Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Massachusetts’s 1st district

Serving since Jan 3, 1989119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide N000015FEC H8MA02041

Portrait of Richard Neal, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.56
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

Agreement 0.56 on a 0–1 scale; the average for House Democrats is 0.67. Ranks 210th of 216, where 1st is the closest match.

How closely the mix of policy areas in Neal’s statements matches the mix in the bills Neal sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among House Democrats.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 1.6% of Neal’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (median 13%). Neal missed 7.0% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 96.9%).

The measures on which Neal 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.

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.56

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 210th of 216

Small donations, 2026

1.6%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 201st of 214

Attendance

93.0%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 200th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Personal attacks

11%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 41st of 216

From Massachusetts, 2026

33%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 174th of 214 House Democrats

CSIP ideology

−0.99

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Neal says

Neal attacks opponents personally more than 81% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 11% of 1,110 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 41st of 216.

An AI model reads each of Neal’s 1,110 statements in the 119th Congress (701 posts on X, 329 press releases, 80 Congressional Record speeches) 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%
Neal
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion781 statements
70%
73%
147th of 216
Policy criticism260 statements
23%
28%
150th of 216
Credit claiming213 statements
19%
23%
133rd of 216
Personal attacks118 statements
11%
7%
41st of 216
Bipartisanship75 statements
7%
10%
148th of 216
Show the data
Neal's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowNealPeers
Policy discussion70%73%
Policy criticism23%28%
Credit claiming19%23%
Personal attacks11%7%
Bipartisanship7%10%
1,110

