Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Commerce; Energy; Taxation; Water Resources Development · Source
80%
of State Senate Republicans score to the left of Stevens on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +0.57 (approximate range +0.50 to +0.63, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 78 donors and 1,410 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Stevens sits among State Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. The policy areas Stevens talks about and legislates on agree at 0.45 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans. Stevens reported $157.7K in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K).
The measures on which Stevens 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.
Attendance
99.9%
Tennessee Senate average 99.6% · ranks 7th of 33 · 9,050 roll calls
CSIP ideology
+0.57
More conservative than 80% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.07
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.45
State Senate Republicans average 0.52 · ranks 178th of 226
Itemized, 2026
$157.7K
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 199th of 936
Out of committee
80%
Tennessee Senate average 70% · ranks 9th of 33
From Tennessee, 2026
87%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 629th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Stevens, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Stevens is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Stevens says
Stevens stresses bipartisanship less than 87% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 173 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 311th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Stevens’s 173 statements in the TN 2025–26 session (173 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the TN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Stevens
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion26 statements
15%
37%
310th of 354
Policy criticism11 statements
6%
9%
182nd of 354
Credit claiming6 statements
3%
15%
291st of 354
Personal attacks2 statements
1%
2%
138th of 354
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
311th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Stevens | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 15% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 6% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 3% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
173
statements classified
173 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 173 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Stevens; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Stevens does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Stevens used extreme labels in 3.5% of statements, 2.7 times the peer average. 6 statements, most often aimed at the left; peers 1.3%.
- “extreme”1
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- the left2
- environmental left1
- left wing1
- Sanders1
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 TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 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) |
| Feb ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 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) |
| Apr ’25 | 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) |
| May ’25 | 10 | 10.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 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) |
| Jul ’25 | 7 | — (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 ’25 | 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) |
| Sep ’25 | 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) |
| Oct ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.2% |
| Nov ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 5.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.6% |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’26 | 7 | — (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 | 7 | — (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 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 TN 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%. 17 months are hatched here.
In Stevens’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.
Jul 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Commerce; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “extreme, radical” · 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.
All 173 statements
Newest first, the TN 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: 173 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Stevens talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 3.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.45 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 178th of 226).
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 Stevens talks about. The bills Stevens sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Stevens talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TN 2025–26 session
0%35%
Stevens
Peers
Health7 statements
27%
9%
Government Operations and Politics5 statements
19%
17%
Economics and Public Finance4 statements
15%
12%
Commerce3 statements
12%
4%
Education3 statements
12%
14%
Show the data
| Row | Stevens | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 27% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 17% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 12% |
| Commerce | 12% | 4% |
| Education | 12% | 14% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Stevens’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 27% | 9% | 5% | 11% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 17% | 22% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 12% | 1% | 3% |
| Commerce | 12% | 4% | 8% | 3% |
| Education | 12% | 14% | 5% | 10% |
0.45
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 178th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Stevens legislates on exactly the areas Stevens 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 Stevens sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Stevens sits at +0.57 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 80% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.50 to +0.63, which understates the uncertainty; from 78 donors and 1,410 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”.
+0.57
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.50 to +0.63. From 78 donors and 1,410 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Stevens, 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 Stevens’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 Stevens sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Tennessee Senate33 · median +0.3
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Stevens |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 80% |
| Tennessee Senate | 33 | +0.3 | 97% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 88% |
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 Stevens 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 Stevens.
Money
Stevens reported $157.7K in the 2026 cycle, 3.4 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 87% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.
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.
$157.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 6 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)5 squares$7,550
- PACs and other committees95 squares$150.1K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $7,550 | 4.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $150.1K | 95.2% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $117.3K |
| 2022 cycle | $91.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $268.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $157.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 87% came from Tennessee.
- Tennessee$6,550
- Illinois$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 |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $6,550 |
| Illinois | $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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
6
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
87%
from Tennessee
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 Tennessee. 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.
- BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF TN PAC$15.0K
- GLOBAL MEDICAL RESPONSE INC.$5,000
- INSURORS OF TN PAC$5,000
- TENNESSEE BANKERS ASSN PAC$4,000
- UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.$4,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Stevens voted with the majority of Tennessee Senate Republicans on 98.9% of party-line votes and missed none of 9,050 roll calls. Tennessee Senate on average: 95.3% party unity, 99.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Stevens voted against the majority of Tennessee Senate Republicans 43 times.
