Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; International Affairs · Source
8.9%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, the lowest of 47 in the Oklahoma Senate
8.9% of 269 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Oklahoma Senate is 56%. Ranks 47th of 47, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Jett sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Oklahoma 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 the Oklahoma Senate. Jett sits at −0.07 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 96% of State Senate Republicans. Jett voted against the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans 525 times; party unity 76%, in the bottom tenth of the Oklahoma Senate (average 90.2%).
The measures on which Jett sits furthest from the middle of the Oklahoma Senate, 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
8.9%
Oklahoma Senate average 56% · ranks 47th of 47
CSIP ideology
−0.07
More liberal than 96% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.02
Party unity
76%
Oklahoma Senate average 90.2% · ranks 44th of 47 · 525 votes against the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans
Itemized, 2026
$4,613
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 838th of 936
From Oklahoma, 2026
68%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 751st of 860 State Senate Republicans
Attendance
95.3%
Oklahoma Senate average 93.7% · ranks 21st of 47 · 1,658 roll calls
Peer group: Oklahoma Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Jett, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Jett is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Jett says
Jett stresses bipartisanship less than 87% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 55 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 311th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Jett’s 55 statements in the OK 2025–26 session (55 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the OK 2025–26 session
0%80%
Jett
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion15 statements
27%
37%
242nd of 354
Policy criticism4 statements
7%
9%
168th of 354
Credit claiming3 statements
5%
15%
271st of 354
Personal attacks1 statements
2%
2%
130th of 354
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
311th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Jett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 27% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 5% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
55
statements classified
55 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 55 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Jett; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Jett does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Jett used extreme labels in 5.5% of statements, 4.3 times the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at Trump Administration; peers 1.3%.
- “MAGA”1
- “communist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Trump Administration1
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 OK 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 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 ’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) |
| Jul ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 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) |
| Oct ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 23.5% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 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 ’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 | 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 ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 OK 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; 6 of them have no statements.
In Jett’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.
Oct 11, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 26, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Trump Administration · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Nathan DahmSource
All 55 statements
Newest first, the OK 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: 55 posts on X.
Policy
International Affairs is what Jett talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 20.0 times the peer share. Peers give it 1.7%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Jett talks about. The bills Jett sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Jett talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the OK 2025–26 session
0%37%
Jett
Peers
International Affairs5 statements
33%
2%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues4 statements
27%
5%
Government Operations and Politics4 statements
27%
17%
Health3 statements
20%
9%
Emergency Management2 statements
13%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Jett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| International Affairs | 33% | 2% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 27% | 5% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 27% | 17% |
| Health | 20% | 9% |
| Emergency Management | 13% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Jett’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 37%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Affairs | 33% | 2% | 0% | 0% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 27% | 5% | 7% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 27% | 17% | 9% | 12% |
| Health | 20% | 9% | 7% | 11% |
| Emergency Management | 13% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Jett legislates on exactly the areas Jett 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 Jett sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Jett sits at −0.07 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 96% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range −0.09 to −0.05, which understates the uncertainty; from 280 donors and 585 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”.
−0.07
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.09 to −0.05. From 280 donors and 585 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Jett, 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 Jett’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 Jett sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Oklahoma Senate47 · median +0.4
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Jett |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 4% |
| Oklahoma Senate | 47 | +0.4 | 19% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 45% |
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 Jett 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 Jett.
Money
Jett reported $4,613 in the 2026 cycle, 10.0% of the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 68% of itemized individual money came from Oklahoma.
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.
$4,613
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 10 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)48 squares$2,213
- PACs and other committees52 squares$2,400
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2,213 | 48.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $2,400 | 52.0% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $137.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $13.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $126.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $4,613 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 68% came from Oklahoma.
- Oklahoma$1,513
- Texas$600
- Florida$100
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 |
|---|---|
| Oklahoma | $1,513 |
| Texas | $600 |
| Florida | $100 |
| 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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
10
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
68%
from Oklahoma
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 Oklahoma. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- CONSULTANT$550 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- OKLAHOMA COMMITTEE OF AUTOMOBILE RETAILERS$1,000
- AEP COMM 4 RESPONSIBLE POWER$500
- FREE EMPLOYEE & AGENT POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF OKLAHOMA$500
- OKLAHOMA PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION PAC$400
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Jett voted with the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans on 76% of party-line votes and missed 4.7% of 1,658 roll calls. Oklahoma Senate on average: 90.2% party unity, 93.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Jett voted against the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans 525 times.
