Skip to content

Republican · Virginia House, district 48

Serving since Jan 10, 2024VA 2025–26 session

Portrait of Eric Phillips, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
185
votes against the majority of Virginia House Republicans

Party unity 89%, in the bottom tenth of the Virginia House (average 96.5%). 3,859 roll calls in the VA 2025–26 session.

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 Phillips voted with the majority of Virginia House Republicans; it is ranked within the Virginia House. The count covers every roll call where Phillips voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against the Virginia House. Phillips missed 2.0% of 3,859 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Virginia House (average 98.2%). 84% of Phillips’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Virginia, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans.

The measures on which Phillips sits furthest from the middle of the Virginia House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Party unity

89%

Virginia House average 96.5% · ranks 89th of 98 · 185 votes against the majority of Virginia House Republicans

Attendance

98.0%

Virginia House average 98.2% · ranks 77th of 98 · 3,859 roll calls

From Virginia, 2026

84%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1847th of 2,335 State House Republicans

Itemized, 2026

$94.6K

State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 553rd of 2,521

Out of committee

79%

Virginia House average 84% · ranks 70th of 98

CSIP ideology

+0.35

More liberal than 51% of State House Republicans · ± 0.04

Peer group: Virginia House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Phillips, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Phillips is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Phillips says

Phillips criticizes policies less than 92% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 0% of 14 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 735th of 791.

An AI model reads each of Phillips’s 14 statements in the VA 2025–26 session (14 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 VA 2025–26 session

0%80%
Phillips
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion9 statements
64%
32%
37th of 791
Credit claiming8 statements
57%
13%
1st of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
9%
735th of 791
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
677th of 791
Show the data
Phillips's share of statements in each category against the State House Republicans average.
RowPhillipsPeers
Policy discussion64%32%
Credit claiming57%13%
Personal attacks0%3%
Policy criticism0%9%
Bipartisanship0%2%
14

statements classified

14 posts on X.

posts on X: 14 (100.0%)posts on X 14
Show the data
Phillips's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X14
How to read the bars

The thick bar is Phillips; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Phillips does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.

Extreme labels

Phillips used extreme labels in 7.1% of statements, 5.0 times the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Left; peers 1.4%.

  1. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. 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 VA 2025–26 session

No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.

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 VA 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 16 of them have no statements.

In Phillips’s words

Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned

Policy discussion

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; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source

Credit claiming

The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

Feb 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Law · Source

Extreme label

The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

Oct 13, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “radical” aimed at Left · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

No statements in this category in this window.

All 14 statements

Newest first, the VA 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: 14 posts on X.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues is what Phillips talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 5.4 times the peer share. Peers give it 6.2%. 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 Phillips talks about. The bills Phillips sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Phillips talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the VA 2025–26 session

0%37%
Phillips
Peers
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues3 statements
33%
6%
Crime and Law Enforcement2 statements
22%
11%
Agriculture and Food1 statements
11%
4%
Armed Forces and National Security1 statements
11%
5%
Commerce1 statements
11%
4%
Show the data
Policy areas Phillips talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the State House Republicans average.
RowPhillipsPeers
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues33%6%
Crime and Law Enforcement22%11%
Agriculture and Food11%4%
Armed Forces and National Security11%5%
Commerce11%4%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Phillips’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 37%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onCivil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 33% (State House Republicans 6%)33%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 0% (State House Republicans 4%)0%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 22% (State House Republicans 11%)22%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 15% (State House Republicans 11%)15%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 11% (State House Republicans 4%)11%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 1% (State House Republicans 3%)1%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 11% (State House Republicans 5%)11%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 0% (State House Republicans 2%)0%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 11% (State House Republicans 4%)11%Commerce, legislates on: 1% (State House Republicans 3%)1%
Show the data
Phillips's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutState House Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onState House Republicans, legislates on
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues33%6%0%4%
Crime and Law Enforcement22%11%15%11%
Agriculture and Food11%4%1%3%
Armed Forces and National Security11%5%0%2%
Commerce11%4%1%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 Phillips legislates on exactly the areas Phillips 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 Phillips sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Phillips sits at +0.35 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 51% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.31 to +0.39, which understates the uncertainty; from 45 donors and 572 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”.

+0.35

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.31 to +0.39. From 45 donors and 572 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Phillips +0.3State House Republicans +0.4Virginia House −0.7All State House +0.1

The outlined dot is Phillips, 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 Phillips’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 Phillips sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →State House Republicansmedian +0.4Phillips +0.3Virginia Housemedian −0.7All State Housemedian +0.1
Show the data
Phillips's CSIP score of +0.35 placed against State House Republicans, Virginia House, All State House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Phillips
State House Republicans2917+0.449%
Virginia House99−0.773%
All State House5324+0.172%
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 Phillips 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 Phillips.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Phillips reported $94.6K in the 2026 cycle, 2.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 84% of itemized individual money came from Virginia.

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.

