Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Education; Energy; Labor and Employment; Public Lands and Natural Resources · Source
2.1%
of statements criticize a policy, the lowest of 52 Senate Republicans
2.1% of 873 statements criticize a policy (18 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 17%. Ranks 52nd of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Justice’s press releases, Congressional Record speeches, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 0% of Justice’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans (average 2.1%). 0% of Justice’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans (average 2.9%).
The measures on which Justice sits furthest from the middle of Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy criticism
2.1%
Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 52nd of 52
Personal attacks
0%
Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 52nd of 52
Extreme labels
0%
Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 52nd of 52
Raised, 2026
$87.4K
Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 51st of 51
From West Virginia, 2026
1.2%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 48th of 50 Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.70
More liberal than 91% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.03
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Justice, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Justice is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Justice says
Justice attacks opponents personally less than 97% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 873 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 52nd of 52.
An AI model reads each of Justice’s 873 statements in the 119th Congress (778 posts on X, 70 press releases, 24 Congressional Record speeches, 1 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Justice
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion595 statements
68%
70%
32nd of 52
Credit claiming285 statements
33%
36%
37th of 52
Bipartisanship54 statements
6%
13%
44th of 52
Policy criticism18 statements
2%
17%
52nd of 52
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
52nd of 52
Show the data
| Row | Justice | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 68% | 70% |
| Credit claiming | 33% | 36% |
| Bipartisanship | 6% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 17% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
873
statements classified
778 posts on X, 70 press releases, 24 Congressional Record speeches, 1 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 778 |
| press releases | 70 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 24 |
| newsletters | 1 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Justice; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Justice does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Justice used no extreme labels in 873 statements. The peer average is 2.9%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 62.1% | 3.5% | 10.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 64 | 0.0% | 3.1% | 81.3% | 1.6% | 29.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 67.7% | 0.0% | 29.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 32 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 59.4% | 6.3% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 48 | 0.0% | 2.1% | 64.6% | 6.3% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 65.7% | 2.9% | 25.7% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 3.2% | 74.2% | 6.5% | 35.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 64.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 75.0% | 2.5% | 32.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 72.2% | 2.8% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 33 | 0.0% | 3.0% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 4.3% | 43.5% | 21.7% | 43.5% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 40 | 0.0% | 2.5% | 65.0% | 5.0% | 45.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 37 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 59.5% | 2.7% | 24.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 51 | 0.0% | 5.9% | 60.8% | 11.8% | 31.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 45 | 0.0% | 6.7% | 66.7% | 20.0% | 42.2% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 62 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 71.0% | 11.3% | 41.9% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 49 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 57.1% | 2.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 51 | 0.0% | 2.0% | 80.4% | 7.8% | 35.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 83.3% | 7.1% | 45.2% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 39 | 0.0% | 2.6% | 66.7% | 7.7% | 43.6% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.0% | 3.3% | 23.3% | 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 Justice’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 1, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Labor and Employment · Source
Policy criticism
Senator Justice Releases Statement in Support of Trump’s Immigration Agenda WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim Justice released a statement supporting President Trump’s immigration agenda. “Let me be crystal clear: I support President Trump’s immigration strategy, full stop. It’s not surpri…
Sep 30, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 873 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: 778 posts on X, 70 press releases, 24 Congressional Record speeches, 1 newsletters.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Justice talks about most: 17% of policy statements, below the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 46th of 52).
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 Justice talks about. The bills Justice sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Justice talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Justice
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security104 statements
17%
25%
Energy80 statements
13%
10%
Agriculture and Food69 statements
12%
9%
Health69 statements
12%
15%
Economics and Public Finance65 statements
11%
17%
Show the data
| Row | Justice | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 17% | 25% |
| Energy | 13% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 9% |
| Health | 12% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 17% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Justice’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for 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 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 17% | 25% | 5% | 8% |
| Energy | 13% | 10% | 3% | 2% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 9% | 7% | 4% |
| Health | 12% | 15% | 12% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 17% | 0% | 1% |
0.60
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 46th of 52.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Justice legislates on exactly the areas Justice 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 Justice sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Justice sits at +0.70 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 91% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.66 to +0.73, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,238 donors and 875 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”.
+0.70
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.66 to +0.73. From 1,238 donors and 875 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Justice, 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 Justice’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 Justice sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Republicans51 · median +1.0
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Justice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Republicans | 51 | +1.0 | 8% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 52% |
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 Justice 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 Justice.
Money
Justice raised $87.4K in the 2026 cycle, 2.7% of the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 6.8% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 1.2% of itemized individual money came from West Virginia.
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.
$87.4K
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 36 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)50 squares$43.3K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)4 squares$3,159
- PACs and other committees44 squares$38.8K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$2,198
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $43.3K | 49.5% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $3,159 | 3.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $38.8K | 44.4% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $2,198 | 2.5% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $4.3M |
| 2026 cycle | $87.4K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 1.2% came from West Virginia.
