Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 12, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
90%
of State House Republicans score to the left of Cepicky on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +0.67 (approximate range +0.63 to +0.72, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 123 donors and 1,162 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 Cepicky sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 88% of the 77 bills Cepicky sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the Tennessee House. 0% of Cepicky’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans (average 2.9%).
The measures on which Cepicky sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
+0.67
More conservative than 90% of State House Republicans · ± 0.05
Out of committee
88%
Tennessee House average 71% · ranks 14th of 97
Personal attacks
0%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 642nd of 791
Policy criticism
1.4%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 625th of 791
Policy discussion
18%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 598th of 791
Itemized, 2026
$72.0K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 718th of 2,521
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Cepicky, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Cepicky is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Cepicky says
Cepicky attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 208 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Cepicky’s 208 statements in the TN 2025–26 session (208 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the TN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Cepicky
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion38 statements
18%
32%
598th of 791
Credit claiming26 statements
13%
13%
334th of 791
Policy criticism3 statements
1%
9%
625th of 791
Bipartisanship2 statements
1%
2%
411th of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Cepicky | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 18% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 13% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 1% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
208
statements classified
208 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 208 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Cepicky; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Cepicky does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Cepicky used extreme labels in 0.5% of statements, 33% of the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at radical left; peers 1.4%.
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- radical left1
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 | 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) |
| Feb ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 13.8% | 0.0% | 3.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 26.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 6.3% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 4 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 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) |
| Mar ’26 | 2 | — (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 ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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%. 13 months are hatched here.
In Cepicky’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.
Aug 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 24, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “radical” aimed at radical left · 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 208 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: 208 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Cepicky talks about most: 49% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.48 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 345th of 504).
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 Cepicky talks about. The bills Cepicky sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Cepicky talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TN 2025–26 session
0%72%
Cepicky
Peers
Education18 statements
49%
15%
International Affairs6 statements
16%
2%
Armed Forces and National Security4 statements
11%
5%
Crime and Law Enforcement3 statements
8%
11%
Health3 statements
8%
10%
Show the data
| Row | Cepicky | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 49% | 15% |
| International Affairs | 16% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 11% | 5% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 8% | 11% |
| Health | 8% | 10% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Cepicky’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House 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 72%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 49% | 15% | 66% | 9% |
| International Affairs | 16% | 2% | 0% | 1% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 11% | 5% | 3% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 8% | 11% | 3% | 11% |
| Health | 8% | 10% | 6% | 10% |
0.48
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 345th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Cepicky legislates on exactly the areas Cepicky 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 Cepicky sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Cepicky sits at +0.67 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 90% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.63 to +0.72, which understates the uncertainty; from 123 donors and 1,162 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”.
+0.67
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.63 to +0.72. From 123 donors and 1,162 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Cepicky, 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 Cepicky’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 Cepicky sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Tennessee House97 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Cepicky |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 90% |
| Tennessee House | 97 | +0.4 | 93% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 95% |
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 Cepicky 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 Cepicky.
Money
Cepicky reported $72.0K in the 2026 cycle, 2.1 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 98% 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.
$72.0K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 32 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)35 squares$25.2K
- PACs and other committees65 squares$46.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $25.2K | 34.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $46.9K | 65.1% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $82.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $70.8K |
| 2024 cycle | $103.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $72.0K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 98% came from Tennessee.
- Tennessee$24.7K
- Florida$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 |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $24.7K |
| Florida | $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 |
| 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 |
32
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
98%
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.
- RETIRED$10.5K 9 donors
- BUILDER$4,250 6 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- HOUSING INDUSTRY PAC$3,000
- TENNESSEANS FOR STUDENT SUCCESS ACTION$3,000
- TENNESSEE CHIROPRACTIC ASSN PAC$3,000
- FRIENDS OF THA$2,500
- TENNESSEE FIRST$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- OLE SOUTH PROPERTIES, INC.$3,750 5 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Cepicky voted with the majority of Tennessee House Republicans on 97.6% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 4,561 roll calls. Tennessee House on average: 96.3% party unity, 99.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cepicky voted against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans 47 times.
4,561 roll calls Cepicky could vote on in the TN 2025–26 session, compared with Tennessee 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 Cepicky voted with the majority of Tennessee House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
47
votes against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans
Party unity 97.6%, Tennessee House average 96.3%, ranks 62nd of 97. 4,561 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Cepicky, the thin grey bar the Tennessee House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Cepicky
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.8%
99.1%
44th of 97
Party unity
97.6%
96.3%
62nd of 97
Show the data
| Row | Cepicky | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.8% | 99.1% |
| Party unity | 97.6% | 96.3% |
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 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1209 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Max Christopher Collins, Salutatorian, Creek Wood High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 70–0Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 70 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1240 Memorials, Interns - Aaron Sullivan - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 3 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–0 · R 71–0Democrats 18 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 71 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1208 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Christopher Heath Foster, Valedictorian, Creek Wood High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 70–0Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 70 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 Cepicky most often
- Kip CapleyR4,160 shared votes99%
- Johnny GarrettR3,554 shared votes99%
- Kirk HastonR3,676 shared votes99%
- Tom LeatherwoodR4,417 shared votes99%
- Ron GantR4,163 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cepicky least often
- Justin PearsonD2,400 shared votes72%
- Gabby SalinasD3,700 shared votes79%
- Shaundelle BrooksD4,321 shared votes82%
- Justin JonesD3,854 shared votes82%
- Jack JohnsonR4,226 shared votes82%
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
Cepicky sponsored 77 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 18 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 88% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee House average 71%; 14th of 97).
The bills Cepicky 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 | 77 | 69 | 54 | 18 | 18 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Cepicky sponsored, ochre blocks bills Cepicky cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
88%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Tennessee House average 71%. Ranks 14th of 97.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Cepicky, 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 Cepicky’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HJR 1408 | Memorials, Retirement - Judge Bobby Sands - | Sponsor | Apr 14, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Apr 30, 2026 |
| HJR 1351 | Memorials, Recognition - Mariela Dominguez, Boys & Girls Club of South Central Tennessee Youth of the Year - | Sponsor | Apr 9, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Apr 30, 2026 |
| HR 184 | Memorials, Death - Edward Allen Hickman - | Sponsor | Apr 6, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Sponsor(s) Added. Apr 7, 2026 |
| HJR 979 | Memorials, Retirement - Lieutenant Colonel Brian E. Celatka - | Sponsor | Feb 18, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Mar 11, 2026 |
| HB 2277 | Education - As enacted, makes various revisions to education law, including, but not limited to, requiring each public school to annually submit to the department of education a list of all local assessments administered to students, requiring the department to publish the percentage of students who | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Comp. became Pub. Ch. 1132 May 27, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Cepicky’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Cepicky’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 Cepicky posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=H64Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 17
pages crawled
6changes 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 Cepicky posted
No images from Cepicky’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 Cepicky is most unusual among State House 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
- da306a9e-f227-4cf4-bfd8-c7d6cb4c7eac
- Open States
- ocd-person/da306a9e-f227-4cf4-bfd8-c7d6cb4c7eac
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