Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 13, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Water Resources Development · Source
7.7%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan)
Attendance 92.3%; the average within the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) is 95.5%. Ranks 43rd of 49, where 1st has the highest attendance. 1,770 roll calls in the NE 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Hansen could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
4 measures against the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). Hansen reported $4,600 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of Nonpartisan state legislators (median $10.9K). 100% of Hansen’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Nebraska, in the top half of Nonpartisan state legislators.
The measures on which Hansen sits furthest from the middle of the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan), each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
92.3%
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 95.5% · ranks 43rd of 49 · 1,770 roll calls
Itemized, 2026
$4,600
Nonpartisan state legislators’ median $10.9K · ranks 38th of 46
From Nebraska, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 13th of 40 Nonpartisan state legislators
Out of committee
35%
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 37% · ranks 25th of 47
CSIP ideology
+0.25
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Statements
5
5 posts on X
Peer group: Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hansen, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hansen is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hansen says
Hansen attacks opponents personally less than 57% of Nonpartisan state legislators. Personal attacks in 0% of 5 statements, against 1.1% for the average Nonpartisan state legislator; 5th of 7.
An AI model reads each of Hansen’s 5 statements in the NE 2025–26 session (5 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 Nonpartisan state legislators and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the NE 2025–26 session
0%80%
Hansen
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion3 statements
60%
41%
2nd of 7
Policy criticism2 statements
40%
16%
1st of 7
Bipartisanship1 statements
20%
3%
1st of 7
Credit claiming1 statements
20%
17%
3rd of 7
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
1%
5th of 7
Show the data
| Row | Hansen | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 60% | 41% |
| Policy criticism | 40% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 20% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 20% | 17% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 1% |
5
statements classified
5 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 5 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hansen; the thin grey bar is the average Nonpartisan state legislators. A longer thick bar means Hansen does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hansen used no extreme labels in 5 statements. The peer average is 0.4%.
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 NE 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 NE 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; 19 of them have no statements.
In Hansen’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 22, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 7, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Health · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 5 statements
Newest first, the NE 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: 5 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Hansen talks about most: 67% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Peers give it 36%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 Hansen talks about. The bills Hansen sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hansen talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NE 2025–26 session
0%73%
Hansen
Peers
Health2 statements
67%
36%
Water Resources Development1 statements
33%
0%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
2%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues0 statements
0%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Hansen | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 67% | 36% |
| Water Resources Development | 33% | 0% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 13% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hansen’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Nonpartisan state legislators. 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 73%. Grey ticks are the Nonpartisan state legislators averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Nonpartisan state legislators, talks about | Legislates on | Nonpartisan state legislators, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 67% | 36% | 37% | 14% |
| Water Resources Development | 33% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 2% | 3% | 6% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 5% | 1% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 13% | 3% | 2% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Hansen legislates on exactly the areas Hansen 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 Hansen sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hansen sits at +0.25 on the CSIP scale, right of 0. Approximate range +0.21 to +0.28, which understates the uncertainty; from 7 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”.
+0.25
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.21 to +0.28. From 7 donors and 878 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hansen, 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 Hansen’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 Hansen sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Nonpartisan state legislators49 · median +0.2
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan)49 · median +0.2
All Unicameral legislature62 · median 0.0
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hansen |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonpartisan state legislators | 49 | +0.2 | 65% |
| Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) | 49 | +0.2 | 65% |
| All Unicameral legislature | 62 | 0.0 | 73% |
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 Hansen 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 Hansen.
Money
Hansen reported $4,600 in the 2026 cycle, below the Nonpartisan state legislators’ median of $10.9K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Nebraska.
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.
$4,600
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 1 itemized donors. Nonpartisan state legislators’ median $10.9K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)22 squares$1,000
- PACs and other committees78 squares$3,600
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $1,000 | 21.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,600 | 78.3% |
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 Nonpartisan state legislators’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $3,244 |
| 2022 cycle | $73.8K |
| 2024 cycle | $25.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $4,600 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Nebraska.
- Nebraska$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 |
|---|---|
| Nebraska | $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 |
| Colorado | 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 |
1
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Nebraska
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 Nebraska. 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.