statements classified

701 posts on X, 329 press releases, 80 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 701 (63.2%)posts on X 701press releases: 329 (29.6%)press releases 329Congressional Record speeches: 80 (7.2%)
Show the data
Neal's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X701
press releases329
Congressional Record speeches80
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Neal used extreme labels in 0.6% of statements, 33% of the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at immigration agenda; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”6
  2. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. immigration agenda3
  2. Administration1
  3. Republicans1
  4. Trump agenda1
  5. Trump legislation1
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: 482025-02: 452025-03: 482025-04: 442025-05: 302025-06: 452025-07: 592025-08: 272025-09: 352025-10: 352025-11: 362025-12: 582026-01: 782026-02: 642026-03: 502026-04: 542026-05: 642026-06: 522026-07: 732026-08: 612026-09: 592026-10: 45peak 78 · Jan ’26Personal attackspeak 29.7% · May ’26 · latest 20.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-03: 6.3% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-04: 13.6% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-05: 13.3% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-06: 8.9% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.7% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-08: 25.9% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-09: 2.9% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-10: 8.6% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-11: 16.7% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.7% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-01: 7.7% of 78Personal attacks, 2026-02: 9.4% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-03: 10.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-04: 5.6% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-05: 29.7% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-06: 17.3% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-07: 9.6% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-08: 14.8% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-09: 15.3% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-10: 20.0% of 45Policy criticismpeak 40.0% · Oct ’25 · latest 17.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 16.7% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-02: 31.1% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-03: 25.0% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-04: 36.4% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-05: 30.0% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-06: 22.2% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-07: 30.5% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-08: 22.2% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-09: 31.4% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-10: 40.0% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-11: 33.3% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-12: 22.4% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.7% of 78Policy criticism, 2026-02: 34.4% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-03: 26.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-04: 24.1% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-05: 15.6% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-06: 38.5% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-07: 21.9% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-08: 4.9% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.2% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-10: 17.8% of 45Policy discussionpeak 88.9% · Aug ’25 · latest 82.2%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 52.1% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-02: 51.1% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-03: 58.3% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-04: 84.1% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-05: 83.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-06: 77.8% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-07: 54.2% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-08: 88.9% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-09: 80.0% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-10: 80.0% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-11: 72.2% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-12: 65.5% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-01: 61.5% of 78Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.9% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-03: 66.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-04: 64.8% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-05: 57.8% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-06: 76.9% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-07: 78.1% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-08: 83.6% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-09: 81.4% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-10: 82.2% of 45Bipartisanshippeak 14.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 2.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 4.2% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 6.3% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.8% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 2.2% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 1.7% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.4% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 8.6% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 14.3% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.1% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 12.1% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 11.5% of 78Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 9.4% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 4.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.4% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 6.3% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 11.5% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 8.2% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 1.6% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 5.1% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 2.2% of 45Credit claimingpeak 37.1% · Sep ’25 · latest 13.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 29.2% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-02: 4.4% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-03: 12.5% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-04: 13.6% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-05: 16.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-06: 11.1% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-07: 11.9% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-08: 18.5% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-09: 37.1% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-10: 25.7% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-11: 25.0% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-12: 19.0% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-01: 30.8% of 78Credit claiming, 2026-02: 21.9% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-03: 24.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-04: 20.4% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-05: 12.5% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-06: 21.1% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-07: 17.8% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-08: 26.2% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-09: 10.2% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-10: 13.3% of 45Extreme labelspeak 3.9% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.2% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.7% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.9% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 78Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-06: 3.9% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.4% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.7% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 45Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Neal, 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 ’25480.0%16.7%52.1%4.2%29.2%0.0%
Feb ’25450.0%31.1%51.1%0.0%4.4%0.0%
Mar ’25486.3%25.0%58.3%6.3%12.5%0.0%
Apr ’254413.6%36.4%84.1%6.8%13.6%0.0%
May ’253013.3%30.0%83.3%6.7%16.7%0.0%
Jun ’25458.9%22.2%77.8%2.2%11.1%2.2%
Jul ’25591.7%30.5%54.2%1.7%11.9%1.7%
Aug ’252725.9%22.2%88.9%7.4%18.5%0.0%
Sep ’25352.9%31.4%80.0%8.6%37.1%2.9%
Oct ’25358.6%40.0%80.0%14.3%25.7%0.0%
Nov ’253616.7%33.3%72.2%11.1%25.0%0.0%
Dec ’25581.7%22.4%65.5%12.1%19.0%0.0%
Jan ’26787.7%7.7%61.5%11.5%30.8%0.0%
Feb ’26649.4%34.4%71.9%9.4%21.9%0.0%
Mar ’265010.0%26.0%66.0%4.0%24.0%0.0%
Apr ’26545.6%24.1%64.8%7.4%20.4%0.0%
May ’266429.7%15.6%57.8%6.3%12.5%0.0%
Jun ’265217.3%38.5%76.9%11.5%21.1%3.9%
Jul ’26739.6%21.9%78.1%8.2%17.8%1.4%
Aug ’266114.8%4.9%83.6%1.6%26.2%0.0%
Sep ’265915.3%10.2%81.4%5.1%10.2%1.7%
Oct ’264520.0%17.8%82.2%2.2%13.3%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 Neal’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Neal, Kelly Lead Congressional Friends of Ireland Caucus in Letter Calling for UK Government to Cancel Orange Order Parade on Garvaghy Road Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Congressman Richard E. Neal (D-MA-01) and U.S. Congressman Mike Kelly (R-PA-16), Co-Chairs of the Congressional Friends of Irela…

Oct 1, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; International Affairs; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

Neal Statement on Trump Administration’s Racist Weaponization of the IRS SPRINGFIELD, MA— Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard E. Neal (D-MA) released the following statement after the Trump Administration issued proposed regulations that strip the tax-exempt status of schools who don’t…

Sep 3, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; Taxation; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Trump agenda · 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: TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · target: TrumpSource

  3. 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

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Foreign Trade and International Finance · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · 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 · Taxation · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

All 1,110 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: 701 posts on X, 329 press releases, 80 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Neal talks about most: 41% of policy statements, 2.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.56 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 210th 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 Neal talks about. The bills Neal sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Neal talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%45%
Neal
Peers
Economics and Public Finance319 statements
41%
20%
Health264 statements
34%
26%
Government Operations and Politics165 statements
21%
20%
Taxation148 statements
19%
6%
Foreign Trade and International Finance118 statements
15%
5%
Show the data
Policy areas Neal talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowNealPeers
Economics and Public Finance41%20%
Health34%26%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%
Taxation19%6%
Foreign Trade and International Finance15%5%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Neal’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 45%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 41% (House Democrats 20%)41%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%HealthHealth, talks about: 34% (House Democrats 26%)34%Health, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 16%)9%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 11%)11%TaxationTaxation, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 6%)19%Taxation, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 6%)10%Foreign Trade andInternational FinanceForeign Trade and International Finance, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 5%)15%Foreign Trade and International Finance, legislates on: 3% (House Democrats 1%)3%
Show the data
Neal's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance41%20%1%1%
Health34%26%9%16%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%11%11%
Taxation19%6%10%6%
Foreign Trade and International Finance15%5%3%1%
0.56

