Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, New Mexico’s 3rd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide L000273FEC H0NM03102

Portrait of Teresa Leger Fernandez, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
8.8%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom tenth of House Democrats

Attendance 91.2%; the average among House Democrats is 96.9%. Ranks 205th of 217, where 1st has the highest attendance. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance is the share of the roll calls Fernandez could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked among House Democrats. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 63% of Fernandez’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 73%). Fernandez sits at −1.33 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 91% of House Democrats.

The measures on which Fernandez 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.

Attendance

91.2%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 205th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Policy discussion

63%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 195th of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.33

More liberal than 91% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.62

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 190th of 216

Credit claiming

14%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 182nd of 216

Personal attacks

9.1%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 53rd of 216

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Fernandez says

Fernandez claims credit less than 83% of House Democrats. Credit claiming in 14% of 1,462 statements, against 23% for the average House Democrat; 182nd of 216.

An AI model reads each of Fernandez’s 1,462 statements in the 119th Congress (1,237 posts on X, 132 Congressional Record speeches, 86 press releases, 7 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%
Fernandez
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion926 statements
63%
73%
195th of 216
Policy criticism468 statements
32%
28%
76th of 216
Credit claiming204 statements
14%
23%
182nd of 216
Personal attacks133 statements
9%
7%
53rd of 216
Bipartisanship98 statements
7%
10%
150th of 216
Show the data
Fernandez's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowFernandezPeers
Policy discussion63%73%
Policy criticism32%28%
Credit claiming14%23%
Personal attacks9%7%
Bipartisanship7%10%
1,462

