Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Families · Source
0.66
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top quarter of State House Democrats
Agreement 0.66 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State House Democrats is 0.54. Ranks 67th of 503, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Boyd’s statements matches the mix in the bills Boyd sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State House Democrats.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Boyd reported $31.3K in the 2024 cycle, in the top quarter of State House Democrats (median $5,075). 0% of Boyd’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats (average 2.5%).
The measures on which Boyd sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.66
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 67th of 503
Itemized, 2024
$31.3K
State House Democrats’ median $5,075 · ranks 25th of 163
Personal attacks
0%
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 584th of 764
Policy criticism
2.4%
State House Democrats average 10% · ranks 579th of 764
Extreme labels
0%
State House Democrats average 1.0% · ranks 543rd of 764
CSIP ideology
−0.57
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Boyd, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Boyd is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Boyd says
Boyd attacks opponents personally less than 76% of State House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 369 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 584th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Boyd’s 369 statements in the LA 2025–26 session (369 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the LA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Boyd
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion115 statements
31%
39%
512th of 764
Credit claiming75 statements
20%
14%
230th of 764
Policy criticism9 statements
2%
10%
579th of 764
Bipartisanship3 statements
1%
3%
541st of 764
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Boyd | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 31% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 20% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
369
statements classified
369 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 369 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Boyd; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Boyd does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Boyd used no extreme labels in 369 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
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 LA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.5% | 0.0% | 7.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 5.9% | 41.2% | 0.0% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 11.8% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 34.6% | 3.9% | 26.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 26.7% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 30.0% | 5.0% | 35.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 69.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 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) |
| Nov ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 6.9% | 3.5% | 3.5% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 19.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 36.8% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 30.8% | 0.0% | 61.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 6.7% | 46.7% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 40 | 0.0% | 2.5% | 42.5% | 0.0% | 17.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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 LA 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%. 4 months are hatched here.
In Boyd’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 9, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship; credit claiming · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 30, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · 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 369 statements
Newest first, the LA 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: 369 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Boyd talks about most: 25% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 67th of 503).
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 Boyd talks about. The bills Boyd sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Boyd talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the LA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Boyd
Peers
Government Operations and Politics28 statements
25%
15%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues22 statements
19%
10%
Education17 statements
15%
15%
Families17 statements
15%
5%
Health16 statements
14%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Boyd | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 25% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 10% |
| Education | 15% | 15% |
| Families | 15% | 5% |
| Health | 14% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Boyd’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 25% | 15% | 4% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 10% | 14% | 4% |
| Education | 15% | 15% | 11% | 10% |
| Families | 15% | 5% | 7% | 3% |
| Health | 14% | 15% | 14% | 15% |
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 67th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Boyd legislates on exactly the areas Boyd 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 Boyd sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Boyd sits at −0.57 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 58% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.61 to −0.53, which understates the uncertainty; from 104 donors and 729 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 −0.61 to −0.53. From 104 donors and 729 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Boyd, 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 Boyd’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 Boyd sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Louisiana House103 · median +0.2
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Boyd |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 58% |
| Louisiana House | 103 | +0.2 | 12% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 26% |
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 Boyd 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 Boyd.
Money
Boyd reported $31.3K in the 2024 cycle, 6.2 times the State House Democrats’ median of $5,075. State filings report no small-donation total. 86% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.
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.
$31.3K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 21 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $5,075.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)59 squares$18.4K
- PACs and other committees41 squares$12.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $18.4K | 58.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $12.9K | 41.2% |
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, 2022 to 2024. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $67.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $31.3K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 86% came from Louisiana.
- Louisiana$15.9K
- Maryland$2,500
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 |
|---|---|
| Louisiana | $15.9K |
| Maryland | $2,500 |
| 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 |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | 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 |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
21
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
86%
from Louisiana
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 Louisiana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
- NORPAC LLC$2,500
- CIGNA CORP EMPLOYEE PAC$1,250
- CRPPA LOCAL PAC$1,000
- DAVID HEITMEIER CAMPAIGN FUND$1,000
- HOSPPAC$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Boyd voted with the majority of Louisiana House Democrats on 93.0% of party-line votes and missed 4.5% of 2,668 roll calls. Louisiana House on average: 89% party unity, 90.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Boyd voted against the majority of Louisiana House Democrats 44 times.
