Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 3, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Taxation · Source
6.5%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of the Oklahoma House
6.5% of 31 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Oklahoma House is 44%. Ranks 97th of 98, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Woolley sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Oklahoma House. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. Woolley sits at +0.85 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 97% of State House Republicans. Woolley voted against the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans 510 times; party unity 82%, in the bottom quarter of the Oklahoma House (average 88%).
The measures on which Woolley sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
6.5%
Oklahoma House average 44% · ranks 97th of 98
CSIP ideology
+0.85
More conservative than 97% of State House Republicans · ± 0.05
Attendance
98.8%
Oklahoma House average 90.1% · ranks 11th of 97 · 1,932 roll calls
Party unity
82%
Oklahoma House average 88% · ranks 84th of 97 · 510 votes against the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans
Extreme labels
2.4%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 161st of 791
From Oklahoma, 2026
88%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1737th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Woolley, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Woolley is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Woolley says
Woolley claims credit less than 65% of State House Republicans. Credit claiming in 6.1% of 906 statements, against 13% for the average State House Republican; 522nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Woolley’s 906 statements in the OK 2025–26 session (906 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the OK 2025–26 session
0%80%
Woolley
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion241 statements
27%
32%
457th of 791
Policy criticism91 statements
10%
9%
275th of 791
Credit claiming55 statements
6%
13%
522nd of 791
Personal attacks19 statements
2%
3%
293rd of 791
Bipartisanship8 statements
1%
2%
423rd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Woolley | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 27% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 10% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 6% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
906
statements classified
906 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 906 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Woolley; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Woolley does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Woolley used extreme labels in 2.4% of statements, above the peer average. 22 statements, most often aimed at Democrat party; peers 1.4%.
- “communist”3
- “extreme”1
- “far left”1
- “far right”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrat party3
- Charlie Kirk1
- far-left1
- leftist ideologies1
- liberals1
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 OK 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 161 | 1.9% | 13.7% | 31.7% | 1.9% | 5.6% | 2.5% |
| Feb ’25 | 53 | 0.0% | 17.0% | 24.5% | 0.0% | 1.9% | 7.5% |
| Mar ’25 | 28 | 3.6% | 14.3% | 64.3% | 0.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 39 | 0.0% | 15.4% | 23.1% | 0.0% | 5.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 34 | 2.9% | 26.5% | 26.5% | 2.9% | 8.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 59 | 3.4% | 11.9% | 22.0% | 0.0% | 3.4% | 1.7% |
| Jul ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 22.2% | 2.8% | 0.0% | 2.8% |
| Aug ’25 | 81 | 4.9% | 9.9% | 18.5% | 1.2% | 2.5% | 4.9% |
| Sep ’25 | 135 | 0.0% | 1.5% | 10.4% | 0.7% | 3.7% | 1.5% |
| Oct ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 16.0% | 16.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 19.4% | 25.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 39 | 0.0% | 10.3% | 35.9% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 5.1% |
| Jan ’26 | 65 | 1.5% | 3.1% | 47.7% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 28 | 10.7% | 14.3% | 32.1% | 0.0% | 10.7% | 10.7% |
| Mar ’26 | 19 | 10.5% | 0.0% | 15.8% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 5.3% |
| Apr ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 5.9% | 41.2% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the OK 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%. 5 months are hatched here.
In Woolley’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming; extreme label “extreme” aimed at OklahomaBill · Source
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.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Health · target: Anthony FauciSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · HealthSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TalaricoSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: James TalaricoSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Ilhan OmarSource
All 906 statements
Newest first, the OK 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: 906 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Woolley talks about most: 24% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.53 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 262nd of 504).
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 Woolley talks about. The bills Woolley sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Woolley talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the OK 2025–26 session
0%35%
Woolley
Peers
Government Operations and Politics58 statements
24%
18%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues55 statements
23%
6%
Education53 statements
22%
15%
Law35 statements
15%
3%
Families26 statements
11%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Woolley | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 24% | 18% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 23% | 6% |
| Education | 22% | 15% |
| Law | 15% | 3% |
| Families | 11% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Woolley’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. 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 State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 24% | 18% | 0% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 23% | 6% | 23% | 4% |
| Education | 22% | 15% | 19% | 9% |
| Law | 15% | 3% | 6% | 3% |
| Families | 11% | 4% | 19% | 2% |
0.53
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 262nd of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Woolley legislates on exactly the areas Woolley 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 Woolley sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Woolley sits at +0.85 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 97% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.81 to +0.90, which understates the uncertainty; from 43 donors and 296 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
+0.85
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.81 to +0.90. From 43 donors and 296 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Woolley, 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 Woolley’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 Woolley sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Oklahoma House99 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Woolley |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 97% |
| Oklahoma House | 99 | +0.3 | 94% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 98% |
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 Woolley 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 Woolley.
Money
Woolley reported $26.8K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 88% of itemized individual money came from Oklahoma.
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.
$26.8K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 13 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)31 squares$8,247
- PACs and other committees69 squares$18.6K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $8,247 | 30.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $18.6K | 69.3% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $37.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $26.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 88% came from Oklahoma.
