100% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in North Dakota. Ranks 136th of 860, where 1st is the highest share. 3 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in North Dakota, ranked among State Senate Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 43% of the 7 bills Wanzek sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the North Dakota Senate. Wanzek sits at +0.15 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 80% of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Wanzek sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From North Dakota, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 136th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Out of committee
North Dakota Senate average 68% · ranks 24th of 29
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 80% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.03
Attendance
North Dakota Senate average 98.3% · ranks 37th of 46 · 998 roll calls
Party unity
North Dakota Senate average 79% · ranks 10th of 46 · 42 votes against the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 660th of 936
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Wanzek, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Wanzek is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Wanzek says
No statements for the ND 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the ND 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Wanzek sits at +0.15 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 80% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.11 to +0.18, which understates the uncertainty; from 8 donors and 593 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 +0.11 to +0.18. From 8 donors and 593 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Wanzek, 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 Wanzek’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 Wanzek sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Wanzek |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 20% |
| North Dakota Senate | 47 | +0.1 | 49% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 54% |
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 Wanzek 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 Wanzek.
Money
Wanzek reported $17.5K in the 2026 cycle, 38% of the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from North Dakota.
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 3 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)13 squares$2,250
- PACs and other committees87 squares$15.3K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2,250 | 12.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $15.3K | 87.1% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $17.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $5,000 |
| 2026 cycle | $17.5K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from North Dakota.
- North Dakota$2,250
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 |
|---|---|
| North Dakota | $2,250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | 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 |
| 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 North Dakota
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 North Dakota. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ND SENATE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS (NDSR)$2,000
- TRUKOTA PAC$2,000
- ND OIL PAC$1,500
- GA GROUP PAC$1,000
- ND ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS PAC (NDRPAC)$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Wanzek voted with the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans on 85% of party-line votes and missed 2.7% of 998 roll calls. North Dakota Senate on average: 79% party unity, 98.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Wanzek voted against the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans 42 times.
998 roll calls Wanzek could vote on in the ND 2025–26 session, compared with North Dakota 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 Wanzek voted with the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of North Dakota Senate Republicans
Party unity 85%, North Dakota Senate average 79%, ranks 10th of 46. 998 roll calls in the ND 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Wanzek, the thin grey bar the North Dakota Senate average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Wanzek | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.2% | 98.3% |
| Party unity | 85% | 79% |
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 ND 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2026 | HB 1628 AN ACT to create and enact a new subdivision to subsection 2 of section 12-60-24, subdivision lll of subsection 3 of section 19-03.1-05, and chapter 51-38 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to criminal history record checks, the scheduling of kratom alkaloid derivatives as a schedule I contr Motion for Final Passage on HB 1628 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 41–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 2026 | SB 2407 AN ACT to provide an appropriation to the state historical society for the North Dakota military museum project; to amend and reenact section 55-01-02.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to jurisdiction of the heritage center; to repeal subsection 3 of section 6 of chapter 17 of the 2025 Se Motion for Final Passage on SB 2407 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 2–3 · R 37–5Democrats 2 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 37 yea, 5 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Sep 3, 2026 | SB 2405 A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 57-02-08.9, section 57-20-09, and subsection 1 of section 57-55-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the order of application of the primary residence credit and discount for early payment of tax; and to provide an effective Motion for Final Passage on SB 2405 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 4–1 · R 23–19Democrats 4 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 19 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 3, 2026 | SB 2406 A BILL for an Act to create and enact chapter 44-04.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to prohibiting agencies from entering nondisclosure agreements concerning data centers and industrial projects; to provide a penalty; to provide an effective date; and to provide an expiration date. Motion for Final Passage on SB 2406 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 5–0 · R 10–32Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 32 nay | party crossover |
| Jan 23, 2026 | HB 1621 AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 15.1-21-01 and section 15.1-21-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to requiring the presidential physical fitness test in physical education courses in elementary, middle, and high schools and providing exceptions to the test; and to prov Motion for Final Passage on HB 1621 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–1 · R 39–2Democrats 4 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 39 yea, 2 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 Wanzek most often
- Robert ErbeleR950 shared votes95%
- Michelle AxtmanR923 shared votes94%
- Ron SorvaagR969 shared votes94%
- Jeff BartaR959 shared votes94%
- Cole ConleyR969 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Wanzek least often
- Jeff MagrumR971 shared votes66%
- Tim MathernD970 shared votes84%
- Ryan BraunbergerD950 shared votes85%
- Michelle PowersR970 shared votes86%
- Kathy HoganD950 shared votes86%
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
ND 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Wanzek sponsored 7 bills in the ND 2025–26 session; 3 became law. Cosponsored 40 others. 43% of sponsored bills got out of committee (North Dakota Senate average 68%; 24th of 29).
The bills Wanzek sponsored and cosponsored in the ND 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 ND 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Cosponsored | 40 | 39 | 27 | 18 | 17 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Wanzek sponsored, ochre blocks bills Wanzek 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
North Dakota Senate average 68%. Ranks 24th of 29.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Wanzek, by number of shared bills in the ND 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Mike Brandenburg32
- Craig Headland16
- Jim Grueneich15
- Robert Erbele14
- Cole Conley13
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 Wanzek’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HCR 3018 | A concurrent resolution directing the Legislative Management to consider studying water and wetlands regulations and the taxation of inundated lands in the state. | Cosponsor | Jan 30, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Water Resources Development(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 04/22 Apr 22, 2025 |
| SB 2390 | AN ACT to create and enact three new sections to chapter 54-40.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a rural catalyst committee, grant program, and fund; to amend and reenact section 54-40.1-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to definitions for regional planning councils; to pro | Sponsor | Jan 29, 2025 | Became law | Housing and Community Development(model) | Filed with Secretary Of State 05/02 Jun 11, 2025 |
| HCR 3012 | A concurrent resolution to repeal section 10 of article X of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to the statewide property tax levy of one mill for support of the state medical center at the University of North Dakota; and to provide an effective date. | Cosponsor | Jan 29, 2025 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Second reading, failed, lacks constitutional majority yeas 43 nays 42 Feb 13, 2025 |
| SB 2391 | A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 24-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to designating Stutsman county road 62 as part of the state highway system. | Sponsor | Jan 27, 2025 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 3 nays 43 Feb 11, 2025 |
| SB 2381 | A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 39-06-49, subsection 1 of section 39-06.2-07, subsection 2 of section 39-06.2-08, subdivision c of subsection 3 of section 39-06.2-09, sections 39-06.2-09.1, 39-06.2-13.1, and 39-06.2-19, and subsection 3 of section 39-16-03 of the North Dakota Century | Cosponsor | Jan 27, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 24 nays 68 Mar 17, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Wanzek’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Wanzek’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 Wanzek posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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
- Xtmwanzek1
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/wanzekforNDsenate
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/tmwanzek
- Instagramterrym.wanzek
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/terry-wanzek-5a636196/
Images Wanzek posted
No images from Wanzek’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
264 turns, Jan 8, 2021 to May 2, 2025
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 Wanzek is most unusual among State Senate 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
- b40f2559-d9ae-41c2-b539-bd9c673cd90d
- Open States
- ocd-person/b40f2559-d9ae-41c2-b539-bd9c673cd90d
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