Serving since 2023. No measure in the MI 2025–26 session stands far from the peer average.
Time in the current office, from the official record.
At a glance
6 measures against the Michigan Senate. Cavanagh missed 5.5% of 523 roll calls, attendance in the bottom half of the Michigan Senate (average 95.5%). 99% of Cavanagh’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Michigan, in the top half of State Senate Democrats. Cavanagh reported $164.1K in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of State Senate Democrats (median $55.5K).
The measures on which Cavanagh sits furthest from the middle of the Michigan Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
Michigan Senate average 92.6% · ranks 3rd of 37 · 3 votes against the majority of Michigan Senate Democrats
Attendance
Michigan Senate average 95.5% · ranks 28th of 37 · 523 roll calls
From Michigan, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 180th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 182nd of 746
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 62% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.05
Out of committee
Michigan Senate average 38% · ranks 18th of 38
Peer group: Michigan Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Cavanagh, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Cavanagh is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Cavanagh says
No statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Cavanagh sits at −0.72 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 62% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.77 to −0.67, which understates the uncertainty; from 363 donors and 878 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.77 to −0.67. From 363 donors and 878 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Cavanagh, 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 Cavanagh’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 Cavanagh sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Cavanagh |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 38% |
| Michigan Senate | 38 | −0.4 | 5% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 16% |
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 Cavanagh 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 Cavanagh.
Money
Cavanagh reported $164.1K in the 2026 cycle, 3.0 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 99% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance 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. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 131 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)30 squares$48.7K
- PACs and other committees70 squares$115.4K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $48.7K | 29.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $115.4K | 70.3% |
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.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $29.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $59.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $160.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $164.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 99% came from Michigan.
- Michigan$48.1K
- Illinois$500
- Pennsylvania$50
- Missouri$34
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $48.1K |
| Illinois | $500 |
| Pennsylvania | $50 |
| Missouri | $34 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
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.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- OWNER$5,350 4 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED$4,813 21 donors
- ATTORNEY$3,148 5 donors
- CEO$2,625 6 donors
- RETIRED$2,616 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MICHIGAN LABORERS POLITICAL LEAGUE$12.5K
- CAMILLERI FOR MICHIGAN$6,000
- MICHIGAN REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$6,000
- INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION CMTE$5,250
- DELTA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,200
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- LA MARSA FARMINGTON HILLS$720 11 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Cavanagh voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 5.5% of 523 roll calls. Michigan Senate on average: 92.6% party unity, 95.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cavanagh voted against the majority of Michigan Senate Democrats 3 times.
523 roll calls Cavanagh could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan Senate. 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 Cavanagh voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Michigan Senate Democrats
Party unity 100%, Michigan Senate average 92.6%, ranks 3rd of 37. 523 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Cavanagh, the thin grey bar the Michigan Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Cavanagh | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 94.4% | 95.5% |
| Party unity | 100% | 92.6% |
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 MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2026 | HB 5356 Vehicles: title; requirements for transfer of title by a dealer; provide for. Amends 14, 41a, 78, 217, 217c, 233, 233a, 233b, 234, 238, 239, 240, 248, 248a, 248j, 249, 250, 258, 801b, 806 & 810a of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.14 et seq.) & adds sec. 9b. PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 263 YEAS 31 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 4 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–1 · R 13–2Democrats 18 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | SB 947 Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for. Amends and adds (See bill). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5485'26 ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL # 260 YEAS 34 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | HB 5485 Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for. Amends secs. 31502, 31503, 31504, 31505, 31506, 31507, 31508, 31509, 31510, 31511, 31513, 31515, 31516, 31517, 31518, 31520, 31521 & 31523 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.31502 et seq.) & adds secs. 31506a, 31509a, 31509b, 31517a, 31518a, PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 247 YEAS 34 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | HB 4598 Crimes: organized; gift card fraud; provide for. Amends sec. 4 of 2012 PA 455 (MCL 752.1084). PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 253 YEAS 36 NAYS 0 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 16–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 1, 2026 | SB 791 Highways: memorial; portion of I-475; designate as the "St. John Street Community Memorial Highway". Amends 2001 PA 142 (MCL 250.1001 - 250.2092) by adding sec. 124. PASSED ROLL CALL # 258 YEAS 33 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 13–3Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 3 nay | 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 Cavanagh most often
- Sean McCannD487 shared votes99%
- Darrin CamilleriD480 shared votes99%
- Mallory McMorrowD470 shared votes99%
- Sarah AnthonyD494 shared votes99%
- Winnie BrinksD494 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cavanagh least often
- Jonathan LindseyR469 shared votes50%
- Thomas AlbertR494 shared votes51%
- Joe BellinoR486 shared votes51%
- Michele HoitengaR477 shared votes51%
- Jim RunestadR384 shared votes53%
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
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Cavanagh sponsored 51 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 251 others. 39% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan Senate average 38%; 18th of 38).
The bills Cavanagh sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 2025–26 session, 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 MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 51 | 51 | 20 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 251 | 251 | 117 | 10 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Cavanagh sponsored, ochre blocks bills Cavanagh cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Michigan Senate average 38%. Ranks 18th of 38.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Cavanagh, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Rosemary Bayer219
- Stephanie Chang207
- Sue Shink174
- Erika Geiss161
- Mallory McMorrow152
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 Cavanagh’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 1209 | Military affairs: other; release of the Michigan National Guard into active duty combat without an official act of Congress; prohibit. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 203. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Oct 14, 2026 |
| SCR 16 | A concurrent resolution of tribute offered as a memorial for John Pappageorge, former member of the Michigan Senate and Michigan House of Representatives. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SENATE AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NAMED CO-SPONSORS Oct 14, 2026 |
| SB 1208 | Insurance: no-fault; election to opt out of PIP coverage; modify length of election. Amends sec. 3107d of 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.3107d). | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Finance and Financial Sector(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Oct 14, 2026 |
| SB 1207 | Labor: other; fair and open competition in governmental construction act; repeal. Repeals 2011 PA 98 (MCL 408.871 - 408.883). | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON LABOR Oct 14, 2026 |
| SB 1206 | Labor: other; local government labor regulatory limitation act; repeal. Repeals 2015 PA 105 (MCL 123.1381 - 123.1396). | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | SENATE CO-SPONSOR(S) NAMED: MALLORY MCMORROW Oct 27, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. Cavanagh’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Cavanagh’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 Cavanagh posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
3changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Cavanagh posted
No images from Cavanagh’s posts have been described.
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.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 Cavanagh is most unusual among Michigan Senate, 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. That is the case for Cavanagh in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- a9e6b2e4-016d-481e-9f34-1f1b33d857ca
- Open States
- ocd-person/a9e6b2e4-016d-481e-9f34-1f1b33d857ca
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 (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; 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.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
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