Skip to content

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

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide S001221FEC H0MI03316

Portrait of Hillary Scholten, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
41
votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 91.4%, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 96.4%). 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

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 Scholten voted with the majority of House Democrats; it is ranked among House Democrats. The count covers every roll call where Scholten voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Scholten sits at −0.61 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 90% of House Democrats. 0.3% of Scholten’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 1.9%).

The measures on which Scholten 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.

Party unity

91.4%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 195th of 217 · 41 votes against the majority of House Democrats

CSIP ideology

−0.61

More conservative than 90% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

Extreme labels

0.3%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 188th of 216

Personal attacks

1.4%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 184th of 216

Credit claiming

31%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 35th of 216

Attendance

95.7%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 176th of 217 · 674 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Scholten says

Scholten attacks opponents personally less than 84% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 1.4% of 2,486 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 184th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Scholten’s 2,486 statements in the 119th Congress (2,103 posts on X, 165 press releases, 123 newsletters, 95 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%
Scholten
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,713 statements
69%
73%
162nd of 216
Credit claiming766 statements
31%
23%
35th of 216
Policy criticism521 statements
21%
28%
163rd of 216
Bipartisanship257 statements
10%
10%
76th of 216
Personal attacks35 statements
1%
7%
184th of 216
Show the data
Scholten's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowScholtenPeers
Policy discussion69%73%
Credit claiming31%23%
Policy criticism21%28%
Bipartisanship10%10%
Personal attacks1%7%
2,486

statements classified

2,103 posts on X, 165 press releases, 123 newsletters, 95 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 2,103 (84.6%)posts on X 2,103press releases: 165 (6.6%)newsletters: 123 (4.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 95 (3.8%)
Show the data
Scholten's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,103
press releases165
newsletters123
Congressional Record speeches95
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Scholten used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 17% of the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”6

