Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, New Jersey’s 6th district

Serving since Jan 6, 1987119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide P000034FEC H8NJ03073, S6NJ00263

Portrait of Frank Pallone Jr., rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.0%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

1.0% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Democrats is 13%. Ranks 209th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. $2.8M raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among House Democrats. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 17% of the 23 bills Pallone sponsored got out of committee, in the top 5% of House Democrats. 13% of Pallone’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 23%).

The measures on which Pallone 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.

Small donations, 2026

1.0%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 209th of 214

Out of committee

17%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 6th of 207

Credit claiming

13%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 191st of 216

Personal attacks

13%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 28th of 216

Policy criticism

37%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 30th of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.16

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 Pallone, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Pallone is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Pallone says

Pallone attacks opponents personally more than 87% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 13% of 3,813 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 28th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Pallone’s 3,813 statements in the 119th Congress (3,028 posts on X, 479 Congressional Record speeches, 210 press releases, 96 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%
Pallone
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,617 statements
69%
73%
164th of 216
Policy criticism1,400 statements
37%
28%
30th of 216
Credit claiming512 statements
13%
23%
191st of 216
Personal attacks491 statements
13%
7%
28th of 216
Bipartisanship262 statements
7%
10%
146th of 216
Show the data
Pallone's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowPallonePeers
Policy discussion69%73%
Policy criticism37%28%
Credit claiming13%23%
Personal attacks13%7%
Bipartisanship7%10%
3,813

statements classified

3,028 posts on X, 479 Congressional Record speeches, 210 press releases, 96 newsletters.

posts on X: 3,028 (79.4%)posts on X 3,028Congressional Record speeches: 479 (12.6%)press releases: 210 (5.5%)newsletters: 96 (2.5%)
Show the data
Pallone's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X3,028
Congressional Record speeches479
press releases210
newsletters96
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Pallone used extreme labels in 2.9% of statements, above the peer average. 110 statements, most often aimed at Trump; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”34
  2. “radical”13
  3. “MAGA”11
  4. “communist”10
  5. “fascist”4

