Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 21, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Emergency Management; Government Operations and Politics · Source
21%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of the Louisiana Senate
21% of 52 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Louisiana Senate is 51%. Ranks 37th of 38, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Duplessis sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Louisiana Senate. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Duplessis reported $148.7K in the 2024 cycle, in the top quarter of State Senate Democrats (median $16.2K). The policy areas Duplessis talks about and legislates on agree at 0.51 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom half of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Duplessis sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
21%
Louisiana Senate average 51% · ranks 37th of 38
Party unity
98.8%
Louisiana Senate average 93.6% · ranks 2nd of 37 · 12 votes against the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats
Itemized, 2024
$148.7K
State Senate Democrats’ median $16.2K · ranks 10th of 55
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.51
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 168th of 228
CSIP ideology
−0.72
More liberal than 62% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.05
Attendance
86%
Louisiana Senate average 88% · ranks 24th of 37 · 2,495 roll calls
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Duplessis, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Duplessis is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Duplessis says
Duplessis attacks opponents personally less than 75% of State Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 49 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 248th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Duplessis’s 49 statements in the LA 2025–26 session (49 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 LA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Duplessis
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion27 statements
55%
43%
103rd of 329
Policy criticism14 statements
29%
10%
21st of 329
Credit claiming11 statements
22%
16%
88th of 329
Bipartisanship2 statements
4%
3%
103rd of 329
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
248th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Duplessis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 55% | 43% |
| Policy criticism | 29% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 22% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
49
statements classified
49 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 49 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Duplessis; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Duplessis does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Duplessis used no extreme labels in 49 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 LA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 47.6% | 4.8% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 2 | — (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 ’25 | 2 | — (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 | 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) |
| May ’25 | 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) |
| 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 | 2 | — (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 | 3 | — (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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 3 | — (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 LA 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; 13 of them have no statements.
In Duplessis’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.
Sep 22, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Education; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 30, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Housing and Community Development; Health; Education; Crime and Law Enforcement · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 49 statements
Newest first, the LA 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: 49 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Duplessis talks about most: 26% of policy statements, 3.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.51 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 168th of 228).
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 Duplessis talks about. The bills Duplessis sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Duplessis talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the LA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Duplessis
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement7 statements
26%
8%
Finance and Financial Sector5 statements
19%
1%
Economics and Public Finance4 statements
15%
10%
Education4 statements
15%
15%
Emergency Management4 statements
15%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Duplessis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 26% | 8% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 19% | 1% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 10% |
| Education | 15% | 15% |
| Emergency Management | 15% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Duplessis’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 35%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 26% | 8% | 9% | 9% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 19% | 1% | 15% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 10% | 1% | 3% |
| Education | 15% | 15% | 4% | 9% |
| Emergency Management | 15% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
0.51
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 168th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Duplessis legislates on exactly the areas Duplessis 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 Duplessis sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Duplessis sits at −0.72 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 62% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.77 to −0.67, which understates the uncertainty; from 781 donors and 1,135 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”.
−0.72
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.77 to −0.67. From 781 donors and 1,135 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Duplessis, 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 Duplessis’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 Duplessis sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Louisiana Senate38 · median +0.3
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Duplessis |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 38% |
| Louisiana Senate | 38 | +0.3 | 0% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 16% |
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 Duplessis 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 Duplessis.
Money
Duplessis reported $148.7K in the 2024 cycle, 9.2 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $16.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 85% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.
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.
$148.7K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 154 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $16.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)72 squares$107.2K
- PACs and other committees28 squares$41.5K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $107.2K | 72.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $41.5K | 27.9% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $41.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $461.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $148.7K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 85% came from Louisiana.
- Louisiana$90.7K
- District of Columbia$4,300
- Florida$3,750
- Texas$3,750
- Maryland$1,225
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 |
|---|---|
| Louisiana | $90.7K |
| District of Columbia | $4,300 |
| Texas | $3,750 |
| Florida | $3,750 |
| Maryland | $1,225 |
| Illinois | $1,000 |
| Virginia | $1,000 |
| Alabama | $600 |
| Mississippi | $350 |
| California | $25 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | 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 |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
154
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
85%
from Louisiana
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 Louisiana. 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.
- LASFAA PAC, INC$3,500
- FAIR PAC$2,500
- LAE FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC EDUCATION PAC$2,500
- NORPAC LLC$2,500
- P&S LOCAL 60 THOMAS JEFFERSON FUND$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Duplessis voted with the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats on 98.8% of party-line votes and missed 14% of 2,495 roll calls. Louisiana Senate on average: 93.6% party unity, 88% attendance. Across all roll calls, Duplessis voted against the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats 12 times.
