Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 9, 2026 · Posts on X · credit claiming · Source
2.1×
the House Democrat rate of credit claiming
48% of 1,050 statements claim credit (506 statements); the average for House Democrats is 23%. Ranks 2nd of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Norton’s press releases, posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. 0% of Norton’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from District of Columbia, the lowest of 214 House Democrats. Norton raised $53.8K in the 2026 cycle, the lowest of 214 House Democrats (median $2.0M).
The measures on which Norton sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Credit claiming
48%
House Democrats average 23% · ranks 2nd of 216
From District of Columbia, 2026
0%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 214th of 214 House Democrats
Raised, 2026
$53.8K
House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 214th of 214
Policy criticism
44%
House Democrats average 28% · ranks 6th of 216
Policy discussion
86%
House Democrats average 73% · ranks 7th of 216
CSIP ideology
−0.65
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 Norton, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Norton is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Norton says
Norton attacks opponents personally less than 74% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 3.0% of 1,050 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 161st of 216.
An AI model reads each of Norton’s 1,050 statements in the 119th Congress (645 posts on X, 236 press releases, 144 Congressional Record speeches, 25 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%
Norton
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion898 statements
86%
73%
7th of 216
Credit claiming506 statements
48%
23%
2nd of 216
Policy criticism464 statements
44%
28%
6th of 216
Bipartisanship76 statements
7%
10%
139th of 216
Personal attacks32 statements
3%
7%
161st of 216
Show the data
| Row | Norton | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 86% | 73% |
| Credit claiming | 48% | 23% |
| Policy criticism | 44% | 28% |
| Bipartisanship | 7% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 7% |
1,050
statements classified
645 posts on X, 236 press releases, 144 Congressional Record speeches, 25 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 645 |
| press releases | 236 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 144 |
| newsletters | 25 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Norton; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Norton does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Norton used extreme labels in 1.7% of statements, close to the peer average. 18 statements, most often aimed at Ogles bill; peers 1.9%.
- “radical”8
- “extreme”4
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Ogles bill2
- administration1
- bill1
- continuing resolution1
- CR1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 57 | 1.8% | 47.4% | 73.7% | 14.0% | 52.6% | 1.8% |
| Feb ’25 | 52 | 3.9% | 50.0% | 86.5% | 13.5% | 50.0% | 1.9% |
| Mar ’25 | 60 | 0.0% | 36.7% | 80.0% | 3.3% | 43.3% | 5.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 46 | 2.2% | 34.8% | 89.1% | 8.7% | 56.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 59 | 1.7% | 37.3% | 84.8% | 6.8% | 35.6% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 88 | 4.5% | 51.1% | 89.8% | 8.0% | 43.2% | 1.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 44 | 4.5% | 56.8% | 95.5% | 4.5% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 67 | 11.9% | 44.8% | 82.1% | 6.0% | 49.3% | 4.5% |
| Sep ’25 | 104 | 4.8% | 52.9% | 78.8% | 10.6% | 26.9% | 2.9% |
| Oct ’25 | 48 | 2.1% | 52.1% | 83.3% | 6.3% | 62.5% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 55 | 0.0% | 52.7% | 89.1% | 9.1% | 43.6% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 37.5% | 90.0% | 10.0% | 62.5% | 2.5% |
| Jan ’26 | 33 | 0.0% | 30.3% | 87.9% | 0.0% | 69.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 63 | 1.6% | 41.3% | 85.7% | 1.6% | 38.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 55 | 1.8% | 54.5% | 87.3% | 5.5% | 45.5% | 1.8% |
| Apr ’26 | 32 | 3.1% | 28.1% | 96.9% | 0.0% | 46.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 34 | 0.0% | 38.2% | 88.2% | 20.6% | 70.6% | 2.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 37.9% | 79.3% | 6.9% | 72.4% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 47 | 8.5% | 40.4% | 89.4% | 2.1% | 48.9% | 6.4% |
| Aug ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 41.7% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 75.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 18.2% | 86.4% | 4.5% | 54.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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%. One month is hatched here.
In Norton’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 22, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; target: Comer · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 22, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at Oversight bill · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: ComerSource
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: ComerSource
Press releases
Norton Releases Remarks for Oversight Markup of Bill to Strip D.C.’s Authority Over its Own Tax Code If enacted, this bill would be the most consequential reduction in D.C.’s authority to govern itself in the modern history of D.C. home rule. WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) released her remarks, as prepared for delivery, ahead of today’s Committee on Oversight & Government Reform (COGR)…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · extreme label “radical” aimed at D.C. bill · target: James ComerSource
Press releases
After Committee Passage of Bill to Make the Most Consequential Reduction in D.C. Home Rule in Modern History, Norton Vows to Prevent Further Advancement The Committee on Oversight & Government Reform marked up and passed a bill that would be the most consequential reduction in D.C.’s authority to govern itself in the modern history of D.C. home rule. WASHINGTON, D.C. – After the House Committee on Oversight & Governm…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · extreme label “radical” aimed at bill · target: James ComerSource
Press releases
Norton Statement on Markup & Committee Passage of D.C. Appropriations Bill WASHINGTON, D.C. – After the House Committee on Appropriations yesterday marked up and passed the Financial Services and General Government (FSSG) bill, which includes the D.C. appropriations bill, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said that although she was pleased no new riders were attached to the bill, she was still outraged at th…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Environmental Protection · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Science, Technology, Communications · Education · Law · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Water Resources Development · Transportation and Public Works · target: Republican membersSource
All 1,050 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: 645 posts on X, 236 press releases, 144 Congressional Record speeches, 25 newsletters.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Norton talks about most: 64% of policy statements, 3.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 178th 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 Norton talks about. The bills Norton sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Norton talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%71%
Norton
Peers
Government Operations and Politics577 statements
64%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues169 statements
19%
13%
Crime and Law Enforcement164 statements
18%
9%
Economics and Public Finance124 statements
14%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security120 statements
13%
16%
Show the data
| Row | Norton | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 64% | 20% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 13% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 18% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 20% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 13% | 16% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Norton’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 71%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 64% | 20% | 16% | 11% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 13% | 4% | 5% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 18% | 9% | 7% | 7% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 20% | 0% | 1% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 13% | 16% | 5% | 7% |
0.64
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 178th of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Norton legislates on exactly the areas Norton 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 Norton sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Norton sits at −0.65 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 87% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.67 to −0.62, which understates the uncertainty; from 460 donors and 865 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”.