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Trump19
  2. Republicans7
  3. Trump Administration5
  4. Communist China3
  5. China2
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: 1662025-02: 2002025-03: 2072025-04: 2412025-05: 1962025-06: 2092025-07: 1752025-08: 1312025-09: 1552025-10: 1932025-11: 1972025-12: 2422026-01: 1982026-02: 1842026-03: 1422026-04: 1912026-05: 1592026-06: 1312026-07: 1502026-08: 1312026-09: 1262026-10: 89peak 242 · Dec ’25Personal attackspeak 23.2% · Mar ’25 · latest 14.6%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 13.3% of 166Personal attacks, 2025-02: 20.0% of 200Personal attacks, 2025-03: 23.2% of 207Personal attacks, 2025-04: 11.6% of 241Personal attacks, 2025-05: 16.3% of 196Personal attacks, 2025-06: 9.6% of 209Personal attacks, 2025-07: 15.4% of 175Personal attacks, 2025-08: 16.8% of 131Personal attacks, 2025-09: 5.8% of 155Personal attacks, 2025-10: 6.7% of 193Personal attacks, 2025-11: 8.6% of 197Personal attacks, 2025-12: 10.3% of 242Personal attacks, 2026-01: 11.1% of 198Personal attacks, 2026-02: 13.6% of 184Personal attacks, 2026-03: 13.4% of 142Personal attacks, 2026-04: 13.1% of 191Personal attacks, 2026-05: 13.8% of 159Personal attacks, 2026-06: 9.9% of 131Personal attacks, 2026-07: 10.0% of 150Personal attacks, 2026-08: 15.3% of 131Personal attacks, 2026-09: 11.1% of 126Personal attacks, 2026-10: 14.6% of 89Policy criticismpeak 49.6% · Jun ’26 · latest 18.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 37.4% of 166Policy criticism, 2025-02: 42.0% of 200Policy criticism, 2025-03: 44.0% of 207Policy criticism, 2025-04: 46.1% of 241Policy criticism, 2025-05: 38.8% of 196Policy criticism, 2025-06: 43.5% of 209Policy criticism, 2025-07: 44.6% of 175Policy criticism, 2025-08: 45.8% of 131Policy criticism, 2025-09: 40.0% of 155Policy criticism, 2025-10: 48.7% of 193Policy criticism, 2025-11: 48.7% of 197Policy criticism, 2025-12: 28.1% of 242Policy criticism, 2026-01: 18.2% of 198Policy criticism, 2026-02: 40.8% of 184Policy criticism, 2026-03: 46.5% of 142Policy criticism, 2026-04: 30.9% of 191Policy criticism, 2026-05: 26.4% of 159Policy criticism, 2026-06: 49.6% of 131Policy criticism, 2026-07: 18.0% of 150Policy criticism, 2026-08: 16.0% of 131Policy criticism, 2026-09: 15.9% of 126Policy criticism, 2026-10: 18.0% of 89Policy discussionpeak 84.7% · Aug ’26 · latest 77.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 78.3% of 166Policy discussion, 2025-02: 67.0% of 200Policy discussion, 2025-03: 68.6% of 207Policy discussion, 2025-04: 68.5% of 241Policy discussion, 2025-05: 68.9% of 196Policy discussion, 2025-06: 67.0% of 209Policy discussion, 2025-07: 70.3% of 175Policy discussion, 2025-08: 71.0% of 131Policy discussion, 2025-09: 58.1% of 155Policy discussion, 2025-10: 66.3% of 193Policy discussion, 2025-11: 66.0% of 197Policy discussion, 2025-12: 69.4% of 242Policy discussion, 2026-01: 70.7% of 198Policy discussion, 2026-02: 62.0% of 184Policy discussion, 2026-03: 68.3% of 142Policy discussion, 2026-04: 67.5% of 191Policy discussion, 2026-05: 64.1% of 159Policy discussion, 2026-06: 65.6% of 131Policy discussion, 2026-07: 66.0% of 150Policy discussion, 2026-08: 84.7% of 131Policy discussion, 2026-09: 73.0% of 126Policy discussion, 2026-10: 77.5% of 89Bipartisanshippeak 12.0% · Apr ’25 · latest 4.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 9.0% of 166Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 8.5% of 200Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 4.3% of 207Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 12.0% of 241Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 3.1% of 196Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 10.5% of 209Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 10.9% of 175Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.0% of 131Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 5.2% of 155Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 5.7% of 193Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 3.0% of 197Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 6.2% of 242Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 8.1% of 198Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.5% of 184Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 9.2% of 142Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.7% of 191Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 6.9% of 159Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 11.5% of 131Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 10.0% of 150Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.8% of 131Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 5.6% of 126Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 4.5% of 89Credit claimingpeak 30.7% · Jan ’25 · latest 11.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 30.7% of 166Credit claiming, 2025-02: 13.5% of 200Credit claiming, 2025-03: 9.7% of 207Credit claiming, 2025-04: 14.5% of 241Credit claiming, 2025-05: 14.8% of 196Credit claiming, 2025-06: 11.0% of 209Credit claiming, 2025-07: 5.7% of 175Credit claiming, 2025-08: 10.7% of 131Credit claiming, 2025-09: 11.0% of 155Credit claiming, 2025-10: 9.3% of 193Credit claiming, 2025-11: 12.2% of 197Credit claiming, 2025-12: 9.9% of 242Credit claiming, 2026-01: 18.2% of 198Credit claiming, 2026-02: 17.9% of 184Credit claiming, 2026-03: 16.2% of 142Credit claiming, 2026-04: 11.0% of 191Credit claiming, 2026-05: 17.0% of 159Credit claiming, 2026-06: 20.6% of 131Credit claiming, 2026-07: 8.7% of 150Credit claiming, 2026-08: 9.9% of 131Credit claiming, 2026-09: 13.5% of 126Credit claiming, 2026-10: 11.2% of 89Extreme labelspeak 6.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 1.1%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 6.6% of 166Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.0% of 200Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.3% of 207Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.2% of 241Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.5% of 196Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.9% of 209Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.6% of 175Extreme labels, 2025-08: 6.1% of 131Extreme labels, 2025-09: 3.9% of 155Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.6% of 193Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.5% of 197Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.5% of 242Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 198Extreme labels, 2026-02: 2.2% of 184Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.1% of 142Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.6% of 191Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.3% of 159Extreme labels, 2026-06: 5.3% of 131Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.3% of 150Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.5% of 131Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 126Extreme labels, 2026-10: 1.1% of 89Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Pallone, 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 ’2516613.3%37.4%78.3%9.0%30.7%6.6%
Feb ’2520020.0%42.0%67.0%8.5%13.5%5.0%
Mar ’2520723.2%44.0%68.6%4.3%9.7%5.3%
Apr ’2524111.6%46.1%68.5%12.0%14.5%4.2%
May ’2519616.3%38.8%68.9%3.1%14.8%2.5%
Jun ’252099.6%43.5%67.0%10.5%11.0%2.9%
Jul ’2517515.4%44.6%70.3%10.9%5.7%0.6%
Aug ’2513116.8%45.8%71.0%3.0%10.7%6.1%
Sep ’251555.8%40.0%58.1%5.2%11.0%3.9%
Oct ’251936.7%48.7%66.3%5.7%9.3%1.6%
Nov ’251978.6%48.7%66.0%3.0%12.2%3.5%
Dec ’2524210.3%28.1%69.4%6.2%9.9%2.5%
Jan ’2619811.1%18.2%70.7%8.1%18.2%0.0%
Feb ’2618413.6%40.8%62.0%6.5%17.9%2.2%
Mar ’2614213.4%46.5%68.3%9.2%16.2%2.1%
Apr ’2619113.1%30.9%67.5%3.7%11.0%2.6%
May ’2615913.8%26.4%64.1%6.9%17.0%1.3%
Jun ’261319.9%49.6%65.6%11.5%20.6%5.3%
Jul ’2615010.0%18.0%66.0%10.0%8.7%1.3%
Aug ’2613115.3%16.0%84.7%0.8%9.9%1.5%
Sep ’2612611.1%15.9%73.0%5.6%13.5%0.0%
Oct ’268914.6%18.0%77.5%4.5%11.2%1.1%
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 Pallone’s words