statements classified

1,237 posts on X, 132 Congressional Record speeches, 86 press releases, 7 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,237 (84.6%)posts on X 1,237Congressional Record speeches: 132 (9.0%)press releases: 86 (5.9%)newsletters: 7 (0.5%)
Show the data
Fernandez's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,237
Congressional Record speeches132
press releases86
newsletters7
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Fernandez used extreme labels in 1.7% of statements, close to the peer average. 25 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”7
  2. “MAGA”2
  3. “radical”2
  4. “fascist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans7
  2. Trump administration2
  3. 126 bills1
  4. Democrats1
  5. Donald Trump1
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: 782025-02: 682025-03: 972025-04: 682025-05: 922025-06: 822025-07: 762025-08: 392025-09: 902025-10: 702025-11: 702025-12: 652026-01: 852026-02: 822026-03: 822026-04: 652026-05: 532026-06: 342026-07: 342026-08: 432026-09: 462026-10: 43peak 97 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 17.6% · Feb ’25 · latest 4.7%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 12.8% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-02: 17.6% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-03: 13.4% of 97Personal attacks, 2025-04: 10.3% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-05: 7.6% of 92Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.9% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.6% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-08: 7.7% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-09: 8.9% of 90Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.9% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-11: 10.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-12: 4.6% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-01: 16.5% of 85Personal attacks, 2026-02: 11.0% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-03: 6.1% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-04: 13.9% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-05: 7.5% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-07: 11.8% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-09: 15.2% of 46Personal attacks, 2026-10: 4.7% of 43Policy criticismpeak 55.9% · Jun ’26 · latest 11.6%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 25.6% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-02: 44.1% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-03: 32.0% of 97Policy criticism, 2025-04: 47.1% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-05: 37.0% of 92Policy criticism, 2025-06: 42.7% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-07: 30.3% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-08: 48.7% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-09: 37.8% of 90Policy criticism, 2025-10: 37.1% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-11: 31.4% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-12: 21.5% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-01: 14.1% of 85Policy criticism, 2026-02: 41.5% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-03: 35.4% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-04: 23.1% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-05: 34.0% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-06: 55.9% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-07: 11.8% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-08: 9.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-09: 17.4% of 46Policy criticism, 2026-10: 11.6% of 43Policy discussionpeak 93.0% · Oct ’26 · latest 93.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 68.0% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-02: 69.1% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-03: 55.7% of 97Policy discussion, 2025-04: 63.2% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-05: 54.4% of 92Policy discussion, 2025-06: 56.1% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-07: 38.2% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-08: 61.5% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-09: 52.2% of 90Policy discussion, 2025-10: 55.7% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-11: 44.3% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-12: 69.2% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-01: 81.2% of 85Policy discussion, 2026-02: 56.1% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-03: 58.5% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-04: 76.9% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-05: 69.8% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-06: 82.3% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-07: 79.4% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-08: 81.4% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-09: 82.6% of 46Policy discussion, 2026-10: 93.0% of 43Bipartisanshippeak 22.6% · May ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 9.0% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 10.3% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 6.2% of 97Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 13.2% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 4.3% of 92Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.7% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 1.3% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 6.7% of 90Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 7.1% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 2.9% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 13.9% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 7.1% of 85Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.4% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 9.8% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 1.5% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 22.6% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 8.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.9% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 4.7% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 6.5% of 46Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 43Credit claimingpeak 34.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 16.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 34.6% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-02: 27.9% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-03: 11.3% of 97Credit claiming, 2025-04: 13.2% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-05: 5.4% of 92Credit claiming, 2025-06: 8.5% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-07: 1.3% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-08: 5.1% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-09: 3.3% of 90Credit claiming, 2025-10: 7.1% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-11: 10.0% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-12: 15.4% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-01: 22.4% of 85Credit claiming, 2026-02: 7.3% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-03: 17.1% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-04: 13.9% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-05: 28.3% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-06: 20.6% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-07: 11.8% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-08: 14.0% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-09: 23.9% of 46Credit claiming, 2026-10: 16.3% of 43Extreme labelspeak 5.7% · May ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.3% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-02: 4.4% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 97Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.5% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.2% of 92Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.2% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-08: 5.1% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-09: 3.3% of 90Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.4% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-11: 4.3% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.4% of 85Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.2% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.2% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-05: 5.7% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.9% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 46Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 43Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Fernandez, 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 ’257812.8%25.6%68.0%9.0%34.6%1.3%
Feb ’256817.6%44.1%69.1%10.3%27.9%4.4%
Mar ’259713.4%32.0%55.7%6.2%11.3%0.0%
Apr ’256810.3%47.1%63.2%13.2%13.2%1.5%
May ’25927.6%37.0%54.4%4.3%5.4%2.2%
Jun ’25824.9%42.7%56.1%3.7%8.5%1.2%
Jul ’25762.6%30.3%38.2%1.3%1.3%0.0%
Aug ’25397.7%48.7%61.5%0.0%5.1%5.1%
Sep ’25908.9%37.8%52.2%6.7%3.3%3.3%
Oct ’25702.9%37.1%55.7%7.1%7.1%1.4%
Nov ’257010.0%31.4%44.3%2.9%10.0%4.3%
Dec ’25654.6%21.5%69.2%13.9%15.4%0.0%
Jan ’268516.5%14.1%81.2%7.1%22.4%2.4%
Feb ’268211.0%41.5%56.1%2.4%7.3%1.2%
Mar ’26826.1%35.4%58.5%9.8%17.1%1.2%
Apr ’266513.9%23.1%76.9%1.5%13.9%0.0%
May ’26537.5%34.0%69.8%22.6%28.3%5.7%
Jun ’26342.9%55.9%82.3%8.8%20.6%2.9%
Jul ’263411.8%11.8%79.4%5.9%11.8%0.0%
Aug ’26430.0%9.3%81.4%4.7%14.0%0.0%
Sep ’264615.2%17.4%82.6%6.5%23.9%0.0%
Oct ’26434.7%11.6%93.0%0.0%16.3%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 Fernandez’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Leger Fernández Tribal Water Settlement Bill Passes House Natural Resources Committee WATCH HEARING COMMENTS BY REP. LEGER FERNÁNDEZ WASHINGTON — Today, the House Committee on Natural Resources unanimously advanced Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández’s (NM-03) H.R. 4598, Technical Corrections to t…

Sep 15, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Water Resources Development; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Credit claiming

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

Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 29, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “radical” aimed at Republicans · 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 · Immigration · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: GuilfoyleSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  5. 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