- New York$28.0K
- Mississippi$14.0K
- Ohio$4,450
- California$3,649
- Minnesota$2,500
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
0%60%
Justice
Median
2026
7%
17%
2024
11%
17%
Show the data
| Row | Justice | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 7% | 17% |
| 2024 cycle | 11% | 17% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New York | $28.0K |
| Mississippi | $14.0K |
| Ohio | $4,450 |
| California | $3,649 |
| Minnesota | $2,500 |
| Colorado | $1,780 |
| Maryland | $1,524 |
| Kentucky | $1,000 |
| West Virginia | $700 |
| District of Columbia | $500 |
| Florida | $362 |
| North Carolina | $294 |
| Washington | $200 |
| Texas | $185 |
| New Hampshire | $140 |
| Georgia | $69 |
| Pennsylvania | $63 |
| Oregon | $30 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
36
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
1.2%
from West Virginia
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 West Virginia. 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 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.8% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 47% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 12% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 28% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 11% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Justice’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Justice’s own score is +0.70.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- CHAIRMAN$6,280 3 donors
- RETIRED$5,084 21 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ALLIANCE FOR PHYSICAL THERAPY QUALITY AND INNOVATION INC PAC$10.0K
- AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC$5,000
- MAKING INVESTMENTS TOWARD CONSERVATIVE HEROES PAC$5,000
- U.S. PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC. PAC$4,000
- CROP INSURANCE PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION PAC-CIPA PAC$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Justice voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.8% of party-line votes and missed 4.2% of 913 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Justice voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 2 times.
913 roll calls Justice could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Republicans. 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 Justice voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
2
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.8%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 16th of 53. 913 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Justice, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Justice
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.8%
97.1%
44th of 53
Party unity
99.8%
98.4%
16th of 53
Show the data
| Row | Justice | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.8% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 99.8% | 98.4% |
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 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 24, 2026 | H.Con.Res. 89 A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. On the Concurrent Resolution | Nay | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Yea | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
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 Justice most often
- Tom CottonR861 shared votes100%
- James RischR851 shared votes100%
- Steve DainesR850 shared votes100%
- Dave McCormickR851 shared votes100%
- Tim SheehyR851 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Justice least often
- Ed MarkeyD869 shared votes3.0%
- Elizabeth WarrenD861 shared votes3.0%
- Bernie SandersI814 shared votes3.1%
- Christopher MurphyD851 shared votes3.6%
- Chris Van HollenD862 shared votes4.3%
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
Justice sponsored 16 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 303 others. 31% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 12th of 51).
The bills Justice 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 | 16 | 16 | 5 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 303 | 297 | 60 | 4 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Justice sponsored, ochre blocks bills Justice cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
31%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 12th of 51.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Justice, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Shelley Capito75
- Marsha Blackburn61
- Ted Budd55
- Rick Scott54
- Pete Ricketts51
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 Justice’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S.Res. 934 | A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day". | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 912 | A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (consideration: CR S5074) Sep 28, 2026 |
| S.Res. 913 | A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026 |
| S.Res. 899 | A resolution recognizing suicide as a serious public health problem and expressing support for the designation of September as "National Suicide Prevention Month". | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S5006) Sep 24, 2026 |
| S.Res. 891 | A resolution designating the week of September 27, 2026, through October 3, 2026, as "Religious Education Week" to celebrate religious education in the United States. | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | In committee | Education | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S4949-4950) Sep 23, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 46 times in 90 days. Justice’s official site had 24 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Justice posted on Oct 22, 2026.
The lab crawls Justice’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 Justice posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 24
pages crawled
46changes 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
- XJimJustice_WV
- Facebook100044187231175
- Instagramsenjimjustice
Images Justice posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A man speaks into a microphone while seated on a stool in a school gymnasium. Several people sit nearby, and the room is decorated with balloons and an American flag. A podium and a campaign-style sign are visible. There is text on the podium and sign.View post 
A large group of adults and children pose in a school gymnasium, with several people standing in front of packed bleachers. Two dogs are near the group, and colorful confetti, balloons, a podium, and school-themed decorations are visible. There is text on the wall and decorations.View post 
A man sits on a stool beside a bulldog seated in a folding chair while a woman photographs them. Green, black, and white balloons and a campaign-style display are visible in the background, with text on the display.View post 
Four adults pose for a photograph with two dogs at a decorated school gym event. Balloons, star decorations, a U.S. flag, a school podium, and a banner are visible in the background. There is text on the podium and banner.View post 
Two men pose with a bulldog seated in a wheelchair behind a decorative photo frame, in front of a stone wall. There is text on the frame and a partially visible sign above.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 Justice is most unusual among Senate Republicans, 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
- J000312
- Bioguide
- J000312
- FEC candidate ids
- S4WV00332
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