Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 9, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism · Source
17%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Georgia Senate
Attendance 83%; the average within the Georgia Senate is 92.2%. Ranks 49th of 54, where 1st has the highest attendance. 1,406 roll calls in the GA 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Mallow could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Georgia Senate. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
6 measures against the Georgia Senate. 65% of the 265 bills Mallow sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Georgia Senate. Mallow sits at −0.39 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 84% of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Mallow sits furthest from the middle of the Georgia Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
83%
Georgia Senate average 92.2% · ranks 49th of 54 · 1,406 roll calls
Out of committee
65%
Georgia Senate average 77% · ranks 47th of 53
CSIP ideology
−0.39
More conservative than 84% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.03
Party unity
94.7%
Georgia Senate average 96.0% · ranks 45th of 54 · 31 votes against the majority of Georgia Senate Democrats
From Georgia, 2026
98%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 201st of 714 State Senate Democrats
Itemized, 2026
$87.7K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 291st of 746
Peer group: Georgia Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Mallow, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Mallow is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Mallow says
Mallow stresses bipartisanship less than 88% of State Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0% of 28 statements, against 3.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 294th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Mallow’s 28 statements in the GA 2025–26 session (28 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the GA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Mallow
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion12 statements
43%
43%
172nd of 329
Personal attacks6 statements
21%
2%
3rd of 329
Policy criticism6 statements
21%
10%
43rd of 329
Credit claiming2 statements
7%
16%
236th of 329
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
294th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Mallow | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 43% | 43% |
| Personal attacks | 21% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 21% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 7% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
28
statements classified
28 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 28 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Mallow; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Mallow does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Mallow used no extreme labels in 28 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the GA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’25 | 18 | 27.8% | 16.7% | 27.8% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 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) |
| Jun ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 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) |
| Aug ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the GA 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%. 21 months are hatched here; 16 of them have no statements.
In Mallow’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.
Feb 9, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 14, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Ed Krassen · 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: Ed KrassenSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Elon MuskSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: CallForCongressSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: SenTomCottonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: non-US-born citizenSource
All 28 statements
Newest first, the GA 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: 28 posts on X.
Policy
Finance and Financial Sector is what Mallow talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 25.8 times the peer share. Peers give it 1.3%. 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 Mallow talks about. The bills Mallow sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Mallow talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the GA 2025–26 session
0%37%
Mallow
Peers
Finance and Financial Sector4 statements
33%
1%
Housing and Community Development2 statements
17%
7%
Agriculture and Food1 statements
8%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security1 statements
8%
3%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues1 statements
8%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Mallow | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Finance and Financial Sector | 33% | 1% |
| Housing and Community Development | 17% | 7% |
| Agriculture and Food | 8% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 8% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Mallow’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 37%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finance and Financial Sector | 33% | 1% | 8% | 3% |
| Housing and Community Development | 17% | 7% | 5% | 5% |
| Agriculture and Food | 8% | 5% | 1% | 3% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 8% | 8% | 9% | 5% |
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 Mallow legislates on exactly the areas Mallow 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 Mallow sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Mallow sits at −0.39 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 84% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.42 to −0.37, which understates the uncertainty; from 230 donors and 704 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”.
−0.39
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.42 to −0.37. From 230 donors and 704 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Mallow, 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 Mallow’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 Mallow sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Georgia Senate55 · median +0.4
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Mallow |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 84% |
| Georgia Senate | 55 | +0.4 | 35% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 37% |
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 Mallow 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 Mallow.
Money
Mallow reported $87.7K in the 2026 cycle, above the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 98% of itemized individual money came from Georgia.
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.
$87.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 77 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)67 squares$58.8K
- PACs and other committees32 squares$27.9K
- Party committees1 squares$1,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $58.8K | 67.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $27.9K | 31.8% |
| Party committees | $1,000 | 1.1% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $19.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $128.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $107.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $87.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 98% came from Georgia.
- Georgia$57.8K
- Iowa$1,000
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 |
|---|---|
| Georgia | $57.8K |
| Iowa | $1,000 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
77
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
98%
from Georgia
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 Georgia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- ATTORNEY$19.9K 20 donors
- LAWYER$6,000 5 donors
- CEO$4,750 4 donors
- RETIRED$3,850 3 donors
- TBD$2,800 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- CIVIL JUSTICE PAC$3,000
- IBEW PAC EDUCATIONAL FUND$3,000
- GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS PAC$2,000
- ACEC GEORGIA PAC$1,000
- BEVPAC$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- TBD$2,800 4 donors
- SAVANNAH STATE UNIVERSITY$569 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Mallow voted with the majority of Georgia Senate Democrats on 94.7% of party-line votes and missed 17% of 1,406 roll calls. Georgia Senate on average: 96.0% party unity, 92.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Mallow voted against the majority of Georgia Senate Democrats 31 times.