2,668 roll calls Boyd could vote on in the LA 2025–26 session, compared with Louisiana House. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Boyd voted with the majority of Louisiana House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
44
votes against the majority of Louisiana House Democrats
Party unity 93.0%, Louisiana House average 89%, ranks 48th of 102. 2,668 roll calls in the LA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Boyd, the thin grey bar the Louisiana House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Boyd
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.5%
90.7%
34th of 102
Party unity
93.0%
89%
48th of 102
Show the data
| Row | Boyd | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.5% | 90.7% |
| Party unity | 93.0% | 89% |
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 LA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2026 | SB 237 CHILDREN: Provides relative to child welfare. (8/1/26) (EN NO IMPACT See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1848) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 28–2 · R 68–0Democrats 28 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 68 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 132 SCHOOLS: Provides that each public school board is to install exterior master key boxes to allow for rapid entry, response, and rescue by law enforcement and first responders during a school crisis. (8/1/26) (EN INCREASE GF EX See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1650) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 28–0 · R 65–0Democrats 28 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 228 LOCAL FINANCE: Constitutional amendment to allow for the use of public funds to replace drinking water utility service lines located on private property. (2/3 - CA13s1(A)) (EN SEE FISC NOTE LF EX) FINAL PASSAGE (#1647) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 52–13Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 202 ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT: Provides for the increase of parish board of election supervisor meetings in certain parishes for certain races. (8/1/26) (EN +$192,000 GF EX See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1634) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–0 · R 68–0Democrats 25 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 68 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 513 PUBLIC CONTRACTS: Provides for public works project delivery methods. (8/1/26) FINAL PASSAGE (#1644) | Nay | With majority | pass | D 5–20 · R 66–2Democrats 5 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 2 nay | became law · 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 Boyd most often
- Edmond JordanD2,256 shared votes98%
- Alonzo KnoxD2,384 shared votes98%
- Rodney LyonsD2,473 shared votes98%
- Vanessa LaFleurD2,476 shared votes98%
- Rashid YoungD1,705 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Boyd least often
- Danny McCormickR2,274 shared votes77%
- Beryl AmedéeR2,421 shared votes78%
- Rodney SchamerhornR2,467 shared votes79%
- Raymond CrewsR2,329 shared votes81%
- Phil TarverR1,830 shared votes81%
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
LA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Boyd sponsored 35 bills in the LA 2025–26 session; 13 became law. Cosponsored 127 others. 57% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Louisiana House average 48%; 32nd of 101).
The bills Boyd sponsored and cosponsored in the LA 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 LA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 35 | 29 | 20 | 16 | 13 |
| Cosponsored | 127 | 113 | 104 | 89 | 84 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Boyd sponsored, ochre blocks bills Boyd cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
57%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Louisiana House average 48%. Ranks 32nd of 101.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Boyd, by number of shared bills in the LA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Tehmi Chassion32
- Sylvia Taylor32
- Rodney Lyons31
- Candace Newell29
- Vanessa LaFleur28
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 Boyd’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 109 | COMMENDATIONS: Commends Special Olympics Louisiana for providing athletic programs for children and adults | Sponsor | May 13, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Taken by the Clerk of the House and presented to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Rules of the House. May 21, 2026 |
| HB 1253 | HUMAN REMAINS: Enacts the Gracey Claire Rushing Act to provide for documentation, notification, and communication in the handling and disposition of human remains and internal organs (EN NO IMPACT See Note) | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Signed by the Governor. Becomes Act No. 727. Jun 1, 2026 |
| HB 1247 | CRIME/SEX OFFENSES: Creates a statewide Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Coordinator | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Signed by the Governor. Becomes Act No. 724. Jun 3, 2026 |
| HCR 72 | HEALTH SERVICES: Memorialize the United States Congress to research treatment methods for Acute Myeloid Leukemia | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Health(model) | Taken by the Clerk of the House and presented to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Rules of the House. May 28, 2026 |
| HR 259 | CONDOLENCES: Expresses the condolences of the House of Representatives on the tragic loss of eight children in Shreveport, Louisiana | Cosponsor | May 11, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Taken by the Clerk of the House and presented to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Rules of the House. May 21, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Boyd’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Boyd’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 Boyd posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
- XDeeBoydBroker
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/Delisha4StateRep
- Instagramrep.delishaboyd
- Instagramdelishaboydrealty
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/delishaboydllc/
Images Boyd posted
No images from Boyd’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 Boyd is most unusual among State House 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. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- d107ae2b-6cb6-4545-a185-d63408f46033
- Open States
- ocd-person/d107ae2b-6cb6-4545-a185-d63408f46033
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