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 210th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Neal sits at −0.99 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 52% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.01 to −0.97, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,947 donors and 7,332 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”.

−0.99

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.01 to −0.97. From 2,947 donors and 7,332 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Neal, 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 Neal’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 Neal sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Neal −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Neal's CSIP score of −0.99 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Neal
House Democrats217−1.052%
All House439+0.326%
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 Neal 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 Neal.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Neal raised $3.1M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 1.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 33% of itemized individual money came from Massachusetts.

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
$3.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 380 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): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $698.0K (22.4%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (67.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $311.8K (10.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)23 squares$698.0K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$11.3K
  • PACs and other committees67 squares$2.1M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)10 squares$311.8K
Show the data
Sources of Neal's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$698.0K22.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$11.3K0.4%
PACs and other committees$2.1M67.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$311.8K10.0%
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: $5.0M$5.0M20202022 cycle: $3.5M$3.5M20222024 cycle: $3.3M$3.3M20242026 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Neal's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$5.0M
2022 cycle$3.5M
2024 cycle$3.3M
2026 cycle$3.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 33% came from Massachusetts.

  1. Massachusetts$192.0K
  2. New York$63.3K
  3. District of Columbia$47.3K
  4. California$43.5K
  5. Michigan$27.3K

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

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $500AKMaine: $1,300MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $4,500NHWashington: $9,500WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $1,750MNIllinois: $4,250ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $27.3KMINew York: $63.3KNYRhode Island: $2,500RIMassachusetts: $192.0KMAOregon: $2,000ORNevada: $1,000NVWyoming: $2,000WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $1,750INOhio: $1,000OHPennsylvania: $3,500PANew Jersey: $4,750NJConnecticut: $25.5KCTCalifornia: $43.5KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $11.5KCONebraska: $2,750NEMissouri: $1,000MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $23.5KVAMaryland: $27.3KMDDelaware: $700DEArizona: $9,000AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $500ARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $750NCSouth Carolina: $7,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $47.3KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $1,500ALGeorgia: $8,500GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $19.0KTXFlorida: $19.6KFL
Show the data
Neal's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Massachusetts$192.0K
New York$63.3K
District of Columbia$47.3K
California$43.5K
Michigan$27.3K
Maryland$27.3K
Connecticut$25.5K
Virginia$23.5K
Florida$19.6K
Texas$19.0K
Colorado$11.5K
Washington$9,500
Arizona$9,000
Georgia$8,500
South Carolina$7,000
New Jersey$4,750
New Hampshire$4,500
Illinois$4,250
Pennsylvania$3,500
Nebraska$2,750
Rhode Island$2,500
Oregon$2,000
Wyoming$2,000
Minnesota$1,750
Indiana$1,750
Alabama$1,500
Maine$1,300
Nevada$1,000
Ohio$1,000
Missouri$1,000
North Carolina$750
Delaware$700
Alaska$500
Arkansas$500
Louisiana$500
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
UtahNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
380

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

33%

from Massachusetts

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 Massachusetts. 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: 1.3%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 16%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 43%43%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 9.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 5.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 12%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.9%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 6.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.7%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Neal's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 16% between −1.25 and −1.00, 43% between −1.00 and −0.75, 9.3% between −0.75 and −0.50, 5.2% between −0.50 and −0.25, 12% between −0.25 and 0.00, 6.5% between +0.25 and +0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.251.3%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0016%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7543%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.509.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.255.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0012%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.506.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.7%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Neal’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Neal’s own score is −0.99.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ATTORNEY$50.8K 43 donors
  2. CEO$36.5K 22 donors
  3. NOT EMPLOYED$34.8K 14 donors
  4. RETIRED$23.2K 15 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$23.0K 13 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. SAMMONS ENTERPRISES INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$12.0K
  2. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. KKR$28.0K 5 donors
  2. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS$27.8K 26 donors
  3. WINGED KEEL GROUP$18.5K 15 donors
  4. WILMERHALE$16.0K 8 donors
  5. NFP$15.0K 8 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Neal voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.1% of party-line votes and missed 7.0% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Neal voted against the majority of House Democrats 6 times.

