Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, New York’s 7th district

Serving since Jan 5, 1993119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide V000081FEC H2NY00010

Portrait of Nydia Velázquez, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$180.3K
raised in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

The median for House Democrats is $2.0M. Ranks 211th of 214, where 1st raised the most. 128 itemized donors.

Total receipts of Velázquez’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among House Democrats. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 40% of Velázquez’s statements criticize a policy, in the top tenth of House Democrats (average 28%). Velázquez sits at −1.31 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 89% of House Democrats.

The measures on which Velázquez 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.

Raised, 2026

$180.3K

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 211th of 214

Policy criticism

40%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 18th of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.31

More liberal than 89% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

Attendance

94.6%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 188th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Party unity

99.7%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 30th of 217 · 19 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Small donations, 2026

5.5%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 167th of 214

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Velázquez says

Velázquez criticizes policies more than 91% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 40% of 849 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 18th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Velázquez’s 849 statements in the 119th Congress (640 posts on X, 99 Congressional Record speeches, 79 press releases, 31 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%
Velázquez
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion634 statements
75%
73%
98th of 216
Policy criticism343 statements
40%
28%
18th of 216
Credit claiming216 statements
25%
23%
70th of 216
Bipartisanship68 statements
8%
10%
120th of 216
Personal attacks48 statements
6%
7%
108th of 216
Show the data
Velázquez's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowVelázquezPeers
Policy discussion75%73%
Policy criticism40%28%
Credit claiming25%23%
Bipartisanship8%10%
Personal attacks6%7%
849

statements classified

640 posts on X, 99 Congressional Record speeches, 79 press releases, 31 newsletters.