−0.65
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.67 to −0.62. From 460 donors and 865 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Norton, 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 Norton’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 Norton sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Norton |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 87% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 43% |
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 Norton 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 Norton.
Money
Norton raised $53.8K in the 2026 cycle, 2.7% of the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 44% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 0% of itemized individual money came from District of Columbia.
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.
$53.8K
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 1 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)2 squares$1,000
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$775
- PACs and other committees22 squares$12.0K
- The candidate’s own money and loans74 squares$40.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1,000 | 1.9% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $775 | 1.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $12.0K | 22.3% |
| The candidate’s own money and loans | $40.0K | 74.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $387.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $286.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $307.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $53.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 0% came from District of Columbia.
- Virginia$1,000
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%
Norton
Median
2026
44%
13%
2024
9%
13%
2022
8%
13%
2020
4%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Norton | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 44% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 9% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 8% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 4% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Virginia | $1,000 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
1
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
0%
from District of Columbia
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 District of Columbia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 100% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Norton’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Norton’s own score is −0.65.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION - COPE$2,500
- TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES ASSOCIATION'S TIAPAC$2,500
- TRUCKING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS INC.$2,500
- TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE$1,500
- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Norton voted with the majority of House Democrats on 96.4% of party-line votes and missed 8.2% of 85 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Norton voted against the majority of House Democrats 3 times.
85 roll calls Norton 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 Norton voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
3
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 96.4%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 154th of 217. 85 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Norton, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Norton
Peers
Rank
Attendance
91.7%
96.9%
204th of 217
Party unity
96.4%
96.4%
154th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Norton | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 91.7% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 96.4% | 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
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 Norton most often
- Ed CaseD78 shared votes99%
- Brad ShermanD78 shared votes99%
- Steve CohenD77 shared votes99%
- James WalkinshawD59 shared votes98%
- Alma AdamsD78 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Norton least often
- Ralph NormanR76 shared votes7.9%
- Scott PerryR71 shared votes8.5%
- Eric BurlisonR68 shared votes8.8%
- Diana HarshbargerR78 shared votes9.0%
- Mary MillerR78 shared votes10%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Norton sponsored 114 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 2,006 others. 0.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 134th of 207).
The bills Norton sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 114 | 114 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 2,006 | 2,006 | 36 | 5 | 3 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Norton sponsored, ochre blocks bills Norton cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
0.9%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 134th of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Norton, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Rashida Tlaib366
- Shri Thanedar266
- Hank Johnson Jr.253
- André Carson240
- Bonnie Watson Coleman171
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 Norton’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10858 | CARE for Blood Cancer Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10875 | To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 22, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1634 | Expressing support for the recognition of October 26, 2026, as Intersex Awareness Day, and supporting the goals and ideals of Intersex Awareness Day. | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 22, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1635 | Supporting the designation of October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day". | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10853 | Yemen TPS Act | Cosponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 19, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 69 times in 90 days. Norton’s official site had 40 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Norton posted on Oct 19, 2026.
The lab crawls Norton’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 Norton posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 40
pages crawled
69changes in 90 days
- 14
pages crawled
18changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
- XEleanorNorton
- FacebookCongresswomanNorton
- Instagramcongresswomannorton
- YouTubeEleanorHNorton
Images Norton posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
Two smiling adults pose together indoors, holding a trophy. They are standing in front of a black curtain in a conference or event space. A small poster with text is visible in the background, and the trophy also has text.View post 
Five people pose at an indoor event. The woman in the center and the man beside her hold an award. A decorated backdrop, balloons, a microphone stand, and a podium are visible; there is text on the backdrop and podium.View post 
A close-up of a gold-and-black sculptural award trophy displayed on a patterned table at an event. There are chairs, dark curtains, and a banner in the background. Text appears on the trophy plaque and in the background.View post 
Two women pose together in an office or reception room. One is seated on a black leather sofa holding a clear award, while the other stands beside her and leans toward the camera. Framed historical photographs, a bookcase, another sofa, and a blue carpet are visible. The award and books contain text.View post 
Five adults pose together in an office or study. An older woman sits in a black leather armchair holding a glass award, while four others stand around her. The room has wooden furniture, bookshelves, framed photographs, and a small table. Some text is visible on books and the award.View post
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Norton 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
- N000147
- Bioguide
- N000147
- FEC candidate ids
- H0DC00058
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