Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, California’s 21st district

Serving since Jan 4, 2005119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide C001059FEC H4CA20082

Portrait of Jim Costa, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
63
votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 86%, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats (average 96.4%). 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

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 Costa voted with the majority of House Democrats; it is ranked among House Democrats. The count covers every roll call where Costa voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Costa sits at −0.39 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 98% of House Democrats. 0.2% of Costa’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 1.9%).

The measures on which Costa 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.

Party unity

86%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 209th of 217 · 63 votes against the majority of House Democrats

CSIP ideology

−0.39

More conservative than 98% of House Democrats · ± 0.01

Extreme labels

0.2%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 200th of 216

Small donations, 2026

2.7%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 193rd of 214

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.73

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 18th of 216

Bipartisanship

15%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 28th of 216

Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Costa, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Costa is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Costa says

Costa attacks opponents personally less than 86% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 1.2% of 1,467 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 187th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Costa’s 1,467 statements in the 119th Congress (1,199 posts on X, 158 press releases, 59 Congressional Record speeches, 51 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%
Costa
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,153 statements
79%
73%
54th of 216
Credit claiming412 statements
28%
23%
53rd of 216
Policy criticism397 statements
27%
28%
129th of 216
Bipartisanship227 statements
15%
10%
28th of 216
Personal attacks18 statements
1%
7%
187th of 216
Show the data
Costa's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowCostaPeers
Policy discussion79%73%
Credit claiming28%23%
Policy criticism27%28%
Bipartisanship15%10%
Personal attacks1%7%
1,467

statements classified

1,199 posts on X, 158 press releases, 59 Congressional Record speeches, 51 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,199 (81.7%)posts on X 1,199press releases: 158 (10.8%)Congressional Record speeches: 59 (4.0%)newsletters: 51 (3.5%)
Show the data
Costa's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,199
press releases158
Congressional Record speeches59
newsletters51
How to read the bars

The thick bar is Costa; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Costa does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.

Extreme labels

Costa used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 10% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at radical center; peers 1.9%.

  1. “communist”1
  2. “extreme”1
  3. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. radical center1
  2. Republicans1
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

