Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Emergency Management; Finance and Financial Sector · Source
2.1×
the House Democrat rate of credit claiming
48% of 727 statements claim credit (347 statements); the average for House Democrats is 23%. Ranks 3rd of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Case’s press releases, posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. 0.7% of Case’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 6.6%). 20% of Case’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.0 times the House Democrat average of 9.8%.
The measures on which Case sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Credit claiming
48%
House Democrats average 23% · ranks 3rd of 216
Personal attacks
0.7%
House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 204th of 216
Bipartisanship
20%
House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 15th of 216
CSIP ideology
−0.60
More conservative than 91% of House Democrats · ± 0.02
Small donations, 2026
2.9%
House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 191st of 214
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.72
House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 26th of 216
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Case, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Case is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Case says
Case attacks opponents personally less than 93% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0.7% of 727 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 204th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Case’s 727 statements in the 119th Congress (557 posts on X, 100 press releases, 44 Congressional Record speeches, 26 newsletters) 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 House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Case
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion532 statements
73%
73%
119th of 216
Credit claiming347 statements
48%
23%
3rd of 216
Policy criticism183 statements
25%
28%
142nd of 216
Bipartisanship145 statements
20%
10%
15th of 216
Personal attacks5 statements
1%
7%
204th of 216
Show the data
| Row | Case | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 73% | 73% |
| Credit claiming | 48% | 23% |
| Policy criticism | 25% | 28% |
| Bipartisanship | 20% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 7% |
727
statements classified
557 posts on X, 100 press releases, 44 Congressional Record speeches, 26 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 557 |
| press releases | 100 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 44 |
| newsletters | 26 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Case; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Case does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Case used extreme labels in 0.5% of statements, 29% of the peer average. 4 statements, most often aimed at Chinese Communist; peers 1.9%.
- “communist”2
- “extreme”2
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Chinese Communist1
- House1
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 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 39 | 0.0% | 20.5% | 66.7% | 25.6% | 66.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 35.1% | 59.5% | 18.9% | 35.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 39 | 5.1% | 23.1% | 69.2% | 25.6% | 33.3% | 2.6% |
| Apr ’25 | 34 | 0.0% | 23.5% | 76.5% | 8.8% | 44.1% | 2.9% |
| May ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 36.1% | 83.3% | 30.6% | 38.9% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 34 | 0.0% | 35.3% | 70.6% | 11.8% | 44.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 41 | 0.0% | 31.7% | 61.0% | 14.6% | 43.9% | 2.4% |
| Aug ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 16.1% | 64.5% | 25.8% | 58.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 27.8% | 86.1% | 27.8% | 66.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 32 | 3.1% | 31.3% | 62.5% | 37.5% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 21.7% | 73.9% | 13.0% | 52.2% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 24.3% | 78.4% | 16.2% | 56.8% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 20.7% | 79.3% | 24.1% | 44.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 32 | 3.1% | 21.9% | 71.9% | 15.6% | 46.9% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 33 | 0.0% | 30.3% | 72.7% | 18.2% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 37 | 0.0% | 24.3% | 81.1% | 18.9% | 51.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 35 | 0.0% | 25.7% | 68.6% | 17.1% | 54.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 41 | 0.0% | 31.7% | 75.6% | 21.9% | 75.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 31 | 3.2% | 25.8% | 74.2% | 16.1% | 45.2% | 3.2% |
| Aug ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 75.0% | 12.5% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 31 | 0.0% | 12.9% | 83.9% | 16.1% | 35.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 86.7% | 13.3% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
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 119th Congress, 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%.