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans3
  2. highest court1
  3. policy riders1
  4. president1
  5. wannabe authoritarian1
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: 1062025-02: 1312025-03: 1122025-04: 1042025-05: 1112025-06: 992025-07: 1062025-08: 932025-09: 852025-10: 962025-11: 722025-12: 1382026-01: 1352026-02: 1372026-03: 1372026-04: 1382026-05: 1212026-06: 1292026-07: 1202026-08: 1162026-09: 1162026-10: 84peak 138 · Dec ’25Personal attackspeak 5.2% · Aug ’26 · latest 1.2%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.9% of 106Personal attacks, 2025-02: 3.8% of 131Personal attacks, 2025-03: 4.5% of 112Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.9% of 104Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.8% of 111Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.0% of 99Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 106Personal attacks, 2025-08: 1.1% of 93Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.1% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 138Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.7% of 135Personal attacks, 2026-02: 1.5% of 137Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.7% of 137Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.5% of 138Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.8% of 121Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.8% of 129Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 120Personal attacks, 2026-08: 5.2% of 116Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.9% of 116Personal attacks, 2026-10: 1.2% of 84Policy criticismpeak 38.9% · Nov ’25 · latest 2.4%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 18.9% of 106Policy criticism, 2025-02: 29.0% of 131Policy criticism, 2025-03: 30.4% of 112Policy criticism, 2025-04: 25.0% of 104Policy criticism, 2025-05: 27.0% of 111Policy criticism, 2025-06: 21.2% of 99Policy criticism, 2025-07: 23.6% of 106Policy criticism, 2025-08: 17.2% of 93Policy criticism, 2025-09: 24.7% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-10: 35.4% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-11: 38.9% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-12: 28.3% of 138Policy criticism, 2026-01: 18.5% of 135Policy criticism, 2026-02: 18.3% of 137Policy criticism, 2026-03: 23.4% of 137Policy criticism, 2026-04: 12.3% of 138Policy criticism, 2026-05: 10.7% of 121Policy criticism, 2026-06: 10.1% of 129Policy criticism, 2026-07: 18.3% of 120Policy criticism, 2026-08: 12.9% of 116Policy criticism, 2026-09: 21.6% of 116Policy criticism, 2026-10: 2.4% of 84Policy discussionpeak 84.4% · Jan ’26 · latest 72.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 57.6% of 106Policy discussion, 2025-02: 72.5% of 131Policy discussion, 2025-03: 64.3% of 112Policy discussion, 2025-04: 64.4% of 104Policy discussion, 2025-05: 73.9% of 111Policy discussion, 2025-06: 65.7% of 99Policy discussion, 2025-07: 67.9% of 106Policy discussion, 2025-08: 73.1% of 93Policy discussion, 2025-09: 71.8% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-10: 63.5% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-11: 65.3% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-12: 70.3% of 138Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.4% of 135Policy discussion, 2026-02: 68.6% of 137Policy discussion, 2026-03: 65.7% of 137Policy discussion, 2026-04: 63.8% of 138Policy discussion, 2026-05: 69.4% of 121Policy discussion, 2026-06: 58.1% of 129Policy discussion, 2026-07: 65.0% of 120Policy discussion, 2026-08: 80.2% of 116Policy discussion, 2026-09: 75.9% of 116Policy discussion, 2026-10: 72.6% of 84Bipartisanshippeak 21.0% · Dec ’25 · latest 8.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 15.1% of 106Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 11.5% of 131Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 8.9% of 112Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.8% of 104Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.1% of 111Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 9.1% of 99Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 9.4% of 106Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 6.5% of 93Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.6% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 8.3% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 8.3% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 21.0% of 138Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 11.8% of 135Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 8.8% of 137Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 10.9% of 137Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 12.3% of 138Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 12.4% of 121Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 15.5% of 129Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 9.2% of 120Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.9% of 116Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 8.6% of 116Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 8.3% of 84Credit claimingpeak 49.6% · Feb ’25 · latest 19.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 38.7% of 106Credit claiming, 2025-02: 49.6% of 131Credit claiming, 2025-03: 25.9% of 112Credit claiming, 2025-04: 35.6% of 104Credit claiming, 2025-05: 22.5% of 111Credit claiming, 2025-06: 28.3% of 99Credit claiming, 2025-07: 30.2% of 106Credit claiming, 2025-08: 44.1% of 93Credit claiming, 2025-09: 42.4% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-10: 16.7% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-11: 29.2% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-12: 32.6% of 138Credit claiming, 2026-01: 31.9% of 135Credit claiming, 2026-02: 38.0% of 137Credit claiming, 2026-03: 27.0% of 137Credit claiming, 2026-04: 27.5% of 138Credit claiming, 2026-05: 37.2% of 121Credit claiming, 2026-06: 27.9% of 129Credit claiming, 2026-07: 28.3% of 120Credit claiming, 2026-08: 19.8% of 116Credit claiming, 2026-09: 22.4% of 116Credit claiming, 2026-10: 19.1% of 84Extreme labelspeak 1.8% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 106Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 131Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.8% of 112Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 104Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 111Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 99Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.9% of 106Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 93Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.2% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-11: 1.4% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 138Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.7% of 135Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.5% of 137Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 137Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 138Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 121Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 129Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 120Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 116Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 116Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 84Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Scholten, 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 ’251060.9%18.9%57.6%15.1%38.7%0.0%
Feb ’251313.8%29.0%72.5%11.5%49.6%0.0%
Mar ’251124.5%30.4%64.3%8.9%25.9%1.8%
Apr ’251041.9%25.0%64.4%5.8%35.6%0.0%
May ’251111.8%27.0%73.9%8.1%22.5%0.0%
Jun ’25991.0%21.2%65.7%9.1%28.3%0.0%
Jul ’251060.0%23.6%67.9%9.4%30.2%0.9%
Aug ’25931.1%17.2%73.1%6.5%44.1%0.0%
Sep ’25850.0%24.7%71.8%10.6%42.4%1.2%
Oct ’25962.1%35.4%63.5%8.3%16.7%0.0%
Nov ’25720.0%38.9%65.3%8.3%29.2%1.4%
Dec ’251380.0%28.3%70.3%21.0%32.6%0.0%
Jan ’261350.7%18.5%84.4%11.8%31.9%0.7%
Feb ’261371.5%18.3%68.6%8.8%38.0%1.5%
Mar ’261370.7%23.4%65.7%10.9%27.0%0.0%
Apr ’261381.5%12.3%63.8%12.3%27.5%0.0%
May ’261210.8%10.7%69.4%12.4%37.2%0.0%
Jun ’261290.8%10.1%58.1%15.5%27.9%0.0%
Jul ’261200.0%18.3%65.0%9.2%28.3%0.0%
Aug ’261165.2%12.9%80.2%0.9%19.8%0.0%
Sep ’261160.9%21.6%75.9%8.6%22.4%0.0%
Oct ’26841.2%2.4%72.6%8.3%19.1%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 Scholten’s words

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

Credit claiming

Scholten's Monday Minute - October 26, 2026 Congresswoman Scholten pictured at H?M Flats in Wyoming, Michigan. Dear Neighbor, For young families in West Michigan, finding a home they can afford is an important part of building a future. But between rising home prices, rent, and the cost of everyday…

Oct 26, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Energy; Environmental Protection; Health; Housing and Community Development; Transportation and Public Works

Personal attacks

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

Oct 2, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Larry Nassar · Source

Extreme label

Scholten's Monday Minute - February 2nd, 2026 Dear Neighbor, The government is shut down again. For the second time since taking office, President Trump has failed to produce a responsible budget that Congress can approve. This is true even though his own party controls all three branches of the go…