- Oklahoma$7,247
- Colorado$1,000
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 |
|---|---|
| Oklahoma | $7,247 |
| Colorado | $1,000 |
| 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 |
| Michigan | 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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | 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 |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
13
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
88%
from Oklahoma
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 Oklahoma. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- STATE REPRESENTATIVE$3,747 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- REPUBLICAN STATE HOUSE COMMITTEE$5,000
- HILBERT, KYLE - FRIENDS OF KYLE HILBERT 2026$3,500
- BASHORE, STEVE - FRIENDS OF STEVE BASHORE 2026$2,000
- CALDWELL, TREY - TREY CALDWELL FOR STATE HOUSE 2026$1,500
- KANE, JOHN BURKS - FRIENDS OF JOHN KANE 2026$1,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- OKLAHOMA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES$3,747 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Woolley voted with the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans on 82% of party-line votes and missed 1.1% of 1,932 roll calls. Oklahoma House on average: 88% party unity, 90.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Woolley voted against the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans 510 times.
1,932 roll calls Woolley could vote on in the OK 2025–26 session, compared with Oklahoma 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 Woolley voted with the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
510
votes against the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans
Party unity 82%, Oklahoma House average 88%, ranks 84th of 97. 1,932 roll calls in the OK 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Woolley, the thin grey bar the Oklahoma House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Woolley
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.8%
90.1%
11th of 97
Party unity
82%
88%
84th of 97
Show the data
| Row | Woolley | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.8% | 90.1% |
| Party unity | 82% | 88% |
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 OK 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2026 | SB 2 Wind energy; providing setback requirements for certain affected counties; waiver; referral of question to eligible voters; zoning; construction; exemptions; database. Fourth Reading | Nay | With majority | fail | D 4–10 · R 15–57Democrats 4 yea, 10 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 57 nay | party crossover · much discussed |
| May 14, 2026 | SB 1589 Crimes and punishments; modifying scope of certain offense related to gambling. Effective date. Veto Override Without Emer. | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 52–19Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 19 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 14, 2026 | HB 1370 Motor Fuel Tax Code; repealer; reduction in federal excise tax on gasoline or diesel fuel; emergency. Fourth Reading | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–1 · R 73–0Democrats 15 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 73 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 14, 2026 | SB 893 Property and critical infrastructure; creating the Military Installation and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2025. Effective date. Fourth Reading | Yea | With majority | pass | D 16–0 · R 72–0Democrats 16 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 72 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 7, 2026 | SB 1209 Forcible entry and detainer; modifying time period for certain trial. Effective date. Reconsider Measure | Nay | With majority | pass | D 16–0 · R 34–40Democrats 16 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 34 yea, 40 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 Woolley most often
- Jim OlsenR1,847 shared votes88%
- Derrick HildebrantR1,865 shared votes87%
- David SmithR1,764 shared votes86%
- Cody MaynardR1,856 shared votes86%
- Jim ShawR1,910 shared votes85%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Woolley least often
- Forrest BennettD903 shared votes55%
- Jack StewartR927 shared votes56%
- John WaldronD1,503 shared votes59%
- Jared DeckD1,795 shared votes59%
- Ajay PittmanD801 shared votes59%
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
OK 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Woolley sponsored 31 bills in the OK 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 6.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Oklahoma House average 44%; 97th of 98).
The bills Woolley sponsored and cosponsored in the OK 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 OK 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 31 | 31 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Woolley sponsored, ochre blocks bills Woolley 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
Oklahoma House average 44%. Ranks 97th of 98.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Woolley, by number of shared bills in the OK 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- David Bullard12
- Dusty Deevers3
- Dana Prieto3
- Julie McIntosh2
- Warren Hamilton1
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 Woolley’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 1784 | State government; creating the Oklahoma State Protection from Terrorist Organizations Act. Effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | Coauthored by Representative Woolley (principal House author) Apr 14, 2026 |
| HJR 1084 | Oklahoma Constitution; prohibiting courts and the state or political subdivisions from recognizing and enforcing certain codes or laws; ballot title; filing. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Law(model) | Coauthored by Representative Tedford Apr 8, 2026 |
| HB 3484 | Children; Oklahoma Children's Code; term; hearing; information; immediate protection; imminent danger; evidentiary standard; effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Families(model) | Referred to Appropriations and Budget Human Services Subcommittee Feb 3, 2026 |
| HB 2950 | Postsecondary education; prohibiting institutions from having differentiated standardized test score requirements for certain students; removing certain differentiated grade point average and test score requirements; effective date; emergency. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Education(model) | Second Reading referred to Education Committee then to Appropriations Committee Apr 1, 2026 |
| HB 3483 | Children; Protect Families from Government Overreach Act; purpose; intent; Department of Human Services; physical custody; records; exception; emergency motion; report; Oklahoma Commission for Human Services; noncompliance; audits, civil penalties, and sanctions; civil remedies; reassessment; codifi | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Families(model) | Referred to Appropriations and Budget Human Services Subcommittee Feb 3, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Woolley’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Woolley’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 Woolley posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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 Woolley posted
No images from Woolley’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
74 turns, Jan 7, 2025 to May 7, 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 Woolley is most unusual among State House Republicans, 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
- b0168a8a-bf16-4ddb-85ef-a7503cdb4d66
- Open States
- ocd-person/b0168a8a-bf16-4ddb-85ef-a7503cdb4d66
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