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

Credit claiming

We’re making student athletes safer… …one defibrillator at a time. [Masthead]<https://palloneforms.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=11374-2684277> Dear Neighbor, They may look unassuming to you, but a defibrillator can mean the difference between life and death. When combined with trained…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Education; Commerce; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Economics and Public Finance; Foreign Trade and International Finance

Personal attacks

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

Oct 25, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Energy; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

Recovering from the storm, improving commutes, & lowering energy costs Dear Neighbor,Many of New Jersey’s coastal communities took a hit from last weekend’s storm. In parts of our district, six to seven feet of tidal flooding reached homes and businesses and caused significant damage to local infra…

Oct 2, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Emergency Management; Economics and Public Finance; Water Resources Development; Transportation and Public Works; Energy; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Republicans

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 · Energy · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · 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 · Labor and Employment · 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 · Emergency Management · Taxation · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Pete HegsethSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Agriculture and Food · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

All 3,813 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: 3,028 posts on X, 479 Congressional Record speeches, 210 press releases, 96 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Pallone talks about most: 32% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 185th 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 Pallone talks about. The bills Pallone sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Pallone talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Pallone
Peers
Health826 statements
32%
26%
Economics and Public Finance545 statements
21%
20%
Government Operations and Politics464 statements
18%
20%
Environmental Protection294 statements
11%
5%
Energy293 statements
11%
5%
Show the data
Policy areas Pallone talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowPallonePeers
Health32%26%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%
Government Operations and Politics18%20%
Environmental Protection11%5%
Energy11%5%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Pallone’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: 32% (House Democrats 26%)32%Health, legislates on: 14% (House Democrats 16%)14%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (House Democrats 20%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 11%)10%Environmental ProtectionEnvironmental Protection, talks about: 11% (House Democrats 5%)11%Environmental Protection, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 3%)4%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 11% (House Democrats 5%)11%Energy, legislates on: 2% (House Democrats 2%)2%
Show the data
Pallone's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health32%26%14%16%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%1%1%
Government Operations and Politics18%20%10%11%
Environmental Protection11%5%4%3%
Energy11%5%2%2%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 185th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Pallone sits at −1.16 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 74% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.18 to −1.15, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,869 donors and 7,467 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”.

−1.16

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.18 to −1.15. From 2,869 donors and 7,467 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Pallone −1.2House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Pallone, 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 Pallone’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 Pallone sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Pallone −1.2All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Pallone's CSIP score of −1.16 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Pallone
House Democrats217−1.025%
All House439+0.313%
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 Pallone 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 Pallone.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Pallone raised $2.8M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 1.0% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 30% of itemized individual money came from New Jersey.

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
$2.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 451 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): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $958.0K (33.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (64.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $32.8K (1.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)34 squares$958.0K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$9,364
  • PACs and other committees65 squares$1.8M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$32.8K
Show the data
Sources of Pallone's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$958.0K33.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$9,3640.3%
PACs and other committees$1.8M64.8%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$32.8K1.2%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $3.2M$3.2M20202022 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M20222024 cycle: $3.5M$3.5M20242026 cycle: $2.8M$2.8M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Pallone's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.2M
2022 cycle$3.1M
2024 cycle$3.5M
2026 cycle$2.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 30% came from New Jersey.

  1. New Jersey$215.0K
  2. District of Columbia$147.5K
  3. Virginia$72.2K
  4. Massachusetts$51.3K
  5. Maryland$47.4K

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

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $500AKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $5,700NHWashington: $7,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $7,500MINew York: $36.8KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $51.3KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $3,500INOhio: $3,750OHPennsylvania: $20.8KPANew Jersey: $215.0KNJConnecticut: $4,500CTCalifornia: $30.5KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $1,500CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $500MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $72.2KVAMaryland: $47.4KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,000AZNew Mexico: $7,000NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $500ARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $525NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $147.5KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $1,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $15.5KTXFlorida: $33.1KFL
Show the data
Pallone's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New Jersey$215.0K
District of Columbia$147.5K
Virginia$72.2K
Massachusetts$51.3K
Maryland$47.4K
New York$36.8K
Florida$33.1K
California$30.5K
Pennsylvania$20.8K
Texas$15.5K
Michigan$7,500
Washington$7,000
New Mexico$7,000
New Hampshire$5,700
Connecticut$4,500
Ohio$3,750
Indiana$3,500
Colorado$1,500
Arizona$1,000
Georgia$1,000
North Carolina$525
Alaska$500
Missouri$500
Arkansas$500
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
KansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
451

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

30%

from New Jersey

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 Jersey. 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: 1.8%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 47%47%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 34%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 7.4%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.4%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.6%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Pallone's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +0.75: 47% between −1.25 and −1.00, 34% between −1.00 and −0.75, 7.4% between −0.75 and −0.50, 5.3% between −0.25 and 0.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.251.8%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0047%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7534%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.507.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.6%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Pallone’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Pallone’s own score is −1.16.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. GOVERNMENT RELATIONS$161.4K 84 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$54.5K 59 donors
  3. RETIRED$42.2K 29 donors
  4. NOT EMPLOYED$36.1K 20 donors
  5. PRINCIPAL$31.8K 15 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. PAC$15.0K
  2. ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$10.0K
  4. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  5. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (AMAZON PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ANTHROPIC PBC$21.0K 3 donors
  2. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP$13.5K 17 donors
  3. BGR GROUP$11.8K 3 donors
  4. TIBER CREEK GROUP$10.4K 5 donors
  5. GREATER NEW YORK HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION$10.0K 6 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Pallone voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.9% of party-line votes and missed 0.3% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Pallone voted against the majority of House Democrats 14 times.