In Case’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 23, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Taxation · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 14, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” aimed at House · 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
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · TaxationSource
Press releases
Case Statement On The President's State Of The Union Address (Washington, DC) – U.S. Representative Ed Case (Hawai‘i – District 1) issued the following statement after attending President Trump’s State of the Union address tonight to Congress: “This was the most unpresidential State of the Union I have heard. Stoking fear, inflaming prejudice, playing to division, turning American against American, refusing responsi…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Agriculture and Food · Commerce · Economics and Public Finance · Education · Families · Health · Housing and Community Development · target: TrumpSource
Newsletters
Completely Avoidable Federal Government Shutdown: What Is Happening; Why; Who/What Affected; Questions/Answers/Resources; Tele-Talk Story Thursday Aloha, Friend. At midnight DC time, our federal government began to shut down because Congress and the President failed to pass the legislation necessary to keep our federal government open and operating in our new Fiscal Year 2026. This is beyond deeply disappointing; it…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Trump
Newsletters
Navigating Continued Confusion and Chaos Aloha, the confusion, chaos and danger of the Trump administration continue into a third month, I report back to you again on what's going on, what I think and what I'm doing, and ask for your further deepening division and polarization of our last decades has only worsened with a deeply divisive and polarizing President intent on pressing the boundaries of our democracy. For…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Law · Education · Health · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Crime and Law Enforcement · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Finance and Financial Sector · Taxation · extreme label “radical, communist” · target: Trump
Press releases
(Washington, DC) – U.S, Representative Ed Case (Hawai’i-First) today decried President Trump’s effort to abolish the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) as “one of the broadest and deepest and outright shortsighted and heartless of many attacks on the foundations of our society to date.” “Education, especially our collective centuries-old commitment to a free education for all, is one of the most basic building bloc…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Education · Law · Economics and Public Finance · Taxation · Labor and Employment · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Health · target: Donald TrumpSource
All 727 statements
Newest first, the 119th Congress
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: 557 posts on X, 100 press releases, 44 Congressional Record speeches, 26 newsletters.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Case talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 26th of 216).
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 Case talks about. The bills Case sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Case talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%37%
Case
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security177 statements
33%
16%
Economics and Public Finance156 statements
29%
20%
Government Operations and Politics110 statements
21%
20%
International Affairs105 statements
20%
8%
Health104 statements
20%
26%
Show the data
| Row | Case | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 33% | 16% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 29% | 20% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 20% |
| International Affairs | 20% | 8% |
| Health | 20% | 26% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Case’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House 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 37%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 33% | 16% | 9% | 7% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 29% | 20% | 2% | 1% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 20% | 10% | 11% |
| International Affairs | 20% | 8% | 13% | 8% |
| Health | 20% | 26% | 8% | 16% |
0.72
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 26th of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Case legislates on exactly the areas Case 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 Case sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Case sits at −0.60 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 91% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.62 to −0.58, which understates the uncertainty; from 944 donors and 3,817 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”.
−0.60
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.62 to −0.58. From 944 donors and 3,817 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Case, 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 Case’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 Case sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 90% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 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 Case 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 Case.
Money
Case raised $1.3M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 2.9% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 35% of itemized individual money came from Hawaii.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission 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.
$1.3M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 332 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)51 squares$679.6K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$20.3K
- PACs and other committees48 squares$639.1K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $679.6K | 50.8% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $20.3K | 1.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $639.1K | 47.7% |
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. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $606.4K |
| 2022 cycle | $1.1M |
| 2024 cycle | $700.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $1.3M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 35% came from Hawaii.
- Hawaii$187.0K
- Virginia$74.3K
- Texas$46.0K
- California$40.5K
- Maryland$33.0K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
0%60%
Case
Median
2026
3%
13%
2024
8%
13%
2022
4%
13%
2020
18%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Case | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 3% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 8% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 4% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 18% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Hawaii | $187.0K |
| Virginia | $74.3K |
| Texas | $46.0K |
| California | $40.5K |
| Maryland | $33.0K |
| District of Columbia | $32.3K |
| New York | $31.5K |
| Florida | $23.8K |
| Nevada | $10.5K |
| Vermont | $7,000 |
| Arizona | $7,000 |
| Alabama | $7,000 |
| Washington | $6,700 |
| Massachusetts | $5,750 |
| Pennsylvania | $3,500 |
| Connecticut | $3,500 |
| Illinois | $2,500 |
| Ohio | $2,500 |
| Colorado | $2,000 |
| South Carolina | $2,000 |
| Georgia | $1,750 |
| Missouri | $1,000 |
| North Carolina | $1,000 |
| Louisiana | $1,000 |
| Maine | $500 |
| Minnesota | $500 |
| New Jersey | $500 |
| New Hampshire | $250 |
| Montana | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
332
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
35%
from Hawaii
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 Hawaii. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.4% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 7.4% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 19% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 30% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 9.3% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 10% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 15% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 7.1% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 1.9% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.2% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Case’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Case’s own score is −0.60.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- PRESIDENT$52.9K 24 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED$52.1K 52 donors
- EXECUTIVE$44.0K 17 donors
- CEO$39.8K 25 donors
- CONSULTANT$37.5K 22 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ASPIRE PAC$10.0K
- CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION PAC (CAC PAC)$10.0K
- EMPLOYEES OF RTX CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- GENERAL ATOMICS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (GENERAL DYNAMICS EMPLOYEE PAC)$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- WASHINGTON HARBOUR PARTNERS$17.5K 5 donors
- MORAN GLOBAL STRATEGIES$8,000 5 donors
- CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$6,750 11 donors
- CENTRAL PACIFIC BANK$6,000 4 donors
- VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES$5,500 6 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Case voted with the majority of House Democrats on 95.5% of party-line votes and missed 0.4% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Case voted against the majority of House Democrats 23 times.