posts on X: 640 (75.4%)posts on X 640Congressional Record speeches: 99 (11.7%)press releases: 79 (9.3%)newsletters: 31 (3.7%)
Show the data
Velázquez's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X640
Congressional Record speeches99
press releases79
newsletters31
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Velázquez used extreme labels in 2.5% of statements, above the peer average. 21 statements, most often aimed at Supreme Court; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”5
  2. “far right”4
  3. “fascist”2
  4. “MAGA”1
  5. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Supreme Court2
  2. administration1
  3. Board appointees1
  4. Donald Trump1
  5. Ending Discrimination1
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: 592025-02: 672025-03: 522025-04: 592025-05: 482025-06: 832025-07: 542025-08: 282025-09: 422025-10: 472025-11: 372025-12: 422026-01: 412026-02: 292026-03: 292026-04: 232026-05: 282026-06: 272026-07: 202026-08: 142026-09: 112026-10: 9peak 83 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 14.3% · Aug ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.4% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-02: 7.5% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-03: 9.6% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.4% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-05: 4.2% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.8% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-07: 7.4% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-08: 14.3% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-09: 7.1% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-10: 6.4% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-11: 5.4% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-01: 4.9% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-02: 10.3% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-03: 6.9% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-04: 8.7% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-05: 3.6% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-07: 10.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 52.5% · Apr ’25 · latest 9.1%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 32.2% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-02: 37.3% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-03: 48.1% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-04: 52.5% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-05: 43.8% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-06: 49.4% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-07: 40.7% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-08: 50.0% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-09: 50.0% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-10: 46.8% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-11: 43.2% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-12: 45.2% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-01: 12.2% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-02: 48.3% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-03: 34.5% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-04: 17.4% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-05: 39.3% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-06: 44.4% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-07: 25.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-08: 28.6% of 14Policy criticism, 2026-09: 9.1% of 11Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 92.9% · Aug ’26 · latest 63.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 76.3% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-02: 55.2% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-03: 71.2% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-04: 78.0% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-05: 77.1% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-06: 74.7% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-07: 83.3% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-08: 78.6% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-09: 81.0% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-10: 76.6% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-11: 73.0% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-12: 71.4% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-01: 80.5% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-02: 69.0% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-03: 72.4% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-04: 82.6% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-05: 78.6% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-06: 74.1% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-07: 75.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-08: 92.9% of 14Policy discussion, 2026-09: 63.6% of 11Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 19.4% · Feb ’25 · latest 9.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 10.2% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 19.4% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 5.8% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 3.4% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 0.0% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 9.6% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 3.7% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 14.3% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 4.8% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 2.1% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 14.3% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 17.1% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 13.8% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 17.2% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 7.1% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 7.4% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 0.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 14Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 9.1% of 11Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 48.3% · Mar ’26 · latest 18.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 40.7% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-02: 29.8% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-03: 13.5% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-04: 22.0% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-05: 22.9% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-06: 21.7% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-07: 20.4% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-08: 28.6% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-09: 26.2% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-10: 14.9% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-11: 16.2% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-12: 26.2% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-01: 12.2% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-02: 34.5% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-03: 48.3% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-04: 43.5% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-05: 39.3% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-06: 29.6% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-07: 35.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-08: 7.1% of 14Credit claiming, 2026-09: 18.2% of 11Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 10.0% · Jul ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-02: 3.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.4% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.8% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-08: 7.1% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-09: 7.1% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-10: 8.5% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.7% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.4% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-06: 3.7% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-07: 10.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-08: 7.1% of 14Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 11Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Velázquez, 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 ’25593.4%32.2%76.3%10.2%40.7%0.0%
Feb ’25677.5%37.3%55.2%19.4%29.8%3.0%
Mar ’25529.6%48.1%71.2%5.8%13.5%0.0%
Apr ’25593.4%52.5%78.0%3.4%22.0%3.4%
May ’25484.2%43.8%77.1%0.0%22.9%2.1%
Jun ’25834.8%49.4%74.7%9.6%21.7%0.0%
Jul ’25547.4%40.7%83.3%3.7%20.4%1.8%
Aug ’252814.3%50.0%78.6%14.3%28.6%7.1%
Sep ’25427.1%50.0%81.0%4.8%26.2%7.1%
Oct ’25476.4%46.8%76.6%2.1%14.9%8.5%
Nov ’25375.4%43.2%73.0%0.0%16.2%2.7%
Dec ’25420.0%45.2%71.4%14.3%26.2%2.4%
Jan ’26414.9%12.2%80.5%17.1%12.2%0.0%
Feb ’262910.3%48.3%69.0%13.8%34.5%0.0%
Mar ’26296.9%34.5%72.4%17.2%48.3%0.0%
Apr ’26238.7%17.4%82.6%0.0%43.5%0.0%
May ’26283.6%39.3%78.6%7.1%39.3%0.0%
Jun ’26270.0%44.4%74.1%7.4%29.6%3.7%
Jul ’262010.0%25.0%75.0%0.0%35.0%10.0%
Aug ’26140.0%28.6%92.9%0.0%7.1%7.1%
Sep ’26110.0%9.1%63.6%9.1%18.2%0.0%
Oct ’269— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. One month is hatched here.

In Velázquez’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Velázquez and Davidson Reintroduce Bill to Help Legal Cannabis Businesses Obtain Insurance WASHINGTON —Today, Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) reintroduced the Clarifying Law Around Insurance of Marijuana, or CLAIM Act, legislation that would shield insurers from federa…

Sep 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Commerce; Finance and Financial Sector; Law; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source

Policy criticism

Velázquez, Grijalva Lead Resolution Recognizing World Contraception Day WASHINGTON – Today, Reps. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) and Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) introduced a House resolution recognizing World Contraception Day and calling for expanded access to contraception and reproductive health care in t…

Oct 9, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source

Extreme label

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

Aug 25, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “MAGA, extreme” aimed at Supreme Court · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · extreme label “radical” aimed at Marco Rubio · target: Marco RubioSource

  2. 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: White HouseSource

  3. 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: 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: Swalwell, Gonzales, Cherfilus-McCormick, MillsSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Donald TrumpSource