1,658 roll calls Jett could vote on in the OK 2025–26 session, compared with Oklahoma 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 Jett voted with the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
525
votes against the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans
Party unity 76%, Oklahoma Senate average 90.2%, ranks 44th of 47. 1,658 roll calls in the OK 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Jett, the thin grey bar the Oklahoma Senate average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Jett
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.3%
93.7%
21st of 47
Party unity
76%
90.2%
44th of 47
Show the data
| Row | Jett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.3% | 93.7% |
| Party unity | 76% | 90.2% |
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 OK 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2026 | SB 1360 Mathematics instruction; Oklahoma Math Achievement and Proficiency Act; teacher training; creating the Office of Mathematics Improvement; Director; screening instrument; funding. Effective date. Emergency. Fourth Reading | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 35–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 35 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 14, 2026 | SJR 52 Joint resolution; approving certain proposed permanent rules of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority. Fourth Reading | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 8–0 · R 28–8Democrats 8 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 28 yea, 8 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 14, 2026 | HB 3004 Professions and occupations; Board of Examiners in Optometry; sunset; effective date; emergency. Veto Override With Emergency | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 38–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 38 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 14, 2026 | HJR 1092 Joint Resolution; Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission; approving certain proposed permanent rule changes; directing distribution. Third Reading | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 8–1 · R 29–9Democrats 8 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 29 yea, 9 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 14, 2026 | SB 2071 Agriculture; Oklahoma Milk and Milk Products Act; clarifying jurisdictional authority of dairy inspection and grading programs. Effective date. House Amendments | Nay | With majority | fail | D 1–7 · R 16–20Democrats 1 yea, 7 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 20 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 Jett most often
- Dusty DeeversR1,543 shared votes95%
- George BurnsR1,489 shared votes89%
- Dana PrietoR1,528 shared votes88%
- Kendal SacchieriR1,537 shared votes88%
- Julie McIntoshR1,555 shared votes87%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Jett least often
- Carri HicksD1,495 shared votes54%
- Regina GoodwinD1,504 shared votes55%
- Julia KirtD1,529 shared votes55%
- Michael BrooksD1,439 shared votes55%
- Nikki NiceD1,552 shared votes57%
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
OK 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Jett sponsored 269 bills in the OK 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 8.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Oklahoma Senate average 56%; 47th of 47).
The bills Jett sponsored and cosponsored in the OK 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 OK 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 269 | 263 | 13 | 2 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Jett sponsored, ochre blocks bills Jett cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
8.9%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Oklahoma Senate average 56%. Ranks 47th of 47.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Jett, by number of shared bills in the OK 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Rick West8
- Jim Olsen7
- Jim Shaw6
- Chris Banning2
- Danny Sterling2
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 Jett’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HCR 1023 | Concurrent Resolution; Christ is King; distribution. | Sponsor | Apr 6, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Authored by Senator Jett (principal Senate author) Apr 6, 2026 |
| SCR 19 | Concurrent resolution; proclaiming Christ is King; recognizing the spiritual heritage of Oklahoma. | Sponsor | Apr 2, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Coauthored by Representative Olsen (principal House author) Apr 2, 2026 |
| SB 1756 | Education; directing school districts, institutions of higher education, and technology center school districts to adopt certain employment policy. Effective date. Emergency. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Second Reading referred to Rules Feb 3, 2026 |
| SB 1881 | Adjudicative hearings; authorizing hearings to be made public if in the public interest. Effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Second Reading referred to Judiciary Feb 3, 2026 |
| SB 2164 | Game wardens; requiring consent of property owner to enter property without probable cause; establishing gunshots do not constitute probable cause. Effective date, | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Second Reading referred to Agriculture and Wildlife Feb 3, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Jett’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Jett’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 Jett 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
- XSenShaneJettOK
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/SenatorShaneJett
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/SenatorShaneJettOK?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ3sgRleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETEyOWhudEY4Z09FTGx5amRkAR7oqxxqbhfOikpNoDBDDBsAwyh0oNHAc9XzWY9x65ntnHKfMwWrPzxx6wJ5pQ_aem_sxtiUz8rA_zfXWAxRBtLCQ
- Truth Socialtruthsocial.com/@ShaneJett
- Emailshane.jett@oksenate.gov
Images Jett posted
No images from Jett’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
226 turns, Mar 8, 2022 to May 14, 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 Jett is most unusual among Oklahoma 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
- 97650810-9219-451e-97d1-e3d3318c5d53
- Open States
- ocd-person/97650810-9219-451e-97d1-e3d3318c5d53
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