All 1,462 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: 1,237 posts on X, 132 Congressional Record speeches, 86 press releases, 7 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Fernandez talks about most: 28% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.62 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 190th 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 Fernandez talks about. The bills Fernandez sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Fernandez talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Fernandez
Peers
Health258 statements
28%
26%
Government Operations and Politics226 statements
24%
20%
Economics and Public Finance218 statements
24%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues116 statements
13%
13%
Armed Forces and National Security115 statements
12%
16%
Show the data
Policy areas Fernandez talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowFernandezPeers
Health28%26%
Government Operations and Politics24%20%
Economics and Public Finance24%20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues13%13%
Armed Forces and National Security12%16%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Fernandez’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: 28% (House Democrats 26%)28%Health, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 16%)12%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 24% (House Democrats 20%)24%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 11%)9%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 24% (House Democrats 20%)24%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 13% (House Democrats 13%)13%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 17% (House Democrats 5%)17%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 12% (House Democrats 16%)12%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 7%)4%
Show the data
Fernandez's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health28%26%12%16%
Government Operations and Politics24%20%9%11%
Economics and Public Finance24%20%1%1%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues13%13%17%5%
Armed Forces and National Security12%16%4%7%
0.62

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 190th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Fernandez sits at −1.33 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 91% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.35 to −1.31, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,047 donors and 2,796 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”.

−1.33

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.35 to −1.31. From 3,047 donors and 2,796 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Fernandez −1.3House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Fernandez, 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 Fernandez’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 Fernandez sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Fernandez −1.3All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Fernandez's CSIP score of −1.33 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Fernandez
House Democrats217−1.08%
All House439+0.34%
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 Fernandez 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 Fernandez.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Fernandez raised $1.6M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 11% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 68% of itemized individual money came from New Mexico.

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
$1.6M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 604 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): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (72.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $135.0K (8.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $135.0K (8.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $135.0K (8.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $135.0K (8.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $135.0K (8.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $135.0K (8.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $135.0K (8.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $135.0K (8.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $135.0K (8.7%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)PACs and other committees: $295.0K (19.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)72 squares$1.1M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)9 squares$135.0K
  • PACs and other committees19 squares$295.0K
Show the data
Sources of Fernandez's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.1M72.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$135.0K8.7%
PACs and other committees$295.0K19.0%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. 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: $2.3M$2.3M20202022 cycle: $3.0M$3.0M20222024 cycle: $2.1M$2.1M20242026 cycle: $1.6M$1.6M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Fernandez's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.3M
2022 cycle$3.0M
2024 cycle$2.1M
2026 cycle$1.6M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 68% came from New Mexico.

  1. New Mexico$494.0K
  2. California$70.0K
  3. New York$35.0K
  4. Texas$32.7K
  5. District of Columbia$18.8K

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%
Fernandez
Median
2026
11%
13%
2024
15%
13%
2022
15%
13%
2020
20%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowFernandezMedian
2026 cycle11%13%
2024 cycle15%13%
2022 cycle15%13%
2020 cycle20%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $500AKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $4,000NHWashington: $4,322WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $7,250MNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: $115WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $35.0KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $18.8KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $2,500NVWyoming: $1,750WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $80OHPennsylvania: $1,250PANew Jersey: $250NJConnecticut: $1,000CTCalifornia: $70.0KCAUtah: $100UTColorado: $630CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $500MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $5,250VAMaryland: $9,500MDDelaware: $1,050DEArizona: $747AZNew Mexico: $494.0KNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $18.8KDCOklahoma: $4,000OKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $1,750GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $32.7KTXFlorida: $1,250FL
Show the data
Fernandez's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New Mexico$494.0K
California$70.0K
New York$35.0K
Texas$32.7K
District of Columbia$18.8K
Massachusetts$18.8K
Maryland$9,500
Minnesota$7,250
Virginia$5,250
Washington$4,322
New Hampshire$4,000
Oklahoma$4,000
Nevada$2,500
Wyoming$1,750
Georgia$1,750
Pennsylvania$1,250
Florida$1,250
Delaware$1,050
Connecticut$1,000
Arizona$747
Colorado$630
Alaska$500
Missouri$500
New Jersey$250
Wisconsin$115
Utah$100
Ohio$80
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
604

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

68%

from New Mexico

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 21%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 58%58%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 20%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Fernandez's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +0.50: 21% between −1.50 and −1.25, 58% between −1.25 and −1.00, 20% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2521%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0058%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7520%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Fernandez’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Fernandez’s own score is −1.33.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$328.1K 324 donors
  2. RETIRED$60.3K 43 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$23.9K 21 donors
  4. CEO$17.7K 10 donors
  5. WRITER$17.2K 6 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS$10.0K
  4. TURQUOISE PAC$10.0K
  5. LOBO PAC$7,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO$900 3 donors
  2. UNM$505 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Fernandez voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.0% of party-line votes and missed 8.8% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Fernandez voted against the majority of House Democrats 10 times.