Statements2025-01: 712025-02: 862025-03: 702025-04: 932025-05: 1112025-06: 1082025-07: 1072025-08: 692025-09: 752025-10: 472025-11: 442025-12: 642026-01: 712026-02: 452026-03: 692026-04: 732026-05: 442026-06: 652026-07: 392026-08: 242026-09: 562026-10: 36peak 111 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 4.4% · Feb ’26 · latest 2.8%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.4% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.2% of 86Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.9% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 93Personal attacks, 2025-05: 3.6% of 111Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.8% of 108Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-11: 2.3% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-01: 1.4% of 71Personal attacks, 2026-02: 4.4% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.5% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-05: 2.3% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.8% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.8% of 36Policy criticismpeak 47.7% · Jul ’25 · latest 11.1%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 23.9% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-02: 37.2% of 86Policy criticism, 2025-03: 37.1% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-04: 24.7% of 93Policy criticism, 2025-05: 41.4% of 111Policy criticism, 2025-06: 31.5% of 108Policy criticism, 2025-07: 47.7% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-08: 20.3% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-09: 17.3% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-10: 40.4% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-11: 34.1% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-12: 23.4% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-01: 9.9% of 71Policy criticism, 2026-02: 24.4% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-03: 20.3% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-04: 11.0% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-05: 25.0% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-06: 23.1% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-07: 23.1% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-08: 12.5% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-09: 17.9% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-10: 11.1% of 36Policy discussionpeak 91.7% · Aug ’26 · latest 77.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 80.3% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-02: 84.9% of 86Policy discussion, 2025-03: 80.0% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-04: 76.3% of 93Policy discussion, 2025-05: 73.0% of 111Policy discussion, 2025-06: 84.3% of 108Policy discussion, 2025-07: 86.9% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-08: 79.7% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-09: 76.0% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-10: 80.8% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-11: 81.8% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-12: 76.6% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-01: 80.3% of 71Policy discussion, 2026-02: 75.6% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-03: 66.7% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-04: 71.2% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-05: 72.7% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-06: 81.5% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.9% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-08: 91.7% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-09: 75.0% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-10: 77.8% of 36Bipartisanshippeak 26.8% · Jan ’25 · latest 22.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 26.8% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 10.5% of 86Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 10.0% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 4.3% of 93Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 15.3% of 111Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 17.6% of 108Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 10.3% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 18.8% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 24.0% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 17.0% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 20.4% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 25.0% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 16.9% of 71Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 17.8% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 11.6% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 11.0% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 18.2% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 20.0% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.1% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 4.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 16.1% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 22.2% of 36Credit claimingpeak 46.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 16.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 46.5% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-02: 41.9% of 86Credit claiming, 2025-03: 12.9% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-04: 32.3% of 93Credit claiming, 2025-05: 21.6% of 111Credit claiming, 2025-06: 16.7% of 108Credit claiming, 2025-07: 33.6% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-08: 42.0% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-09: 25.3% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-10: 34.0% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-11: 29.5% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-12: 34.4% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-01: 29.6% of 71Credit claiming, 2026-02: 37.8% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-03: 30.4% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-04: 13.7% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-05: 40.9% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-06: 32.3% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-07: 15.4% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-08: 4.2% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-09: 10.7% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-10: 16.7% of 36Extreme labelspeak 2.3% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 86Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 93Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 111Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.9% of 108Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.1% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.3% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 71Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 36Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Costa, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
ColumnStatementsPersonal attacksPolicy criticismPolicy discussionBipartisanshipCredit claimingExtreme labels
Jan ’25711.4%23.9%80.3%26.8%46.5%0.0%
Feb ’25861.2%37.2%84.9%10.5%41.9%0.0%
Mar ’25702.9%37.1%80.0%10.0%12.9%0.0%
Apr ’25930.0%24.7%76.3%4.3%32.3%0.0%
May ’251113.6%41.4%73.0%15.3%21.6%0.0%
Jun ’251081.8%31.5%84.3%17.6%16.7%0.9%
Jul ’251070.0%47.7%86.9%10.3%33.6%0.0%
Aug ’25690.0%20.3%79.7%18.8%42.0%0.0%
Sep ’25750.0%17.3%76.0%24.0%25.3%0.0%
Oct ’25470.0%40.4%80.8%17.0%34.0%2.1%
Nov ’25442.3%34.1%81.8%20.4%29.5%2.3%
Dec ’25640.0%23.4%76.6%25.0%34.4%0.0%
Jan ’26711.4%9.9%80.3%16.9%29.6%0.0%
Feb ’26454.4%24.4%75.6%17.8%37.8%0.0%
Mar ’26691.5%20.3%66.7%11.6%30.4%0.0%
Apr ’26730.0%11.0%71.2%11.0%13.7%0.0%
May ’26442.3%25.0%72.7%18.2%40.9%0.0%
Jun ’26650.0%23.1%81.5%20.0%32.3%0.0%
Jul ’26390.0%23.1%76.9%5.1%15.4%0.0%
Aug ’26240.0%12.5%91.7%4.2%4.2%0.0%
Sep ’26561.8%17.9%75.0%16.1%10.7%0.0%
Oct ’26362.8%11.1%77.8%22.2%16.7%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 Costa’s words

Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned

Bipartisanship

Rep. Costa Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Strengthen U.S. Defense Innovation Through Partnership with Ukraine WASHINGTON – Today, Representatives Jim Costa (CA-21), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Europe and the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, Don Bacon (NE-02), Wesley…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications · Source

Personal attacks

The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

Oct 8, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my esteemed colleague, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, to honor and celebrate the 80th birthday of Mr. Mike Roos, a devoted public servant, legislative leader, and lifelong advocate for California communities. Born on August 6, 1945, in Memphis, Tennessee, Mike Roo…

Nov 12, 2025 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Environmental Protection; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Education; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance; Transportation and Public Works; extreme label “radical” aimed at radical center · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. 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 · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacksSource

  3. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Health · Housing and Community Development · target: Donald TrumpSource

  4. Press releases

    Rep. Costa Affirms Commitment to Accountability and Support for Survivors Following Reports of Sexual Abuse by Cesar Chavez Press Release Congressman Jim Costa Washington, DC — In response to reports detailing sexual abuse by Cesar Chavez, Rep. Jim Costa (CA-21), Co-Chair and Co-Founder of the Congressional Crime Survivors and Justice Caucus, issued the following statement: “The recent reports regarding Cesar Chavez…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Families · Labor and Employment · target: Cesar ChavezSource

