Serving since 2013. No measure in the ID 2025–26 session stands far from the peer average.
Time in the current office, from the official record.
At a glance
5 measures against State Senate Democrats. Ward-Engelking reported $18.9K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom half of State Senate Democrats (median $55.5K). Ward-Engelking missed 2.7% of 773 roll calls, attendance in the bottom half of the Idaho Senate (average 97.3%). 90% of Ward-Engelking’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Idaho, in the bottom half of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Ward-Engelking sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 541st of 746
Attendance
Idaho Senate average 97.3% · ranks 23rd of 35 · 773 roll calls
From Idaho, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 446th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Party unity
Idaho Senate average 87% · ranks 14th of 35 · 16 votes against the majority of Idaho Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 54% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.05
Statements
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Ward-Engelking, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Ward-Engelking is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Ward-Engelking says
No statements for the ID 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the ID 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Ward-Engelking sits at −0.63 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 54% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.68 to −0.58, which understates the uncertainty; from 346 donors and 1,101 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 −0.68 to −0.58. From 346 donors and 1,101 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Ward-Engelking, 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 Ward-Engelking’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 Ward-Engelking sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Ward-Engelking |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 54% |
| Idaho Senate | 35 | +0.1 | 11% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 23% |
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 Ward-Engelking 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 Ward-Engelking.
Money
Ward-Engelking reported $18.9K in the 2026 cycle, 34% of the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 90% of itemized individual money came from Idaho.
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 33 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)62 squares$11.7K
- PACs and other committees34 squares$6,450
- Party committees4 squares$750
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $11.7K | 61.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $6,450 | 34.2% |
| Party committees | $750 | 4.0% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $33.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $42.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $50.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $18.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 90% came from Idaho.
- Idaho$10.5K
- Colorado$1,100
- District of Columbia$100
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 |
|---|---|
| Idaho | $10.5K |
| Colorado | $1,100 |
| District of Columbia | $100 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | 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 |
| 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 Idaho
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 Idaho. 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.
- UNITED HERITAGE PAC$2,000
- IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION PAC$1,000
- PFFI PAC$1,000
- DISTRICT 18 DEMOCRATIC PARTY$750
- IDAHO DENTAL PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Ward-Engelking voted with the majority of Idaho Senate Democrats on 90.6% of party-line votes and missed 2.7% of 773 roll calls. Idaho Senate on average: 87% party unity, 97.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Ward-Engelking voted against the majority of Idaho Senate Democrats 16 times.
773 roll calls Ward-Engelking could vote on in the ID 2025–26 session, compared with Idaho 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 Ward-Engelking voted with the majority of Idaho Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Idaho Senate Democrats
Party unity 90.6%, Idaho Senate average 87%, ranks 14th of 35. 773 roll calls in the ID 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Ward-Engelking, the thin grey bar the Idaho Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Ward-Engelking | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.2% | 97.3% |
| Party unity | 90.6% | 87% |
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 ID 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 974 APPROPRIATIONS – IDAHO STATE POLICE – Relates to the appropriation to the Idaho State Police for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–0 · R 29–0Democrats 4 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 29 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 972 APPROPRIATIONS – HEALTH AND WELFARE – DIVISION OF WELFARE – Relates to the appropriation to the Department of Health and Welfare for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–0 · R 21–8Democrats 4 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 21 yea, 8 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 973 APPROPRIATIONS – MILITARY DIVISION – Relates to the appropriation to the Military Division for fiscal year 2026. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 24–2Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 2 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 959 TAXATION – Amends and adds to existing law to provide for an initiative petition to raise or lower the property tax budgets for fire protection districts and ambulance service districts and to revise provisions regarding certain property tax budget limits. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–0 · R 29–0Democrats 4 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 29 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 896 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding compliance with the law. Read third time in full – | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–6 · R 8–21Democrats 0 yea, 6 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 21 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 Ward-Engelking most often
- James RuchtiD684 shared votes97%
- Ali RabeD420 shared votes96%
- Carrie SemmelrothD693 shared votes96%
- Ron TaylorD734 shared votes96%
- Melissa WintrowD744 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Ward-Engelking least often
- Glenneda ZuiderveldR750 shared votes56%
- Christy ZitoR751 shared votes57%
- Josh KohlR749 shared votes58%
- Tammy NicholsR749 shared votes65%
- Brian LenneyR653 shared votes65%
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
ID 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
No bills for the ID 2025–26 session.No sponsored or cosponsored bills are recorded for this official in this time window.
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Ward-Engelking’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Ward-Engelking’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 Ward-Engelking posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 5
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 Ward-Engelking posted
No images from Ward-Engelking’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Ward-Engelking is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. That is the case for Ward-Engelking in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- c3b6822b-8900-408d-8745-7066b79e1e52
- Open States
- ocd-person/c3b6822b-8900-408d-8745-7066b79e1e52
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