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

10

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.0%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 85th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Fernandez
Peers
Rank
Attendance
91.2%
96.9%
205th of 217
Party unity
99.0%
96.4%
85th of 217
Show the data
Fernandez's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowFernandezPeers
Attendance91.2%96.9%
Party unity99.0%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
NayWith 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 Fernandez most often

  1. Nanette BarragánD602 shared votes99%
  2. Analilia MejiaD164 shared votes99%
  3. Shontel BrownD614 shared votes99%
  4. Veronica EscobarD608 shared votes99%
  5. Robin KellyD606 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Fernandez least often

  1. Chip RoyR584 shared votes15%
  2. Josh BrecheenR587 shared votes17%
  3. Ralph NormanR544 shared votes17%
  4. Keith SelfR601 shared votes17%
  5. Eric BurlisonR587 shared votes17%
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

Fernandez sponsored 40 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 271 others. 2.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 119th of 207).

The bills Fernandez 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

Sponsored40 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4040Sponsored, In committee: 4040Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored271 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 271271Cosponsored, In committee: 271271Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 99Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Fernandez sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4040100
Cosponsored271271911
How to read the blocks

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

2.5%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 119th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Melanie Stansbury36
  2. Gabriel (Gabe) Vasquez27
  3. Joe Neguse16
  4. Sharice Davids16
  5. Eleanor Norton12
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 Fernandez’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. 10826Justice for Citizens Wrongfully Detained by ICE ActSponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026
H.Con.Res. 123Recognizing the disparity in wages paid to Latinas and the impact of that disparity on women, families, the economy, and the United States.SponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeLabor and EmploymentReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10672America’s College Promise Act of 2026CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 1, 2026
H.Res. 1603Expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States.CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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 1, 2026
H.Res. 1559Expressing support for the designation of the week beginning on September 14, 2026, as "National Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week".CosponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 17, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 52 times in 90 days. Fernandez’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Fernandez posted on Oct 23, 2026.

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

Websites

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 Fernandez posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Four adults pose beside a freestanding banner about radiation exposure compensation in an indoor room. Two large dark wall-mounted screens are visible above them. The banner includes a portrait of a woman and a congressional campaign-style graphic. Text appears on the banner.
    Four adults pose beside a freestanding banner about radiation exposure compensation in an indoor room. Two large dark wall-mounted screens are visible above them. The banner includes a portrait of a woman and a congressional campaign-style graphic. Text appears on the banner.View post
  • Two people embrace in front of a vertical wooden slat wall. The woman facing the camera is smiling; a wall-mounted light, a trash bin, and some visible text are also present.
    Two people embrace in front of a vertical wooden slat wall. The woman facing the camera is smiling; a wall-mounted light, a trash bin, and some visible text are also present.View post
  • A smiling woman and a man stand outside a modern building, facing each other and holding hands. The woman wears an orange blouse and a patterned long skirt; the man wears a gray checked blazer and jeans. Small text is visible on a fixture and near the doorway.
    A smiling woman and a man stand outside a modern building, facing each other and holding hands. The woman wears an orange blouse and a patterned long skirt; the man wears a gray checked blazer and jeans. Small text is visible on a fixture and near the doorway.View post
  • Two women pose smiling outside a broadcasting company entrance, in front of colorful radio station signs. There is text on the signs.
    Two women pose smiling outside a broadcasting company entrance, in front of colorful radio station signs. There is text on the signs.View post
  • A social media post from San Juan United Way asks San Juan County residents to use 2-1-1 for flood-relief help, locating loved ones, or general information, and to reserve 9-1-1 for emergencies. Below the post text is a flood-relief graphic over a photo of canned food, promoting donations, volunteers, and help finding missing loved ones.
    A social media post from San Juan United Way asks San Juan County residents to use 2-1-1 for flood-relief help, locating loved ones, or general information, and to reserve 9-1-1 for emergencies. Below the post text is a flood-relief graphic over a photo of canned food, promoting donations, volunteers, and help finding missing loved ones.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 Fernandez 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
L000273
Bioguide
L000273
FEC candidate ids
H0NM03102

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 27, 20261 days agoImages 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