1,406 roll calls Mallow could vote on in the GA 2025–26 session, compared with Georgia 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 Mallow voted with the majority of Georgia Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
31
votes against the majority of Georgia Senate Democrats
Party unity 94.7%, Georgia Senate average 96.0%, ranks 45th of 54. 1,406 roll calls in the GA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Mallow, the thin grey bar the Georgia Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Mallow
Peers
Rank
Attendance
83%
92.2%
49th of 54
Party unity
94.7%
96.0%
45th of 54
Show the data
| Row | Mallow | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 83% | 92.2% |
| Party unity | 94.7% | 96.0% |
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 GA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2026 | SB 3 Election Equipment Specifications and Standards Committee; establish AGREE TO HOUSE SUBSTITUTE AS AMENDED | Did not vote | — | fail | D 19–0 · R 0–32Democrats 19 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 32 nay | became law |
| Jun 23, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 4–16 · R 32–0Democrats 4 yea, 16 nay; Republicans 32 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 20, 2026 | SB 1 Glynn County; ad valorem taxes; homestead property determined annually for the special district based upon the proceeds of a new Local Homestead Option Sales Tax (LHOST); provide homestead exemption PASSAGE | Did not vote | — | fail | D 0–18 · R 33–0Democrats 0 yea, 18 nay; Republicans 33 yea, 0 nay | much discussed |
| Jun 20, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 0–19 · R 33–0Democrats 0 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 33 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 20, 2026 | SB 1 Glynn County; ad valorem taxes; homestead property determined annually for the special district based upon the proceeds of a new Local Homestead Option Sales Tax (LHOST); provide homestead exemption LOCAL CONSENT CALENDAR | Did not vote | — | fail | D 0–18 · R 33–0Democrats 0 yea, 18 nay; Republicans 33 yea, 0 nay | much discussed |
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 Mallow most often
- Sheikh RahmanD1,024 shared votes98%
- Ed HarbisonD1,059 shared votes97%
- Jason EstevesD548 shared votes97%
- Gail DavenportD1,115 shared votes97%
- RaShaun KempD1,121 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Mallow least often
- Tim BeardenR1,091 shared votes68%
- Angela MooreD580 shared votes68%
- Chuck HufstetlerR1,036 shared votes71%
- Bill CowsertR1,106 shared votes71%
- Matt BrassR1,102 shared votes71%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
GA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Mallow sponsored 265 bills in the GA 2025–26 session; 7 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 65% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Georgia Senate average 77%; 47th of 53).
The bills Mallow sponsored and cosponsored in the GA 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 GA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 265 | 265 | 172 | 8 | 7 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Mallow sponsored, ochre blocks bills Mallow cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
65%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Georgia Senate average 77%. Ranks 47th of 53.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Mallow, by number of shared bills in the GA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- RaShaun Kemp147
- Harold Jones146
- Kenya Wicks141
- Tonya Anderson129
- Gail Davenport129
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 Mallow’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SR 5 | Juneteenth; the history and meaning of the Juneteenth holiday; commemorate and recognize | Sponsor | Jun 18, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senate Read and Adopted Jun 20, 2026 |
| SR 1095 | Scattering Resources, Inc.; recognize and commend | Sponsor | Apr 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senate Read and Adopted Apr 2, 2026 |
| SR 1096 | Bangladeshi Americans in Georgia; recognize and commend | Sponsor | Apr 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senate Read and Adopted Apr 2, 2026 |
| SR 1091 | Wright Jr., Daniel Waldon; condolences | Sponsor | Mar 31, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senate Read and Adopted Apr 2, 2026 |
| SR 1088 | Burgess, Flossie Mae Grant Williams; honor | Sponsor | Mar 31, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senate Read and Adopted Apr 2, 2026 |
Online
The lab crawls Mallow’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 Mallow posts with a vision model.
Websites
No websites are tracked for this official.
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 Mallow posted
No images from Mallow’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
90 turns, Feb 23, 2023 to Jun 17, 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 Mallow is most unusual among Georgia Senate, 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
- 73918c45-83c1-4d52-a84d-3ad7ad8de40b
- Open States
- ocd-person/73918c45-83c1-4d52-a84d-3ad7ad8de40b
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