements
42%
6%
Education3 statements
25%
14%
Economics and Public Finance2 statements
17%
12%
Crime and Law Enforcement1 statements
8%
12%
Energy1 statements
8%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Meyer | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 42% | 6% |
| Education | 25% | 14% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 17% | 12% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 8% | 12% |
| Energy | 8% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Meyer’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 46%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 42% | 6% | 11% | 2% |
| Education | 25% | 14% | 6% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 17% | 12% | 1% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 8% | 12% | 8% | 10% |
| Energy | 8% | 6% | 0% | 3% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Meyer legislates on exactly the areas Meyer 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 Meyer sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Meyer sits at +0.18 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 75% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.15 to +0.22, which understates the uncertainty; from 46 donors and 577 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”.
+0.18
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.15 to +0.22. From 46 donors and 577 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Meyer, 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 Meyer’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 Meyer sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
North Dakota Senate47 · median +0.1
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Meyer |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 24% |
| North Dakota Senate | 47 | +0.1 | 53% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 57% |
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 Meyer 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 Meyer.
Money
Meyer reported $37.8K in the 2024 cycle, above the State Senate Republicans’ median of $28.3K. State filings report no small-donation total. 84% 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.
$37.8K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 20 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $28.3K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)34 squares$12.8K
- PACs and other committees50 squares$19.0K
- Party committees16 squares$6,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $12.8K | 33.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $19.0K | 50.2% |
| Party committees | $6,000 | 15.9% |
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, 2020 to 2024. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $49.3K |
| 2022 cycle | $250 |
| 2024 cycle | $37.8K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 84% came from North Dakota.
- North Dakota$10.8K
- Florida$2,000
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| North Dakota | $10.8K |
| Florida | $2,000 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
20
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
84%
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, 2024 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
- ND ST SENATE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS$3,000
- NORTH DAKOTA STATE SENATE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS$3,000
- ND OIL PAC$2,000
- MARATHON OIL COMPANY EMPLOYEES PAC$1,500
- NORTH AMERICAN COAL PAC$1,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Meyer voted with the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans on 78% of party-line votes and missed 5.1% of 998 roll calls. North Dakota Senate on average: 79% party unity, 98.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Meyer voted against the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans 56 times.
998 roll calls Meyer could vote on in the ND 2025–26 session, compared with North Dakota Senate. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Meyer voted with the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
56
votes against the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans
Party unity 78%, North Dakota Senate average 79%, ranks 29th of 46. 998 roll calls in the ND 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Meyer, the thin grey bar the North Dakota Senate average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Meyer
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.8%
98.3%
42nd of 46
Party unity
78%
79%
29th of 46
Show the data
| Row | Meyer | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 94.8% | 98.3% |
| Party unity | 78% | 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 5–0 · R 41–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 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 2–3 · R 37–5Democrats 2 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 37 yea, 5 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Sep 3, 2026 | SB 2405 A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 57-02-08.9, section 57-20-09, and subsection 1 of section 57-55-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the order of application of the primary residence credit and discount for early payment of tax; and to provide an effective Motion for Final Passage on SB 2405 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 4–1 · R 23–19Democrats 4 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 19 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 3, 2026 | SB 2406 A BILL for an Act to create and enact chapter 44-04.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to prohibiting agencies from entering nondisclosure agreements concerning data centers and industrial projects; to provide a penalty; to provide an effective date; and to provide an expiration date. Motion for Final Passage on SB 2406 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 5–0 · R 10–32Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 32 nay | party crossover |
| Jan 23, 2026 | HB 1621 AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 15.1-21-01 and section 15.1-21-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to requiring the presidential physical fitness test in physical education courses in elementary, middle, and high schools and providing exceptions to the test; and to prov Motion for Final Passage on HB 1621 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–1 · R 39–2Democrats 4 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 39 yea, 2 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 Meyer most often
- Jeff BartaR935 shared votes94%
- Greg KesselR902 shared votes94%
- Dale PattenR914 shared votes93%
- Robert ErbeleR926 shared votes93%
- Michelle AxtmanR911 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Meyer least often
- Jeff MagrumR947 shared votes65%
- Tim MathernD946 shared votes84%
- Michelle PowersR946 shared votes84%
- Mark EngetR947 shared votes85%
- Kathy HoganD927 shared votes85%
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
Meyer sponsored 5 bills in the ND 2025–26 session; 4 became law. Cosponsored 63 others. 80% of sponsored bills got out of committee (North Dakota Senate average 68%; 14th of 29).
The bills Meyer 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 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Cosponsored | 63 | 62 | 44 | 37 | 36 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Meyer sponsored, ochre blocks bills Meyer cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
80%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
North Dakota Senate average 68%. Ranks 14th of 29.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Meyer, by number of shared bills in the ND 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Claire Cory15
- Jason Dockter15
- Matt Ruby14
- Steve Vetter14
- Jim Grueneich13
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 Meyer’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SCR 4013 | A concurrent resolution to support the electoral college, denounce the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and invite interested states to form the Electoral College Interstate Compact. | Cosponsor | Jan 30, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 03/26 Mar 24, 2025 |
| HCR 3011 | A concurrent resolution urging Congress to provide veterans with medical coverage for hyperbaric oxygenation therapy. | Cosponsor | Jan 29, 2025 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 03/21 Mar 18, 2025 |
| SB 2376 | A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 5 of section 54-58-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a tribal-state gaming compact that permits gaming in Grand Forks County. | Sponsor | Jan 27, 2025 | In committee | Commerce(model) | Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 15 nays 29 Feb 14, 2025 |
| SB 2356 | AN ACT to amend and reenact section 47-19-03.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the contents of a legal description for a deed and a contract for deed. | Sponsor | Jan 24, 2025 | Became law | Finance and Financial Sector(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 03/20 Mar 24, 2025 |
| HB 1533 | AN ACT to amend and reenact section 15.1-21-21 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to financial literacy and concepts of personal finance curriculum. | Cosponsor | Jan 20, 2025 | Became law | Education(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 04/23 Apr 25, 2025 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Meyer’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Meyer’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 Meyer posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Meyer posted
No images from Meyer’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
198 turns, Jan 12, 2021 to Sep 4, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Meyer is most unusual among State Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 5bcd9ecd-d547-4336-aa69-b4b258085802
- Open States
- ocd-person/5bcd9ecd-d547-4336-aa69-b4b258085802
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