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

6

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.1%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 83rd of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Neal
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.0%
96.9%
200th of 217
Party unity
99.1%
96.4%
83rd of 217
Show the data
Neal's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowNealPeers
Attendance93.0%96.9%
Party unity99.1%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 Neal most often

  1. Alma AdamsD625 shared votes99%
  2. Sarah ElfrethD625 shared votes99%
  3. Johnny OlszewskiD622 shared votes99%
  4. Suzan DelBeneD615 shared votes99%
  5. Sheila Cherfilus-MccormickD451 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Neal least often

  1. Chip RoyR601 shared votes15%
  2. Eric BurlisonR595 shared votes16%
  3. Ralph NormanR553 shared votes17%
  4. Andy BiggsR562 shared votes17%
  5. Josh BrecheenR598 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

Neal sponsored 5 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 137 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Neal 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

Sponsored5 billsSponsored, Introduced: 55Sponsored, In committee: 55Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored137 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 137137Cosponsored, In committee: 137137Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 55Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Neal sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored55000
Cosponsored137137511
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Neal sponsored, ochre blocks bills Neal 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 Neal, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Brendan Boyle15
  2. Danny Davis14
  3. Brad Schneider14
  4. Judy Chu13
  5. Suzan DelBene13
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 Neal’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. 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
H.Res. 1514Recognizing suicide as a serious public health problem, expressing support for the designation of September 8, 2026, as "988 Day" and the role of the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, and for other purposes.CosponsorSep 8, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 8, 2026
H.R. 10060Presidential Tax Accountability and Audit Integrity ActSponsorAug 6, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Aug 6, 2026
H.R. 9813To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose limitations on high-income taxpayers with large retirement account balances.SponsorJul 21, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Jul 21, 2026
H.R. 9401Latonya Reeves Freedom Act of 2026CosponsorJun 23, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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. Jun 23, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 52 times in 90 days. Neal’s official site had 28 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Neal posted on Oct 24, 2026.

The lab crawls Neal’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 Neal 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.

Social accounts

Images Neal posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A news-style graphic with a headline above a photograph of a large, old stone building with many windows. The building appears weathered and in need of renovation. A publication logo appears at the top.
    A news-style graphic with a headline above a photograph of a large, old stone building with many windows. The building appears weathered and in need of renovation. A publication logo appears at the top.View post
  • A gray-haired man speaks and gestures at a podium while a group of formally dressed people stand behind him. The podium has a large sign with text.
    A gray-haired man speaks and gestures at a podium while a group of formally dressed people stand behind him. The podium has a large sign with text.View post
  • A group of formally dressed people stand together at an indoor event. An older man speaks and gestures behind a microphone at a wooden podium, with several people smiling around him. There is partial illuminated text in the background.
    A group of formally dressed people stand together at an indoor event. An older man speaks and gestures behind a microphone at a wooden podium, with several people smiling around him. There is partial illuminated text in the background.View post
  • A photograph of a brick train station facade, with a canopy and large lettering above the entrance. Orange autumn leaves partially frame the top of the image. Text is visible on the building.
    A photograph of a brick train station facade, with a canopy and large lettering above the entrance. Orange autumn leaves partially frame the top of the image. Text is visible on the building.View post
  • A group of seven adults stand in a modern office hallway, listening to an older man who is speaking and gesturing. Posters are visible on the wall and through a glass meeting-room partition; there is text on the posters.
    A group of seven adults stand in a modern office hallway, listening to an older man who is speaking and gesturing. Posters are visible on the wall and through a glass meeting-room partition; there is text on the posters.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 Neal 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
N000015
Bioguide
N000015
FEC candidate ids
H8MA02041

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