Feb 3, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; Health; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Finance and Financial Sector; Taxation; Immigration; Transportation and Public Works; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Law; Education; Labor and Employment; Commerce; International Affairs; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Armed Forces and National Security; Environmental Protection; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; 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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Larry NassarSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  3. 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 · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  5. Press releases

    Congresswoman Scholten Statement on Hasan Piker’s Recent Antisemitic Comments GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Today, Congresswoman Hillary Scholten issued the following statement after Twitch streamer Hasan Piker said that American Jews who support Israel are inviting violence. In his stream, Piker directly discussed and targeted Michigan State Senator Jeremy Moss, showing his picture and stating that “eventually someone will com…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Hasan PikerSource

All 2,486 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: 2,103 posts on X, 165 press releases, 123 newsletters, 95 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Scholten talks about most: 23% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 55th 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 Scholten talks about. The bills Scholten sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Scholten talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Scholten
Peers
Health400 statements
23%
26%
Economics and Public Finance341 statements
20%
20%
Government Operations and Politics305 statements
18%
20%
Commerce220 statements
13%
5%
Transportation and Public Works208 statements
12%
5%
Show the data
Policy areas Scholten talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowScholtenPeers
Health23%26%
Economics and Public Finance20%20%
Government Operations and Politics18%20%
Commerce13%5%
Transportation and Public Works12%5%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Scholten’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: 23% (House Democrats 26%)23%Health, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 16%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 20%)20%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (House Democrats 20%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 11%)11%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 13% (House Democrats 5%)13%Commerce, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 2%)8%Transportation and PublicWorksTransportation and Public Works, talks about: 12% (House Democrats 5%)12%Transportation and Public Works, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 3%)11%
Show the data
Scholten's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health23%26%12%16%
Economics and Public Finance20%20%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics18%20%11%11%
Commerce13%5%8%2%
Transportation and Public Works12%5%11%3%
0.70

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 55th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Scholten sits at −0.61 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 90% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.62 to −0.59, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,849 donors and 1,871 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”.

−0.61

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.62 to −0.59. From 5,849 donors and 1,871 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Scholten −0.6House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Scholten, 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 Scholten’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 Scholten sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Scholten −0.6All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Scholten's CSIP score of −0.61 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Scholten
House Democrats217−1.090%
All House439+0.344%
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 Scholten 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 Scholten.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Scholten raised $3.0M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 10% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 60% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.

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
$3.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,184 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (60.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.9K (6.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.9K (6.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.9K (6.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.9K (6.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.9K (6.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.9K (6.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.9K (6.9%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)PACs and other committees: $885.7K (29.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $100.1K (3.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $100.1K (3.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $100.1K (3.3%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)61 squares$1.8M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)7 squares$208.9K
  • PACs and other committees29 squares$885.7K
  • Party committees$1,120
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)3 squares$100.1K
Show the data
Sources of Scholten's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.8M60.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$208.9K6.9%
PACs and other committees$885.7K29.2%
Party committees$1,1200.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$100.1K3.3%
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: $3.8M$3.8M20202022 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M20222024 cycle: $5.3M$5.3M20242026 cycle: $3.0M$3.0M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Scholten's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.8M
2022 cycle$3.7M
2024 cycle$5.3M
2026 cycle$3.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 60% came from Michigan.

  1. Michigan$813.9K
  2. California$90.0K
  3. Massachusetts$79.3K
  4. Illinois$76.8K
  5. New York$64.2K

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%
Scholten
Median
2026
10%
13%
2024
14%
13%
2022
24%
13%
2020
29%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowScholtenMedian
2026 cycle10%13%
2024 cycle14%13%
2022 cycle24%13%
2020 cycle29%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $2,500NHWashington: $6,920WAIdaho: $1,500IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $4,550MNIllinois: $76.8KILWisconsin: $400WIMichigan: $813.9KMINew York: $64.2KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $79.3KMAOregon: $2,350ORNevada: $3,750NVWyoming: $2,500WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $1,000IAIndiana: $65INOhio: $1,072OHPennsylvania: $5,750PANew Jersey: $36NJConnecticut: $5,350CTCalifornia: $90.0KCAUtah: $250UTColorado: $11.9KCONebraska: $3,500NEMissouri: $310MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $36.2KVAMaryland: $28.9KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: $1,500NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $3,500TNNorth Carolina: $4,000NCSouth Carolina: $9,650SCDistrict of Columbia: $38.8KDCOklahoma: $7,000OKLouisiana: $500LAMississippi: $2,000MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $2,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $23.2KTXFlorida: $10.9KFL
Show the data
Scholten's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Michigan$813.9K
California$90.0K
Massachusetts$79.3K
Illinois$76.8K
New York$64.2K
District of Columbia$38.8K
Virginia$36.2K
Maryland$28.9K
Texas$23.2K
Colorado$11.9K
Florida$10.9K
South Carolina$9,650
Oklahoma$7,000
Washington$6,920
Pennsylvania$5,750
Connecticut$5,350
Minnesota$4,550
North Carolina$4,000
Nevada$3,750
Nebraska$3,500
Tennessee$3,500
New Hampshire$2,500
Wyoming$2,500
Oregon$2,350
Mississippi$2,000
Georgia$2,000
Idaho$1,500
New Mexico$1,500
Ohio$1,072
Iowa$1,000
Louisiana$500
Wisconsin$400
Missouri$310
Utah$250
Indiana$65
New Jersey$36
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
South DakotaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
1,184