  5. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · target: PresidentSource

All 1,467 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: 1,199 posts on X, 158 press releases, 59 Congressional Record speeches, 51 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Costa talks about most: 24% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.73 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 18th 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 Costa talks about. The bills Costa sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Costa talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Costa
Peers
Health273 statements
24%
26%
Agriculture and Food270 statements
23%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security173 statements
15%
16%
Economics and Public Finance166 statements
14%
20%
Education128 statements
11%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Costa talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowCostaPeers
Health24%26%
Agriculture and Food23%9%
Armed Forces and National Security15%16%
Economics and Public Finance14%20%
Education11%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Costa’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 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 24% (House Democrats 26%)24%Health, legislates on: 14% (House Democrats 16%)14%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 9%)23%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 4%)13%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 16%)15%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 7%)4%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 20%)14%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%EducationEducation, talks about: 11% (House Democrats 10%)11%Education, legislates on: 3% (House Democrats 5%)3%
Show the data
Costa's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health24%26%14%16%
Agriculture and Food23%9%13%4%
Armed Forces and National Security15%16%4%7%
Economics and Public Finance14%20%1%1%
Education11%10%3%5%
0.73

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 18th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Costa legislates on exactly the areas Costa 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 Costa sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Costa sits at −0.39 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 98% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.40 to −0.38, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,940 donors and 7,136 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

−0.39

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.40 to −0.38. From 1,940 donors and 7,136 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Costa −0.4House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Costa, 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 Costa’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 Costa sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Costa −0.4All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Costa's CSIP score of −0.39 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Costa
House Democrats217−1.098%
All House439+0.348%
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 Costa 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 Costa.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Costa raised $1.7M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 2.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 81% of itemized individual money came from California.

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.

Election cycle
$1.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 278 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): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $666.0K (39.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $18.6K (1.1%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)PACs and other committees: $980.2K (58.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $20.5K (1.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)40 squares$666.0K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$18.6K
  • PACs and other committees58 squares$980.2K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$20.5K
Show the data
Sources of Costa's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$666.0K39.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$18.6K1.1%
PACs and other committees$980.2K58.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$20.5K1.2%
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.

2020 cycle: $2.1M$2.1M20202022 cycle: $2.0M$2.0M20222024 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M20242026 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Costa's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.1M
2022 cycle$2.0M
2024 cycle$1.7M
2026 cycle$1.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 81% came from California.

  1. California$381.5K
  2. District of Columbia$21.8K
  3. New York$17.5K
  4. Texas$8,500
  5. Maryland$7,750

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%
Costa
Median
2026
3%
13%
2024
1%
13%
2022
2%
13%
2020
1%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowCostaMedian
2026 cycle3%13%
2024 cycle1%13%
2022 cycle2%13%
2020 cycle1%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $500MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $250WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: $2,360WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $17.5KNYRhode Island: $2,000RIMassachusetts: $4,000MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $250OHPennsylvania: $500PANew Jersey: $4,000NJConnecticut: $250CTCalifornia: $381.5KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $2,750CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $6,000VAMaryland: $7,750MDDelaware: $500DEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: $250NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $150NCSouth Carolina: $1,500SCDistrict of Columbia: $21.8KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: $1,500HITexas: $8,500TXFlorida: $3,000FL
Show the data
Costa's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$381.5K
District of Columbia$21.8K
New York$17.5K
Texas$8,500
Maryland$7,750
Virginia$6,000
Massachusetts$4,000
New Jersey$4,000
Florida$3,000
Colorado$2,750
Wisconsin$2,360
Rhode Island$2,000
South Carolina$1,500
Hawaii$1,500
Maine$500
Pennsylvania$500
Delaware$500
Washington$250
Ohio$250
Connecticut$250
New Mexico$250
North Carolina$150
AlaskaNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
MichiganNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
ArizonaNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
278

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

81%

from California

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 California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 2.4%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 18%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 13%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 37%37%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 11%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 13%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 2.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 1.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Costa's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.00: 18% between −1.00 and −0.75, 13% between −0.75 and −0.50, 37% between −0.50 and −0.25, 11% between −0.25 and 0.00, 13% between 0.00 and +0.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.002.4%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7518%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5013%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.2537%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0011%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.2513%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.752.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.001.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Costa’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Costa’s own score is −0.39.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. PHYSICIAN$42.5K 18 donors
  2. OWNER$33.5K 15 donors
  3. NOT EMPLOYED$32.7K 22 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$31.0K 18 donors
  5. CEO$27.3K 12 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ACROSS THE AISLE PAC$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN PISTACHIO GROWERS PISTACHIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEM$10.0K 4 donors
  2. FAGUNDES DAIRY$6,997 3 donors
  3. CALIFORNIA STRATEGIES$5,674 3 donors
  4. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY COLLEGE$5,500 3 donors
  5. COBANK$2,000 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Costa voted with the majority of House Democrats on 86% of party-line votes and missed 3.9% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Costa voted against the majority of House Democrats 63 times.