Election cycle
$94.6K

itemized in the 2026 cycle

From 38 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): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)Individuals (itemized): $21.0K (22.2%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.9K (68.6%)Party committees: $8,641 (9.1%)Party committees: $8,641 (9.1%)Party committees: $8,641 (9.1%)Party committees: $8,641 (9.1%)Party committees: $8,641 (9.1%)Party committees: $8,641 (9.1%)Party committees: $8,641 (9.1%)Party committees: $8,641 (9.1%)Party committees: $8,641 (9.1%)
  • Individuals (itemized)22 squares$21.0K
  • PACs and other committees69 squares$64.9K
  • Party committees9 squares$8,641
Show the data
Sources of Phillips's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Individuals (itemized)$21.0K22.2%
PACs and other committees$64.9K68.6%
Party committees$8,6419.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.

Receipts by cycle

Itemized contributions, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $27.5K$27.5K20242026 cycle: $94.6K$94.6K2026State House Republicans median $33.7K
Show the data
Phillips's receipts by cycle against the 2026 State House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$27.5K
2026 cycle$94.6K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 84% came from Virginia.

  1. Virginia$17.7K
  2. North Carolina$2,100
  3. Pennsylvania$500
  4. New Jersey$500
  5. Tennessee$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

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $500PANew Jersey: $500NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $17.7KVAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $250TNNorth Carolina: $2,100NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Phillips's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Virginia$17.7K
North Carolina$2,100
Pennsylvania$500
New Jersey$500
Tennessee$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
38

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

84%

from Virginia

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 Virginia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$2,600 7 donors
  2. OWNER$1,200 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. DOMINION ENERGY INC PAC$40.0K
  2. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA$8,341
  3. VA OPERATORS FOR SKILL$6,000
  4. DANNY MARSHALL ELECTION COMMITTEE$2,500
  5. VIRGINIA AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK DEALERS PAC$2,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Phillips voted with the majority of Virginia House Republicans on 89% of party-line votes and missed 2.0% of 3,859 roll calls. Virginia House on average: 96.5% party unity, 98.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Phillips voted against the majority of Virginia House Republicans 185 times.

3,859 roll calls Phillips could vote on in the VA 2025–26 session, compared with Virginia 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 Phillips voted with the majority of Virginia House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

185

votes against the majority of Virginia House Republicans

Party unity 89%, Virginia House average 96.5%, ranks 89th of 98. 3,859 roll calls in the VA 2025–26 session.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Phillips, the thin grey bar the Virginia House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Phillips
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.0%
98.2%
77th of 98
Party unity
89%
96.5%
89th of 98
Show the data
Phillips's attendance and party unity against Virginia House.
RowPhillipsPeers
Attendance98.0%98.2%
Party unity89%96.5%
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

Roll calls the lab flags as key

No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.

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 Phillips most often

  1. David OwenR1,746 shared votes96%
  2. Will DavisR3,777 shared votes95%
  3. Israel O'QuinnR3,733 shared votes95%
  4. Terry AustinR3,754 shared votes95%
  5. Ellen McLaughlinR3,670 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Phillips least often

  1. Kirk McPikeD1,020 shared votes63%
  2. Nicole ColeD1,998 shared votes66%
  3. Liz GuzmánD1,966 shared votes66%
  4. Charlie SchmidtD2,008 shared votes66%
  5. May NivarD2,024 shared votes66%
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

VA 2025–26 session, loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Phillips sponsored 47 bills in the VA 2025–26 session; 3 became law. Cosponsored 107 others. 79% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Virginia House average 84%; 70th of 98).

The bills Phillips sponsored and cosponsored in the VA 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 VA 2025–26 session

Sponsored47 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4747Sponsored, In committee: 4747Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 2626Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 1010Sponsored, Became law: 33Cosponsored107 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 107107Cosponsored, In committee: 107107Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 8181Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 3131Cosponsored, Became law: 99IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Phillips sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored474726103
Cosponsored10710781319
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Phillips sponsored, ochre blocks bills Phillips cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

79%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Virginia House average 84%. Ranks 70th of 98.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Phillips, by number of shared bills in the VA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.

  1. Danny Marshall19
  2. Tammy Mulchi17
  3. Wren Williams15
  4. Madison Whittle13
  5. Will Davis8
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 Phillips’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
HR 2185Commending Timmy Maness and Chelsea Spangler.CosponsorJun 22, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2185ER) Jun 30, 2026
HR 2172Celebrating the life of Dawann Anthony Steagall, Jr.CosponsorJun 21, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2172ER) Jun 30, 2026
HR 2163Commending the Honorable Stacey W. Moreau.CosponsorJun 20, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2163ER) Jun 30, 2026
HR 2162Commending the Honorable Joseph Walton Milam, Jr.CosponsorJun 20, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2162ER) Jun 30, 2026
HR 2142Commending Chiles Family Orchards.CosponsorJun 18, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2142ER) Jun 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. Phillips’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.

The lab crawls Phillips’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 Phillips posts with a vision model.

Websites

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.

Images Phillips posted

No images from Phillips’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

49 turns, Feb 5, 2024 to Mar 9, 2026

Floor speeches

Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

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 Phillips is most unusual among Virginia House, 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
704cecad-ef53-44e4-ad55-6c7a7e385e5c
Open States
ocd-person/704cecad-ef53-44e4-ad55-6c7a7e385e5c

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

Back to top