Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 24, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism · Source
83%
of State House Democrats score to the left of Matthews on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.39 (approximate range −0.43 to −0.35, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 179 donors and 840 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 Matthews sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Matthews missed 13% of 832 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Utah House (average 90.7%). Matthews voted against the majority of Utah House Democrats 27 times; party unity 82%, in the bottom quarter of the Utah House (average 89%).
The measures on which Matthews sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
−0.39
More conservative than 83% of State House Democrats · ± 0.04
Attendance
87%
Utah House average 90.7% · ranks 58th of 71 · 832 roll calls
Party unity
82%
Utah House average 89% · ranks 57th of 71 · 27 votes against the majority of Utah House Democrats
Out of committee
67%
Utah House average 70% · ranks 43rd of 67
Itemized, 2026
$68.7K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 740th of 2,082
From Utah, 2026
91%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1098th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Matthews, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Matthews is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Matthews says
Matthews talks about policy less than 98% of State House Democrats. Policy discussion in 0% of 2 statements, against 39% for the average State House Democrat; 757th of 765.
An AI model reads each of Matthews’s 2 statements in the UT 2025–26 session (2 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the UT 2025–26 session
0%80%
Matthews
Peers
Rank
Policy criticism1 statements
50%
10%
3rd of 765
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 765
Policy discussion0 statements
0%
39%
757th of 765
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 765
Credit claiming0 statements
0%
14%
729th of 765
Show the data
| Row | Matthews | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy criticism | 50% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Policy discussion | 0% | 39% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 14% |
2
statements classified
2 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 2 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Matthews; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Matthews does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Matthews used no extreme labels in 2 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
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 UT 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the UT 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 22 months are hatched here; 20 of them have no statements.
In Matthews’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
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 2 statements
Newest first, the UT 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: 2 posts on X.
Policy
No policy statements for the UT 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Matthews sits at −0.39 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 83% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.43 to −0.35, which understates the uncertainty; from 179 donors and 840 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 −0.43 to −0.35. From 179 donors and 840 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Matthews, 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 Matthews’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 Matthews sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Utah House72 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Matthews |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 83% |
| Utah House | 72 | +0.3 | 18% |
| All State House | 5324 | +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 Matthews 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 Matthews.
Money
Matthews reported $68.7K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 91% of itemized individual money came from Utah.
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.
$68.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 5 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)8 squares$5,800
- PACs and other committees92 squares$62.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $5,800 | 8.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $62.9K | 91.6% |
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 House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $24.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $20.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $36.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $68.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 91% came from Utah.
- Utah$5,300
- Pennsylvania$500
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 |
|---|---|
| Utah | $5,300 |
| Pennsylvania | $500 |
| 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 |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | 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 |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
5
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
91%
from Utah
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 Utah. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ELEVATE PAC$15.0K
- ACTBLUE UTAH$10.3K
- UTAH HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL$10.0K
- OPERATING ENGINEERS 3 STATEWIDE PAC$5,000
- UTAH WOMEN AND POLITICS PAC$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Matthews voted with the majority of Utah House Democrats on 82% of party-line votes and missed 13% of 832 roll calls. Utah House on average: 89% party unity, 90.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Matthews voted against the majority of Utah House Democrats 27 times.
832 roll calls Matthews could vote on in the UT 2025–26 session, compared with Utah 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 Matthews voted with the majority of Utah House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
27
votes against the majority of Utah House Democrats
Party unity 82%, Utah House average 89%, ranks 57th of 71. 832 roll calls in the UT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Matthews, the thin grey bar the Utah House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Matthews
Peers
Rank
Attendance
87%
90.7%
58th of 71
Party unity
82%
89%
57th of 71
Show the data
| Row | Matthews | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 87% | 90.7% |
| Party unity | 82% | 89% |
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 UT 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 13–0 · R 44–1Democrats 13 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 44 yea, 1 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Mar 7, 2026 | HCR 2 Concurrent Resolution Authorizing Adult Sentencing and Supervision Length Guidelines and Juvenile Disposition Guidelines House/ concurs with Senate amendment | Yea | With majority | pass | D 12–0 · R 52–0Democrats 12 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 7, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 3–11 · R 50–2Democrats 3 yea, 11 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 14–0 · R 57–1Democrats 14 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 57 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 13–0 · R 50–1Democrats 13 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 1 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 Matthews most often
- Verona MaugaD696 shared votes97%
- John ArthurD693 shared votes96%
- Jen Dailey-ProvostD678 shared votes96%
- Andrew StoddardD653 shared votes96%
- Sandra HollinsD697 shared votes95%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Matthews least often
- Leah HansenR686 shared votes44%
- Kristen ChevrierR630 shared votes76%
- Tiara AuxierR609 shared votes77%
- Trevor LeeR603 shared votes78%
- Mike KohlerR645 shared votes78%
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
UT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Matthews sponsored 9 bills in the UT 2025–26 session; 4 became law. Cosponsored 1 other. 67% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Utah House average 70%; 43rd of 67).
The bills Matthews sponsored and cosponsored in the UT 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 UT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 9 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 |
| Cosponsored | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Matthews sponsored, ochre blocks bills Matthews cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
67%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Utah House average 70%. Ranks 43rd of 67.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Matthews, by number of shared bills in the UT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Karen Kwan2
- Luz Escamilla2
- Wayne Harper2
- Keith Grover1
- Todd Weiler1
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 Matthews’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 525 | Child Care Pilot Program Amendments | Sponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | Introduced | Families(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| HB 561 | Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments | Sponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Transportation and Public Works(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| HB 453 | Unspent Funding Amendments | Sponsor | Feb 24, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| HB 531 | Scarification Amendments | Sponsor | Feb 10, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Governor Signed Mar 19, 2026 |
| HB 299 | School Response to Sexual Offense | Sponsor | Jan 20, 2026 | Became law | Education(model) | Governor Signed Mar 19, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Matthews’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Matthews’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 Matthews posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 9
pages crawled
14changes 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 Matthews posted
No images from Matthews’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
9 turns, Feb 9, 2026 to Mar 6, 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 Matthews is most unusual among State House 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
- 8a770a9d-d24e-4468-9194-fa2ff1f422e3
- Open States
- ocd-person/8a770a9d-d24e-4468-9194-fa2ff1f422e3
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