674 roll calls Costa 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 Costa voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

63

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 86%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 209th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Costa, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Costa
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.1%
96.9%
167th of 217
Party unity
86%
96.4%
209th of 217
Show the data
Costa's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowCostaPeers
Attendance96.1%96.9%
Party unity86%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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame 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
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty 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
YeaAgainst majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame 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 Costa most often

  1. Jared MoskowitzD630 shared votes93%
  2. Jimmy PanettaD646 shared votes93%
  3. Maggie GoodlanderD643 shared votes93%
  4. Chris PappasD644 shared votes93%
  5. Greg StantonD634 shared votes92%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Costa least often

  1. Chip RoyR611 shared votes25%
  2. Keith SelfR636 shared votes26%
  3. Eric BurlisonR619 shared votes26%
  4. Andy BiggsR582 shared votes26%
  5. Ralph NormanR575 shared votes27%
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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Costa sponsored 31 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 511 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Costa 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

Sponsored31 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3131Sponsored, In committee: 3131Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored511 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 511511Cosponsored, In committee: 511511Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2828Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Costa sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3131000
Cosponsored5115112822
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Costa sponsored, ochre blocks bills Costa cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Costa, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Brian Fitzpatrick52
  2. David Valadao48
  3. Eleanor Norton47
  4. Michael Lawler40
  5. Josh Gottheimer37
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 Costa’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10858CARE for Blood Cancer Act of 2026CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10853Yemen TPS ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10814To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide further transparency and accountability for the use of content that is generated by artificial intelligence (generative AI) in political advertisements by requiring such advertisements to include a statement within the contents of the advCosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on House Administration. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10824Stroke Education and EMS Care Improvement Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, 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 15, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 38 times in 90 days. Costa’s official site had 28 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Costa posted on Oct 24, 2026.

The lab crawls Costa’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 Costa posts with a vision model.

Websites

  • Official site

    costa.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    28

    pages crawled

    38

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.jimcosta.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    13

    pages crawled

    18

    changes 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.

Images Costa posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A large group of adults, mostly older people, pose together for a photo in a community room. Several wear matching blue shirts. Windows, a wall-mounted screen, a trophy, framed items, chairs, and tables are visible. Some clothing and signs contain text.
    A large group of adults, mostly older people, pose together for a photo in a community room. Several wear matching blue shirts. Windows, a wall-mounted screen, a trophy, framed items, chairs, and tables are visible. Some clothing and signs contain text.View post
  • Two older men pose together for a photograph at an indoor gathering. Several people stand in the background, with curtains and a serving cart nearby. No prominent text is visible.
    Two older men pose together for a photograph at an indoor gathering. Several people stand in the background, with curtains and a serving cart nearby. No prominent text is visible.View post
  • Four men pose together indoors. Two men hold a framed certificate, and there is a transparent lectern at the left. Text appears on the certificate.
    Four men pose together indoors. Two men hold a framed certificate, and there is a transparent lectern at the left. Text appears on the certificate.View post
  • Three men pose for a photograph inside an office reception area. Behind them is a large agency sign, with a U.S. flag to the left and office equipment on the counter. Text is visible on the sign and other items.
    Three men pose for a photograph inside an office reception area. Behind them is a large agency sign, with a U.S. flag to the left and office equipment on the counter. Text is visible on the sign and other items.View post
  • A news graphic featuring a photo of an older white-haired man in a gray suit and striped tie standing in a hallway. A large headline and a short article summary appear below him.
    A news graphic featuring a photo of an older white-haired man in a gray suit and striped tie standing in a hallway. A large headline and a short article summary appear below him.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.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

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 Costa 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
C001059
Bioguide
C001059
FEC candidate ids
H4CA20082

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

Back to top