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

14

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 98.9%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 87th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Pallone
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.7%
96.9%
32nd of 217
Party unity
98.9%
96.4%
87th of 217
Show the data
Pallone's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowPallonePeers
Attendance99.7%96.9%
Party unity98.9%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
NayAgainst 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 Pallone most often

  1. Christian MenefeeD255 shared votes99%
  2. Jan SchakowskyD624 shared votes99%
  3. Alma AdamsD669 shared votes99%
  4. Shontel BrownD669 shared votes99%
  5. Jennifer McClellanD668 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Pallone least often

  1. Chip RoyR631 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR596 shared votes18%
  3. Eric BurlisonR639 shared votes18%
  4. Andy BiggsR605 shared votes18%
  5. Keith SelfR656 shared votes18%
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

Pallone sponsored 23 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 240 others. 17% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 6th of 207).

The bills Pallone 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

Sponsored23 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2323Sponsored, In committee: 2323Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored240 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 240240Cosponsored, In committee: 240240Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1414Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Pallone sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2323400
Cosponsored2402401422
How to read the blocks

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

17%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 6th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Josh Gottheimer19
  2. Robert Menendez Jr.16
  3. Nellie Pou14
  4. Eleanor Norton13
  5. Thomas Kean Jr.12
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 Pallone’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.Res. 1635Supporting the designation of October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day".CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10788Lower Premiums, Faster Payments ActSponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, and 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 9, 2026
H.Res. 1616Recognizing the importance of biodiversity conservation, welcoming the Republic of Armenia as host of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and supporting the protection of Armenia's sovereign territory and natural heritage.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10453Communications and Technology Transparency Act of 2026SponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 215Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security relating to "Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for NonimmigrCosponsorSep 14, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 14, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 73 times in 90 days. Pallone’s official site had 43 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Pallone posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Pallone’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 Pallone 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 Pallone posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A split-screen live television news broadcast shows Donald Trump seated at a microphone on the left and several people seated at a meeting table on the right. News banners and other text overlays appear along the bottom.
    A split-screen live television news broadcast shows Donald Trump seated at a microphone on the left and several people seated at a meeting table on the right. News banners and other text overlays appear along the bottom.View post
  • A red-and-black political graphic featuring a photo of an older man speaking into a microphone, images of official-looking documents, and large headline text. The background includes a blurred sign. It is a designed news or political graphic, not a social media post.
    A red-and-black political graphic featuring a photo of an older man speaking into a microphone, images of official-looking documents, and large headline text. The background includes a blurred sign. It is a designed news or political graphic, not a social media post.View post
  • Three people pose beside a decorated Hindu religious display in an indoor hall. The display includes a statue, framed religious artwork, flowers, and ornate decorations. A banner with text is visible in the background.
    Three people pose beside a decorated Hindu religious display in an indoor hall. The display includes a statue, framed religious artwork, flowers, and ornate decorations. A banner with text is visible in the background.View post
  • A news graphic shows a man speaking at a podium outdoors beside a sign about cardiac arrest awareness. An inset highlights an AED, and a large green headline banner fills the bottom. The image contains text.
    A news graphic shows a man speaking at a podium outdoors beside a sign about cardiac arrest awareness. An inset highlights an AED, and a large green headline banner fills the bottom. The image contains text.View post
  • An orange Halloween-themed advertisement featuring assorted candy and a cutout of Donald Trump holding two candy bars. Large white promotional text dominates the design, with a smaller phrase near Trump.
    An orange Halloween-themed advertisement featuring assorted candy and a cutout of Donald Trump holding two candy bars. Large white promotional text dominates the design, with a smaller phrase near Trump.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 Pallone 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
P000034
Bioguide
P000034
FEC candidate ids
H8NJ03073, S6NJ00263

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