CSIP score −0.33 (approximate range −0.36 to −0.31, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 0 donors and 1,090 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Gilman sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
3 measures against the New Hampshire House. Gilman missed 18% of 557 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the New Hampshire House (average 89%). Gilman voted against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats 18 times; party unity 97.1%, in the bottom half of the New Hampshire House (average 95.3%).
The measures on which Gilman sits furthest from the middle of the New Hampshire House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 89% of State House Democrats · ± 0.02
Attendance
New Hampshire House average 89% · ranks 304th of 382 · 557 roll calls
Party unity
New Hampshire House average 95.3% · ranks 196th of 381 · 18 votes against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats
Statements
Roll calls
Compared with New Hampshire House
Bills sponsored
and 5 cosponsored
Peer group: New Hampshire House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gilman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gilman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Gilman says
No statements for the NH 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the NH 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Gilman sits at −0.33 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 89% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.36 to −0.31, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 1,090 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.36 to −0.31. From 0 donors and 1,090 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gilman, 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 Gilman’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 Gilman sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Gilman |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 89% |
| New Hampshire House | 382 | 0.0 | 35% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 40% |
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 Gilman 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 Gilman.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Gilman voted with the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats on 97.1% of party-line votes and missed 18% of 557 roll calls. New Hampshire House on average: 95.3% party unity, 89% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gilman voted against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats 18 times.
557 roll calls Gilman could vote on in the NH 2025–26 session, compared with New Hampshire 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 Gilman voted with the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats
Party unity 97.1%, New Hampshire House average 95.3%, ranks 196th of 381. 557 roll calls in the NH 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Gilman, the thin grey bar the New Hampshire House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Gilman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 82% | 89% |
| Party unity | 97.1% | 95.3% |
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 NH 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2026 | HB 2026 relative to the state 10-year transportation improvement plan; relative to toll rate adjustments and periodic toll reviews for the New Hampshire turnpike system to support the 2027-2036 ten-year transportation plan; and relative to reconstruction of the Gregg Mill Road Bridge in the town of New Bost Veto Override | Yea | With majority | pass | D 143–0 · R 148–25 · I 1–0Democrats 143 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 148 yea, 25 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Aug 19, 2026 | HB 1358 establishing a commission to study transitioning all public schools to public charter schools. Veto Override | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–143 · R 149–23 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 143 nay; Republicans 149 yea, 23 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote · party crossover |
| Aug 19, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–139 · R 161–9 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 139 nay; Republicans 161 yea, 9 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Aug 19, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–142 · R 158–13 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 142 nay; Republicans 158 yea, 13 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Aug 19, 2026 | HB 1726 relative to the sale of surplus state-owned land and establishing a commission to study the sale of state-owned property. Veto Override | Nay | With majority | fail | D 2–135 · R 98–71 · I 1–0Democrats 2 yea, 135 nay; Republicans 98 yea, 71 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gilman most often
- Sallie FellowsD442 shared votes98%
- Laurel StavisD400 shared votes97%
- Beth RichardsD291 shared votes97%
- Allan HowlandD407 shared votes97%
- Linda HaskinsD345 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gilman least often
- John LeavittR275 shared votes6.6%
- Robley HallR342 shared votes7.0%
- Jim KofaltR388 shared votes7.5%
- Kristin NobleR404 shared votes7.7%
- Gary DanielsR402 shared votes7.7%
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
NH 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Gilman sponsored 0 bills in the NH 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 5 others.
The bills Gilman sponsored and cosponsored in the NH 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 NH 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gilman sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gilman cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gilman, by number of shared bills in the NH 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Jim Maggiore5
- David Preece5
- Laurel Stavis3
- Len Turcotte3
- David Fracht3
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 Gilman’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 1434 | enabling municipalities to vote to allow the sale of Keno. | Cosponsor | Dec 4, 2025 | In committee | Commerce(model) | Minority Committee Report: Ought to Pass Feb 27, 2026 |
| HB 1103 | allowing municipalities to utilize community revitalization tax relief credits on a wider variety of properties and structures. | Cosponsor | Dec 1, 2025 | Passed both chambers | Taxation(model) | Signed by Governor Ayotte 07/02/2026; Chapter 212; eff. 8/31/2026 Jul 9, 2026 |
| HR 30 | finding that planning, zoning, and related regulations have been and should continue to be the responsibility of municipal government. | Cosponsor | Dec 1, 2025 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Reconsider ITL (Rep. Perez): MF RC 72-274 02/05/2026 HJ 3 P. 51 Feb 5, 2026 |
| HB 1068 | taxing certain occupants who have established permanent residences under the meals and rooms tax. | Cosponsor | Nov 12, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Taxation(model) | Refer to Interim Study, MA, VV; 04/09/2026; SJ 8 Apr 3, 2026 |
| HB 1005 | repealing the commission to study the historical evolution of the New Hampshire zoning enabling act. | Cosponsor | Nov 7, 2025 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Inexpedient to Legislate: MA VV 03/11/2026 HJ 7 P. 46 Mar 11, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Gilman’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Gilman’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 Gilman posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=408615Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes 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
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/gilmanjd
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/GiLxRep18/
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/julie-gilman-70634710/
- Emailgilmanjd@comcast.net
Images Gilman posted
No images from Gilman’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
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Gilman is most unusual among New Hampshire 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
- 77ca15e6-ebe1-4ef5-8bc9-ed3dff861f38
- Open States
- ocd-person/77ca15e6-ebe1-4ef5-8bc9-ed3dff861f38
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