- CARE PAC$1,500
- NEBRASKA INSURANCE FEDERATION PAC$1,000
- NEBRASKA BANKERS STATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$300
- NEBRASKA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC NHAPAC$300
- NEBRASKA ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS PAC$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Hansen missed 7.7% of 1,770 roll calls. Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average attendance 95.5%.
1,770 roll calls Hansen could vote on in the NE 2025–26 session, compared with Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). 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 Hansen voted with the majority of Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1,770
roll calls
No party, so no party-line measures. Attendance 92.3%, ranks 43rd of 49.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Hansen, the thin grey bar the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Hansen
Peers
Rank
Attendance
92.3%
95.5%
43rd of 49
Party unity
—
—
Show the data
| Row | Hansen | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 92.3% | 95.5% |
| Party unity | — | — |
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 NE 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2026 | LB 929 Provide for managed care organizations to pay the deductible, cost sharing, or similar charges on behalf of medicaid enrollees Fredrickson MO586 failed | Present | — | fail | O 22–26Others 22 yea, 26 nay | close vote |
| Apr 17, 2026 | Present | — | fail | O 23–22Others 23 yea, 22 nay | close vote | |
| Apr 10, 2026 | Yea | — | pass | O 49–0Others 49 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Apr 10, 2026 | Yea | — | pass | O 48–1Others 48 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Apr 10, 2026 | LB 955 Provide for practice agreements between pharmacists and physician assistants Passed on Final Reading 47-2*-0 | Yea | — | pass | O 47–2Others 47 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 Hansen most often
- Teresa IbachO1,215 shared votes97%
- Brian HardinO1,153 shared votes97%
- Rick HoldcroftO1,280 shared votes97%
- Kathleen KauthO1,254 shared votes97%
- Carolyn BosnO1,169 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hansen least often
- Terrell McKinneyO967 shared votes64%
- Megan HuntO865 shared votes64%
- Danielle ConradO1,023 shared votes67%
- Machaela CavanaughO884 shared votes67%
- George DunganO923 shared votes72%
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
NE 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Hansen sponsored 40 bills in the NE 2025–26 session; 7 became law. Cosponsored 3 others. 35% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 37%; 25th of 47).
The bills Hansen sponsored and cosponsored in the NE 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 NE 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 40 | 40 | 14 | 14 | 7 |
| Cosponsored | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Hansen sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hansen cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
35%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 37%. Ranks 25th of 47.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hansen, by number of shared bills in the NE 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Rick Holdcroft2
- Bob Hallstrom2
- Barry DeKay1
- Ashlei Spivey1
- Loren Lippincott1
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 Hansen’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| LB 1236A | Appropriation Bill | Sponsor | Mar 9, 2026 | Became law | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Approved by Governor on April 14, 2026 Apr 17, 2026 |
| LB 1237A | Appropriation Bill | Sponsor | Mar 6, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Presented to Governor on April 10, 2026 Apr 17, 2026 |
| LB 1257 | Eliminate certain sales tax exemptions, impose sales and use taxes on certain services, change school district levy limitations, eliminate the School District Property Tax Relief Act, change provisions of the School District Property Tax Limitation Act, and provide additional foundation aid under th | Sponsor | Jan 21, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Indefinitely postponed Apr 17, 2026 |
| LB 1258 | Rename the Livestock Brand Act as the Livestock Protection Act, eliminate the Nebraska Brand Committee, and change, provide, and eliminate provisions relating to livestock branding and livestock protection | Sponsor | Jan 21, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Indefinitely postponed Apr 17, 2026 |
| LB 1233 | Adopt the Developmental Disabilities Provider Excessive Training and Cost Reduction Act | Sponsor | Jan 21, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Indefinitely postponed Apr 17, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Hansen’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Hansen’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 Hansen posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/landing-pages/index.php?District=16Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 13
pages crawled
4changes 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 Hansen posted
No images from Hansen’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
2,194 turns, Aug 6, 2020 to Apr 17, 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 Hansen is most unusual among Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan), 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
- bfc9dd37-6a7b-4ea2-acf5-c8e161a27764
- Open States
- ocd-person/bfc9dd37-6a7b-4ea2-acf5-c8e161a27764
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