2,495 roll calls Duplessis could vote on in the LA 2025–26 session, compared with Louisiana 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 Duplessis voted with the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
12
votes against the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats
Party unity 98.8%, Louisiana Senate average 93.6%, ranks 2nd of 37. 2,495 roll calls in the LA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Duplessis, the thin grey bar the Louisiana Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Duplessis
Peers
Rank
Attendance
86%
88%
24th of 37
Party unity
98.8%
93.6%
2nd of 37
Show the data
| Row | Duplessis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 86% | 88% |
| Party unity | 98.8% | 93.6% |
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 LA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2026 | HB 1222 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Provides relative to grocery initiative grants and financial support (RR INCREASE GF EX See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1547) | Yea | With majority | fail | D 10–0 · R 7–19Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 7 yea, 19 nay | close vote · party crossover |
| May 29, 2026 | HB 75 GAMING: Creates an enhanced promotional play pilot program relative to net slot machine proceeds (EN -$574,627 GF RV See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1571) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 8–0 · R 12–11Democrats 8 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 12 yea, 11 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 29, 2026 | HB 410 CIVIL/PROCEDURE: Requires notification of all parties to record in-person communication FINAL PASSAGE (#1561) | Nay | With majority | pass | D 4–5 · R 25–1Democrats 4 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 25 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | HB 944 HEALTH SERVICES: Creates the Louisiana Women's Health Consortium (EN NO IMPACT See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1558) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 10–0 · R 26–0Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 26 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | HB 750 CONSUMERS/PROTECTION: Provides for cancellation of automatic renewal subscriptions FINAL PASSAGE (#1562) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 10–0 · R 10–16Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 16 nay | became law · party crossover |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Duplessis most often
- Sidney BarthelemyD1,059 shared votes99%
- Joe BouieD825 shared votes99%
- Gary CarterD1,851 shared votes99%
- Gerald BoudreauxD820 shared votes99%
- Jimmy HarrisD1,763 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Duplessis least often
- Blake MiguezR1,856 shared votes86%
- Valarie HodgesR2,009 shared votes87%
- Bob OwenR700 shared votes89%
- Adam BassR1,999 shared votes89%
- Alan SeabaughR1,863 shared votes90%
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
LA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Duplessis sponsored 52 bills in the LA 2025–26 session; 6 became law. Cosponsored 86 others. 21% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Louisiana Senate average 51%; 37th of 38).
The bills Duplessis sponsored and cosponsored in the LA 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 LA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 52 | 32 | 11 | 6 | 6 |
| Cosponsored | 86 | 83 | 73 | 46 | 44 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Duplessis sponsored, ochre blocks bills Duplessis cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
21%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Louisiana Senate average 51%. Ranks 37th of 38.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Duplessis, by number of shared bills in the LA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Gerald Boudreaux28
- Ed Price25
- Katrina Jackson-Andrews25
- Sam Jenkins25
- Cameron Henry23
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 Duplessis’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 204 | COMMENDATIONS: Commends Dr. Lawrence Dewayne Hardy for his exceptional leadership, guidance, and prayer during the 2026 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature. | Cosponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Introduced in the Senate; read by title. Rules suspended. Read second time by title and adopted. Jun 1, 2026 |
| SCR 89 | LEGISLATION: Limits the number of resolutions or prefiled bills a member may file during any annual session. | Cosponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced in the Senate; read by title. Rules suspended. Read second time by title and adopted by a vote of 35 yeas and 1 nays. Ordered sent to the House. Jun 1, 2026 |
| SR 184 | COMMENDATIONS: Commends and congratulates the Honorable Foster L. Campbell Jr. on the occasion of fifty years of continuously holding elective office in Louisiana, first as state senator and currently as Public Service Commissioner. | Cosponsor | May 29, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Enrolled. Signed by the President of the Senate and sent to the Secretary of State by the Secretary of the Senate on 6/2/2026. Jun 1, 2026 |
| SR 180 | CONDOLENCES: Expresses sincere and heartfelt condolences upon the passing of Sharon Courtney. | Sponsor | May 28, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Enrolled. Signed by the President of the Senate and sent to the Secretary of State by the Secretary of the Senate on 6/2/2026. Jun 1, 2026 |
| SR 171 | CONDOLENCES: Expresses sincere and heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Troy Carter, general manager of Chicken Shack restaurant, on his passing. | Cosponsor | May 27, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Enrolled. Signed by the President of the Senate and sent to the Secretary of State by the Secretary of the Senate on 6/2/2026. Jun 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Duplessis’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Duplessis’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 Duplessis posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 5
pages crawled
3changes 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 Duplessis posted
No images from Duplessis’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 Duplessis is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 7d852e7a-ae99-4f89-b4c0-4d7cb7e816db
- Open States
- ocd-person/7d852e7a-ae99-4f89-b4c0-4d7cb7e816db
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