All 849 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: 640 posts on X, 99 Congressional Record speeches, 79 press releases, 31 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Velázquez talks about most: 23% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 80th 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 Velázquez talks about. The bills Velázquez sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Velázquez talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Velázquez
Peers
Health147 statements
23%
26%
Immigration130 statements
21%
11%
Government Operations and Politics128 statements
20%
20%
Economics and Public Finance120 statements
19%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues91 statements
14%
13%
Show the data
Policy areas Velázquez talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowVelázquezPeers
Health23%26%
Immigration21%11%
Government Operations and Politics20%20%
Economics and Public Finance19%20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues14%13%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Velázquez’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: 16% (House Democrats 16%)16%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 11%)21%Immigration, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 4%)6%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 20%)20%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 11%)8%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 20%)19%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 13%)14%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 5%)4%
Show the data
Velázquez's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health23%26%16%16%
Immigration21%11%6%4%
Government Operations and Politics20%20%8%11%
Economics and Public Finance19%20%0%1%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues14%13%4%5%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 80th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Velázquez sits at −1.31 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 89% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.33 to −1.30, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,291 donors and 7,349 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”.

−1.31

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.33 to −1.30. From 1,291 donors and 7,349 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Velázquez, 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 Velázquez’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 Velázquez sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Velázquez −1.3All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Velázquez's CSIP score of −1.31 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Velázquez
House Democrats217−1.011%
All House439+0.35%
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 Velázquez 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 Velázquez.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Velázquez raised $180.3K in the 2026 cycle, 9.1% of the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 5.5% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 67% of itemized individual money came from New York.

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
$180.3K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 128 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): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $109.3K (60.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $6,410 (3.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $6,410 (3.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $6,410 (3.6%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)PACs and other committees: $64.5K (35.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)61 squares$109.3K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$6,410
  • PACs and other committees36 squares$64.5K
Show the data
Sources of Velázquez's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$109.3K60.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$6,4103.6%
PACs and other committees$64.5K35.8%
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: $821.4K$821.4K20202022 cycle: $603.4K$603.4K20222024 cycle: $472.6K$472.6K20242026 cycle: $180.3K$180.3K2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Velázquez's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$821.4K
2022 cycle$603.4K
2024 cycle$472.6K
2026 cycle$180.3K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 67% came from New York.

  1. New York$67.6K
  2. Maryland$9,705
  3. Puerto Rico$8,950
  4. District of Columbia$6,500
  5. California$3,500

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%
Velázquez
Median
2026
6%
13%
2024
7%
13%
2022
5%
13%
2020
7%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowVelázquezMedian
2026 cycle6%13%
2024 cycle7%13%
2022 cycle5%13%
2020 cycle7%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $1,000NHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $67.6KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $500MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: $100NJConnecticut: $1,000CTCalifornia: $3,500CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $2,500VAMaryland: $9,705MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $6,500DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Velázquez's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$67.6K
Maryland$9,705
District of Columbia$6,500
California$3,500
Virginia$2,500
New Hampshire$1,000
Connecticut$1,000
Massachusetts$500
New Jersey$100
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
128

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

67%

from New York

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 York. 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: 13%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 55%55%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 25%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 3.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Velázquez's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +0.25: 13% between −1.50 and −1.25, 55% between −1.25 and −1.00, 25% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2513%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0055%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7525%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.503.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Velázquez’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Velázquez’s own score is −1.31.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$21.4K 31 donors
  2. PRESIDENT$8,250 4 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$5,166 9 donors
  4. PARTNER$5,055 3 donors
  5. CEO$3,500 6 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$5,000
  2. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  3. MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS$5,000
  4. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES 504PAC$5,000
  5. SMALL BUSINESS INVESTOR ALLIANCE PAC$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Velázquez voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 5.3% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Velázquez voted against the majority of House Democrats 19 times.