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

60%

from Michigan

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 Michigan. 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: 0.0%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 4.3%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 36%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 49%49%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.6%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.7%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Scholten's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 36% between −1.00 and −0.75, 49% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.0%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.004.3%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7536%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5049%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.7%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Scholten’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Scholten’s own score is −0.61.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$549.7K 550 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$140.1K 108 donors
  3. RETIRED$98.3K 108 donors
  4. PHYSICIAN$36.9K 45 donors
  5. CEO$28.3K 22 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$26.9K
  2. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION - COPE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. COREWELL HEALTH$28.6K 18 donors
  2. MILLER JOHNSON$18.6K 15 donors
  3. VARNUM LLP$11.1K 6 donors
  4. THE DASCHLE GROUP$6,000 4 donors
  5. GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY$3,505 7 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Scholten voted with the majority of House Democrats on 91.4% of party-line votes and missed 4.3% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Scholten voted against the majority of House Democrats 41 times.

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

41

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 91.4%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 195th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Scholten
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.7%
96.9%
176th of 217
Party unity
91.4%
96.4%
195th of 217
Show the data
Scholten's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowScholtenPeers
Attendance95.7%96.9%
Party unity91.4%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

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 Scholten most often

  1. Greg StantonD630 shared votes97%
  2. Mike LevinD640 shared votes96%
  3. Frank MrvanD626 shared votes96%
  4. Sharice DavidsD639 shared votes96%
  5. Joseph MorelleD633 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Scholten least often

  1. Chip RoyR607 shared votes20%
  2. Eric BurlisonR616 shared votes21%
  3. Ralph NormanR569 shared votes22%
  4. Andy BiggsR583 shared votes22%
  5. Josh BrecheenR615 shared votes22%
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

Scholten sponsored 52 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 399 others. 7.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 46th of 207).

The bills Scholten 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

Sponsored52 billsSponsored, Introduced: 5252Sponsored, In committee: 5252Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored399 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 399399Cosponsored, In committee: 399399Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2424Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Scholten sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored5252300
Cosponsored3993992411
How to read the blocks

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

7.7%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 46th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Kristen McDonald Rivet28
  2. Debbie Dingell27
  3. Brian Fitzpatrick26
  4. Eleanor Norton25
  5. Haley Stevens25
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 Scholten’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. 10841Securing Elections From AI Deception ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10850SCREENS ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeHealthReferred 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 19, 2026
H.R. 10671Securing Our Critical Infrastructure ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Homeland Security. Oct 1, 2026
H.Res. 1592Expressing support for the designation of October 2026 as "National Learning Disabilities Awareness Month".CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10639Regional Great Lakes Partnership Act of 2026CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeEnvironmental ProtectionReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Sep 28, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 73 times in 90 days. Scholten’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Scholten posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Scholten’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 Scholten 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 Scholten posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A patriotic event flyer with an American flag background, service academy emblems, event details in blue panels, and a QR code. It contains prominent text.
    A patriotic event flyer with an American flag background, service academy emblems, event details in blue panels, and a QR code. It contains prominent text.View post
  • Four professionally dressed people pose outside a construction site, with an unfinished building and construction equipment behind them. Some text is visible on the building wrap.
    Four professionally dressed people pose outside a construction site, with an unfinished building and construction equipment behind them. Some text is visible on the building wrap.View post
  • A group of people stand at the front of a room while an audience seated in rows of chairs applauds. One woman waves, and two people hold microphones. An exit sign is visible above a doorway.
    A group of people stand at the front of a room while an audience seated in rows of chairs applauds. One woman waves, and two people hold microphones. An exit sign is visible above a doorway.View post
  • A woman speaks into a microphone to an audience of mostly older adults seated in rows in a meeting room. Some audience members use mobility aids. No prominent text is visible.
    A woman speaks into a microphone to an audience of mostly older adults seated in rows in a meeting room. Some audience members use mobility aids. No prominent text is visible.View post
  • A presenter addresses a seated audience in a bright meeting room. There is a small amount of visible text on a sign.
    A presenter addresses a seated audience in a bright meeting room. There is a small amount of visible text on a sign.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 Scholten 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
S001221
Bioguide
S001221
FEC candidate ids
H0MI03316

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