Skip to content

Democrat · Alabama Senate, district 26

Serving since Mar 3, 2021AL 2025–26 session

Portrait of Kirk Hatcher, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
79%
of State Senate Democrats score to the left of Hatcher on the CSIP scale

CSIP score −0.44 (approximate range −0.49 to −0.39, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 0 donors and 539 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 Hatcher sits among State Senate Democrats, not how far from the centre.

At a glance

2 measures against State Senate Democrats. 56% of the 18 bills Hatcher sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom half of the Alabama Senate.

The measures on which Hatcher sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

CSIP ideology

−0.44

More conservative than 79% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.05

Out of committee

56%

Alabama Senate average 61% · ranks 24th of 35

Statements

No statements in this window

Bills sponsored

18

and 0 cosponsored

In office since

2021

Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hatcher, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hatcher is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Hatcher says

No statements for the AL 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

No policy statements for the AL 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Hatcher sits at −0.44 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 79% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.49 to −0.39, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 539 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”.

−0.44

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.49 to −0.39. From 0 donors and 539 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Hatcher −0.4State Senate Democrats −0.7Alabama Senate +0.3All State Senate +0.1

The outlined dot is Hatcher, 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 Hatcher’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 Hatcher sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →State Senate Democratsmedian −0.7Hatcher −0.4Alabama Senatemedian +0.3All State Senatemedian +0.1
Show the data
Hatcher's CSIP score of −0.44 placed against State Senate Democrats, Alabama Senate, All State Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Hatcher
State Senate Democrats825−0.779%
Alabama Senate35+0.36%
All State Senate1909+0.134%
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 Hatcher 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 Hatcher.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

No roll-call votes for the AL 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Hatcher sponsored 18 bills in the AL 2025–26 session; 9 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 56% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Alabama Senate average 61%; 24th of 35).

The bills Hatcher sponsored and cosponsored in the AL 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 AL 2025–26 session

Sponsored18 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1818Sponsored, In committee: 1818Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 1010Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 99Sponsored, Became law: 99Cosponsored0 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 00Cosponsored, In committee: 00Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Hatcher sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored18181099
Cosponsored00000
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Hatcher sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hatcher cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

56%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Alabama Senate average 61%. Ranks 24th of 35.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hatcher, by number of shared bills in the AL 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 Hatcher’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
SB 377Firearms; possession without identification prohibited in certain municipalitiesSponsorMar 31, 2026In committeeCrime and Law Enforcement(model)Read for the first time and referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary Mar 31, 2026
SB 310City of Montgomery; municipal occupational tax, city council authorized to imposeSponsorFeb 17, 2026In committeeTaxation(model)Reported Out of Committee House of Origin Feb 19, 2026
SB 287Alcoholic beverage importers; to recognize that an importer licensee may import alcoholic beverages from any jurisdiction outside of the State of AlabamaSponsorFeb 10, 2026Became lawCommerce(model)Enacted Apr 15, 2026
SB 251Tax abatement and tax incentive programs, North American Industry Classification System Code references and definitions updated to latest termsSponsorFeb 3, 2026Passed one chamberTaxation(model)Read for the Second Time and placed on the Calendar (Economic Development and Tourism) Mar 5, 2026
SB 252Governor's Mansion Authority employees further provided forSponsorFeb 3, 2026Became lawGovernment Operations and Politics(model)Enacted Mar 12, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that has not changed in 90 days. Hatcher’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.

The lab crawls Hatcher’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 Hatcher posts with a vision model.

Websites

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.

Images Hatcher posted

No images from Hatcher’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.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

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 Hatcher is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
e0a28b79-3df1-491b-af90-4c0414ba72c8
Open States
ocd-person/e0a28b79-3df1-491b-af90-4c0414ba72c8

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

Back to top