Attendance 86%; the average within the New Mexico Senate is 90.2%. Ranks 33rd of 41, where 1st has the highest attendance. 369 roll calls in the NM 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Lanier could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the New Mexico Senate. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
4 measures against the New Mexico Senate. Lanier voted against the majority of New Mexico Senate Republicans 8 times; party unity 92.0%, in the bottom half of the New Mexico Senate (average 93.1%). Lanier sits at +0.28 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 63% of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Lanier sits furthest from the middle of the New Mexico Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
New Mexico Senate average 90.2% · ranks 33rd of 41 · 369 roll calls
Party unity
New Mexico Senate average 93.1% · ranks 29th of 41 · 8 votes against the majority of New Mexico Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 63% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.11
Out of committee
New Mexico Senate average 31% · ranks 21st of 42
Statements
Roll calls
Compared with New Mexico Senate
Peer group: New Mexico Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Lanier, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Lanier is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Lanier says
No statements for the NM 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the NM 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Lanier sits at +0.28 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 63% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.17 to +0.39, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 136 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 +0.17 to +0.39. From 0 donors and 136 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Lanier, 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 Lanier’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 Lanier sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Lanier |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 37% |
| New Mexico Senate | 42 | −0.4 | 64% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 64% |
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 Lanier 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 Lanier.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Lanier voted with the majority of New Mexico Senate Republicans on 92.0% of party-line votes and missed 14% of 369 roll calls. New Mexico Senate on average: 93.1% party unity, 90.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Lanier voted against the majority of New Mexico Senate Republicans 8 times.
369 roll calls Lanier could vote on in the NM 2025–26 session, compared with New Mexico 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 Lanier voted with the majority of New Mexico Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of New Mexico Senate Republicans
Party unity 92.0%, New Mexico Senate average 93.1%, ranks 29th of 41. 369 roll calls in the NM 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Lanier, the thin grey bar the New Mexico Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Lanier | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 86% | 90.2% |
| Party unity | 92.0% | 93.1% |
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 NM 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 19, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 21–0 · R 13–0Democrats 21 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 19, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 15–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 19, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 15–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 19, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 14–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 19, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 24–0 · R 14–0Democrats 24 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 0 nay | became law |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lanier most often
- Nick PaulR210 shared votes97%
- Crystal BrantleyR294 shared votes97%
- Gabriel RamosR301 shared votes96%
- Nicole TobiassenR293 shared votes96%
- Bill SharerR304 shared votes95%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lanier least often
- Shannon PintoD261 shared votes72%
- Antoinette Sedillo LopezD299 shared votes73%
- Debbie O'MalleyD266 shared votes73%
- Angel CharleyD286 shared votes75%
- Harold PopeD302 shared votes75%
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
NM 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Lanier sponsored 13 bills in the NM 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 31% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New Mexico Senate average 31%; 21st of 42).
The bills Lanier sponsored and cosponsored in the NM 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 NM 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 13 | 13 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Lanier sponsored, ochre blocks bills Lanier cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
New Mexico Senate average 31%. Ranks 21st of 42.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Lanier, by number of shared bills in the NM 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Craig Brandt4
- Jim Townsend4
- David Gallegos3
- Bill Sharer3
- Pat Woods3
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 Lanier’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 233 | HIGH-IMPACT TUTORING FOR SOME STUDENTS | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | action postponed indefinitely Mar 24, 2026 |
| SB 63 | ANIMAL WELFARE FUND SPAY & NEUTER SUBACCOUNT | Sponsor | Jan 22, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | action postponed indefinitely Mar 24, 2026 |
| SB 453 | NOTICE OF VOTING ELIGIBILITY TO NON-CITIZENS | Sponsor | Feb 19, 2025 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | action postponed indefinitely Jun 3, 2025 |
| SB 452 | REGISTRATION OF NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE | Sponsor | Feb 19, 2025 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | action postponed indefinitely Jun 3, 2025 |
| HB 457 | GEOLOGIC CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION ACT | Sponsor | Feb 18, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Environmental Protection(model) | action postponed indefinitely Jun 3, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Lanier’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Lanier’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 Lanier posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages 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
Images Lanier posted
No images from Lanier’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
4 turns, Feb 17, 2025 to Mar 20, 2025
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 Lanier is most unusual among New Mexico 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
- 82ac8832-cb59-4ea3-b6e7-a74e2115f37d
- Open States
- ocd-person/82ac8832-cb59-4ea3-b6e7-a74e2115f37d
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