Party unity 78%, in the bottom tenth of the Ohio House (average 93.3%). 293 roll calls in the OH 2025–26 session.
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 Lett voted with the majority of Ohio House Democrats; it is ranked within the Ohio House. The count covers every roll call where Lett voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against the Ohio House. 33% of the 24 bills Lett sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of the Ohio House. Lett sits at −0.90 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 84% of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Lett sits furthest from the middle of the Ohio House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
Ohio House average 93.3% · ranks 89th of 98 · 14 votes against the majority of Ohio House Democrats
Out of committee
Ohio House average 58% · ranks 90th of 98
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 84% of State House Democrats · ± 0.04
From Ohio, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 613th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 853rd of 2,082
Attendance
Ohio House average 100% · ranks 50th of 98 · 293 roll calls
Peer group: Ohio House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Lett, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Lett is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Lett says
Lett talks about policy less than 98% of State House Democrats. Policy discussion in 0% of 1 statements, against 39% for the average State House Democrat; 757th of 765.
An AI model reads each of Lett’s 1 statements in the OH 2025–26 session (1 posts on X) 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 State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the OH 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Row | Lett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 10% |
| Policy discussion | 0% | 39% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 14% |
statements classified
1 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Lett; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Lett does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Lett used no extreme labels in 1 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 OH 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 OH 2025–26 session, 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 21 of them have no statements.
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 1 statements
Newest first, the OH 2025–26 session
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: 1 posts on X.
Policy
No policy statements for the OH 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Lett sits at −0.90 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 84% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.94 to −0.86, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,207 donors and 91 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 −0.94 to −0.86. From 2,207 donors and 91 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Lett, 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 Lett’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 Lett sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Lett |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 16% |
| Ohio House | 99 | +0.3 | 5% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 7% |
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 Lett 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 Lett.
Money
Lett reported $56.8K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 98% of itemized individual money came from Ohio.
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 166 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)73 squares$41.5K
- PACs and other committees26 squares$14.9K
- Party committees1 squares$350
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $41.5K | 73.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $14.9K | 26.2% |
| Party committees | $350 | 0.6% |
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 House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $512.4K |
| 2022 cycle | $17.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $188.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $56.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 98% came from Ohio.
- Ohio$40.5K
- California$500
- Michigan$500
- New York$19
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 |
|---|---|
| Ohio | $40.5K |
| Michigan | $500 |
| California | $500 |
| New York | $19 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| 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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | 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 Ohio
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 Ohio. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$10.9K 13 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED NOT EMPLOYED$6,950 14 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- POLITICAL EDUCATION PATTERNS$4,000
- BEER & WINE PAC$1,550
- OEA FUND FOR CHILDREN & PUBLIC ED$1,500
- DEALERS INVESTMENT GROUP OHIO AUTO DEALERS ASSOCIATION$1,400
- OCSEA/AFSCME LOCAL 11 POLITICAL ACTION FUND$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Lett voted with the majority of Ohio House Democrats on 78% of party-line votes and missed none of 293 roll calls. Ohio House on average: 93.3% party unity, 100% attendance. Across all roll calls, Lett voted against the majority of Ohio House Democrats 14 times.
293 roll calls Lett could vote on in the OH 2025–26 session, compared with Ohio House. 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 Lett voted with the majority of Ohio House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Ohio House Democrats
Party unity 78%, Ohio House average 93.3%, ranks 89th of 98. 293 roll calls in the OH 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Lett, the thin grey bar the Ohio House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Lett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 78% | 93.3% |
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 OH 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2026 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 15–16 · R 63–0Democrats 15 yea, 16 nay; Republicans 63 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–11 · R 62–1Democrats 20 yea, 11 nay; Republicans 62 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 1–29 · R 55–6Democrats 1 yea, 29 nay; Republicans 55 yea, 6 nay | much discussed | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 25–8 · R 63–2Democrats 25 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 63 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 33–0 · R 62–3Democrats 33 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 62 yea, 3 nay | became law |
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 Lett most often
- Dontavius JarrellsD260 shared votes97%
- Cecil ThomasD290 shared votes96%
- Rachel BakerD272 shared votes96%
- Dani IsaacsohnD283 shared votes96%
- Sedrick DensonD91 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lett least often
- Ron FergusonR253 shared votes79%
- Michelle TeskaR252 shared votes80%
- Jennifer GrossR245 shared votes82%
- D.J. SwearingenR287 shared votes83%
- Levi DeanR268 shared votes84%
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
OH 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Lett sponsored 24 bills in the OH 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 218 others. 33% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Ohio House average 58%; 90th of 98).
The bills Lett sponsored and cosponsored in the OH 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 OH 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 24 | 24 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 218 | 211 | 79 | 43 | 35 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Lett sponsored, ochre blocks bills Lett 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
Ohio House average 58%. Ranks 90th of 98.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Lett, by number of shared bills in the OH 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Sean Brennan112
- Beryl Piccolantonio83
- Eric Synenberg82
- Tristan Rader75
- Karen Brownlee74
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 Lett’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 1032 | Regards AI use by state agencies and in labor and employment | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Introduced Oct 22, 2026 |
| HB 1020 | Temporarily suspend the motor fuel tax; make other changes | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | Introduced | Taxation(model) | Introduced Sep 30, 2026 |
| HB 1018 | Designate Dolly Parton Imagination Library Reading Day | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Introduced Sep 28, 2026 |
| HB 1014 | Require bill credits, reimbursements after certain power outages | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | Introduced | Energy(model) | Introduced Sep 23, 2026 |
| HB 980 | Enact the Rideshare Sexual Assault Prevention Act | Cosponsor | Jul 22, 2026 | Introduced | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Introduced Jul 22, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Lett’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Lett’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 Lett posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
- 0
pages crawled
0changes 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 Lett posted
No images from Lett’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
7 turns, Jun 18, 2025 to Jun 10, 2026
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 Lett is most unusual among Ohio House, 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
- aede29b6-7798-45b7-8401-5004cf1c29f9
- Open States
- ocd-person/aede29b6-7798-45b7-8401-5004cf1c29f9
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