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

19

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.7%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 30th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Velázquez
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.6%
96.9%
188th of 217
Party unity
99.7%
96.4%
30th of 217
Show the data
Velázquez's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowVelázquezPeers
Attendance94.6%96.9%
Party unity99.7%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
Did not vote—PassedD 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 Velázquez most often

  1. Lloyd DoggettD621 shared votes99%
  2. Bonnie Watson ColemanD633 shared votes99%
  3. Joaquin CastroD617 shared votes99%
  4. LaMonica McIverD638 shared votes99%
  5. Maxwell FrostD635 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Velázquez least often

  1. Chip RoyR602 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR566 shared votes16%
  3. Eric BurlisonR609 shared votes16%
  4. Andy BiggsR574 shared votes17%
  5. Keith SelfR624 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

Velázquez sponsored 46 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 508 others. 6.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 56th of 207).

The bills Velázquez 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

Sponsored46 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4646Sponsored, In committee: 4646Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored508 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 508508Cosponsored, In committee: 508508Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1616Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Velázquez sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4646100
Cosponsored5085081622
How to read the blocks

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

6.5%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 56th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton77
  2. Rashida Tlaib63
  3. Hank Johnson Jr.47
  4. Yvette Clarke43
  5. Delia Ramirez40
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 Velázquez’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. 10807Get the Flock Out of Our Communities ActCosponsorOct 13, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 13, 2026
H.Con.Res. 123Recognizing the disparity in wages paid to Latinas and the impact of that disparity on women, families, the economy, and the United States.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeLabor and EmploymentReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 6, 2026
H.Res. 1610Expressing support for the recognition of October 2026, as "World Menopause Awareness Month" and for global awareness and access to care during menopausal transition and post-menopause.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Veterans' Affairs, 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 5, 2026
H.Con.Res. 122Expressing support for the recognition of September 26, 2026, as "World Contraception Day" and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding global and domestic access to contraception.SponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 103 times in 90 days. Velázquez’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Velázquez posted on Oct 21, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Social accounts

Images Velázquez posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • An informational flyer from a congresswoman’s office promoting a student app-development competition. It explains five steps for participating, with illustrations of a student coding at a computer, a laptop, and a government-building emblem. Text appears throughout.
    An informational flyer from a congresswoman’s office promoting a student app-development competition. It explains five steps for participating, with illustrations of a student coding at a computer, a laptop, and a government-building emblem. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A promotional flyer for the Congressional App Challenge. It invites high school and middle school students to participate, gives a website and deadline, and includes a QR code, a portrait of a woman, and organization logos.
    A promotional flyer for the Congressional App Challenge. It invites high school and middle school students to participate, gives a website and deadline, and includes a QR code, a portrait of a woman, and organization logos.View post
  • A street-corner signpost with two green street signs, surrounded by leafy tree branches. There is text on the signs and small stickers on the pole.
    A street-corner signpost with two green street signs, surrounded by leafy tree branches. There is text on the signs and small stickers on the pole.View post
  • An outdoor gathering on a small stage. A smiling man in a red cap holds a microphone beside a young girl, while a woman and other people stand nearby. Trees and a large red, white, and blue flag are in the background. Some clothing and a display contain text.
    An outdoor gathering on a small stage. A smiling man in a red cap holds a microphone beside a young girl, while a woman and other people stand nearby. Trees and a large red, white, and blue flag are in the background. Some clothing and a display contain text.View post
  • A woman speaks at a podium during an awards gala while another woman stands beside her holding an award. The stage has blue curtains and lighting, with a large circular event sign above it. Audience members are visible in the foreground. Text appears on the sign and podium.
    A woman speaks at a podium during an awards gala while another woman stands beside her holding an award. The stage has blue curtains and lighting, with a large circular event sign above it. Audience members are visible in the foreground. Text appears on the sign and podium.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 Velázquez 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
V000081
Bioguide
V000081
FEC candidate ids
H2NY00010

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

  • What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
  • Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
  • Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
  • WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
  • ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

How the measures work

What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top