674 roll calls Case could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. 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 Case voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
23
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 95.5%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 168th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Case, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Case
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
96.9%
40th of 217
Party unity
95.5%
96.4%
168th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Case | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.5% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 95.5% | 96.4% |
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 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.J.Res. 213 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision” On Passage | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments | Yea | Against majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 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 Case most often
- James WalkinshawD425 shared votes97%
- Deborah RossD667 shared votes97%
- Kelly MorrisonD666 shared votes97%
- William KeatingD638 shared votes97%
- David ScottD484 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Case least often
- Chip RoyR630 shared votes18%
- Eric BurlisonR639 shared votes20%
- Ralph NormanR595 shared votes20%
- Josh BrecheenR638 shared votes20%
- Keith SelfR655 shared votes20%
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
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Case sponsored 33 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 457 others. 6.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 62nd of 207).
The bills Case sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, 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 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 33 | 33 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 457 | 457 | 27 | 1 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Case sponsored, ochre blocks bills Case cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
6.1%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 62nd of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Case, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Jill Tokuda77
- James (Jim) Moylan49
- Eleanor Norton46
- Brian Fitzpatrick41
- Aumua Amata Radewagen30
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 Case’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.Res. 1635 | Supporting the designation of October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day". | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10841 | Securing Elections From AI Deception Act | Cosponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1628 | Supporting the designation of the week beginning on October 10, 2026, as "National Wildlife Refuge Week". | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Public Lands and Natural Resources | Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 15, 2026 |
| H.R. 10774 | SWIMS Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Oct 9, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection | Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 9, 2026 |
| H.R. 10686 | Community Disaster Protection Act | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Emergency Management | Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Oct 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 70 times in 90 days. Case’s official site had 39 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Case posted on Oct 20, 2026.
The lab crawls Case’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 Case posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 39
pages crawled
70changes in 90 days
- 12
pages crawled
28changes 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
- XRepEdCase
- FacebookRepEdCase
- Instagramrepedcase
- YouTubeRepEdCase
- Emailed.case@mail.house.gov
Images Case posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A political informational graphic over an aerial photograph of a flooded community. A dark translucent panel overlays the image, with a large title, explanatory text, a cosponsorship note, and a congressional logo.View post 
A promotional graphic shows the illuminated U.S. Capitol building against a blue evening sky, reflected in water. A dark band overlays the center with a large headline, and a congressional logo appears in the lower-right corner.View post 
A printed invitation celebrating the centennial of Aloha Tower. A blue-and-teal graphic combines the number 100, a tower, and a ship on the water. Event details appear below, with part of another decorative element cut off at the bottom.View post 
A smiling woman and man pose together outdoors on a sunny, palm-lined street. Both wear patterned shirts and flower leis; other people and a building are visible behind them. There is some text in the background.View post 
An outdoor ceremony is taking place in front of a large white building with an arched entrance. A speaker stands at a podium while an audience sits in rows of chairs. Palm trees and streetlights surround the building. Text is visible on the building and podium.View post
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.
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 Case is most unusual among 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
- C001055
- Bioguide
- C001055
- FEC candidate ids
- H2HI02128
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 (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
- Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
- Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; 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.
- ImagesOct 28, 2026todayImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.
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