9,050 roll calls Stevens could vote on in the TN 2025–26 session, compared with Tennessee 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 Stevens voted with the majority of Tennessee Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
43
votes against the majority of Tennessee Senate Republicans
Party unity 98.9%, Tennessee Senate average 95.3%, ranks 11th of 33. 9,050 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Stevens, the thin grey bar the Tennessee Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Stevens
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.9%
99.6%
7th of 33
Party unity
98.9%
95.3%
11th of 33
Show the data
| Row | Stevens | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.9% | 99.6% |
| Party unity | 98.9% | 95.3% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the TN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2026 | HJR 8 Memorials, Death - U.S. Senator James Ralph Sasser - FLOOR VOTE: REFER TO COMMITTEE 5/6/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–18 · R 66–1Democrats 0 yea, 18 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HJR 1530 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Jordyn Brown, Salutatorian, Gordonsville High School - FLOOR VOTE: Motion to Adopt 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 6–0 · R 27–0Democrats 6 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1267 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Liya Rakeshbhai Patel, Valedictorian, Cumberland County High School - FLOOR VOTE: Motion to Adopt 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 27–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HB 2585 Damages - As introduced, states that the amount of damages awarded as noneconomic damages must not exceed $1 million in a health care liability action arising from obstetric or maternity negligence resulting in the death or permanent injury of a pregnant or postpartum woman. - Amends TCA Section 29- FLOOR VOTE: Third Consideration 4/23/2026 Failed | Nay | With majority | fail | D 6–0 · R 6–19Democrats 6 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 6 yea, 19 nay | party crossover |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HB 2111 Correctional Programs - As enacted, creates the state families of incarcerated individuals advisory board within the department of correction for the purposes of assisting the families of incarcerated individuals. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 41. FLOOR VOTE: MESSAGE CALENDAR 2 CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT # 4 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 19–0 · R 75–0Democrats 19 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 0 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 Stevens most often
- Bo WatsonR4,154 shared votes100%
- Jack JohnsonR4,462 shared votes99%
- Paul BaileyR4,196 shared votes99%
- Bill PowersR4,464 shared votes99%
- Dawn WhiteR4,454 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Stevens least often
- Heidi CampbellD4,187 shared votes92%
- Jeff YarbroD3,914 shared votes93%
- Sara KyleD4,022 shared votes93%
- Charlane OliverD4,045 shared votes93%
- London LamarD3,702 shared votes93%
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
TN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Stevens sponsored 96 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 42 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 80% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee Senate average 70%; 9th of 33).
The bills Stevens sponsored and cosponsored in the TN 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 TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 96 | 92 | 57 | 45 | 42 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Stevens sponsored, ochre blocks bills Stevens cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
80%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Tennessee Senate average 70%. Ranks 9th of 33.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Stevens, by number of shared bills in the TN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Stevens’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 2733 | Gleason - Subject to local approval, for the term beginning December 2028, increases the mayor's compensation from $200 to $400 per month and compensation for each alderman from $100 to $200 per month. - Amends Chapter 33 of the Private Acts of 1985; as amended. | Sponsor | Apr 16, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Comp. became Pr. Ch. 74 May 27, 2026 |
| SB 2731 | Benton County - Subject to local approval, updates the system for the management of county finances, including, but not limited to, budgeting, investment oversight, debt management, and cash management oversight. - Amends Chapter 541 of the Private Acts of 1939; as amended and rewritten. | Sponsor | Apr 15, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Comp. became Pr. Ch. 73 May 27, 2026 |
| SJR 1049 | Memorials, Recognition - Henry County High School Madrigals - | Sponsor | Apr 1, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Apr 22, 2026 |
| SJR 987 | Memorials, Recognition - Robert Taswell "Tas" Gardner, 2025-2026 TDPDC President - | Sponsor | Mar 24, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Apr 16, 2026 |
| SJR 937 | Memorials, Professional Achievement - Tabitha Bates, 2026 Extraordinary Educator - | Sponsor | Mar 12, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Apr 8, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Stevens’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Stevens’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 Stevens posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=S24&ga=114Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
- 1
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 Stevens posted
No images from Stevens’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 Stevens 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
- cb6c477c-ceb7-41af-ab96-b03debc1b7e3
- Open States
- ocd-person/cb6c477c-ceb7-41af-ab96-b03debc1b7e3
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