Attendance 93.5%; the average within the Idaho House is 96.8%. Ranks 56th of 64, where 1st has the highest attendance. 916 roll calls in the ID 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Skaug could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Idaho House. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
5 measures against State House Republicans. 87% of Skaug’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Idaho, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans. Skaug reported $14.5K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom half of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Skaug 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.
Attendance
Idaho House average 96.8% · ranks 56th of 64 · 916 roll calls
From Idaho, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1783rd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 1754th of 2,521
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 52% of State House Republicans · ± 0.02
Party unity
Idaho House average 84% · ranks 31st of 64 · 149 votes against the majority of Idaho House Republicans
Statements
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Skaug, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Skaug is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Skaug says
No statements for the ID 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the ID 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Skaug sits at +0.34 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 52% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.32 to +0.37, which understates the uncertainty; from 100 donors and 856 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.32 to +0.37. From 100 donors and 856 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Skaug, 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 Skaug’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 Skaug sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Skaug |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 48% |
| Idaho House | 70 | +0.1 | 69% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 71% |
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 Skaug 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 Skaug.
Money
Skaug reported $14.5K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 87% of itemized individual money came from Idaho.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 34 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)57 squares$8,223
- PACs and other committees43 squares$6,250
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $8,223 | 56.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $6,250 | 43.2% |
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 House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $13.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $13.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $19.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $14.5K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 87% came from Idaho.
- Idaho$7,123
- Pennsylvania$1,000
- California$100
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Idaho | $7,123 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,000 |
| California | $100 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | 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 |
| Tennessee | 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Idaho
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Idaho. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- IDAHO CHOOSES LIFE$1,000
- IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- IDAHO TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION PAC$1,000
- ADAMS, BENJAMIN$900
- IDAHO AGC STATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Skaug voted with the majority of Idaho House Republicans on 90.0% of party-line votes and missed 6.4% of 916 roll calls. Idaho House on average: 84% party unity, 96.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Skaug voted against the majority of Idaho House Republicans 149 times.
916 roll calls Skaug could vote on in the ID 2025–26 session, compared with Idaho 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 Skaug voted with the majority of Idaho House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Idaho House Republicans
Party unity 90.0%, Idaho House average 84%, ranks 31st of 64. 916 roll calls in the ID 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Skaug, the thin grey bar the Idaho House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Skaug | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 93.5% | 96.8% |
| Party unity | 90.0% | 84% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the ID 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 516 EDUCATION – Amends and adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding the prohibition of taxpayer funding of teachers unions. passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–9 · R 38–15Democrats 0 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 38 yea, 15 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 978 APPROPRIATIONS – HEALTH AND WELFARE – PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES – Relates to the appropriation to the Department of Health and Welfare for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended: Ayes 58 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 12, read in full as required – | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 6–3 · R 27–22Democrats 6 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 22 nay | became law · close vote · party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 975 APPROPRIATIONS – Relates to the appropriation and transfer of moneys in the state treasury for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended: Ayes 59 Nays 6 Abs/Excd 5, read in full as required – | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 1–8 · R 39–13Democrats 1 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 39 yea, 13 nay | party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 974 APPROPRIATIONS – IDAHO STATE POLICE – Relates to the appropriation to the Idaho State Police for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended: Ayes 58 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 12, read in full as required – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 48–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 48 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | S 1438 APPROPRIATIONS – PUBLIC SCHOOLS – IDAHO DIGITAL LEARNING ACADEMY DIVISION – Relates to the appropriation to the Public Schools Educational Support Program’s Division of the Idaho Digital Learning Academy for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended: Ayes 59 Nays 6 Abs/Excd 5, read in full as required – | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 0–9 · R 33–19Democrats 0 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 33 yea, 19 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 Skaug most often
- Chris BruceR844 shared votes89%
- Tanya BurgoyneR854 shared votes89%
- Jordan RedmanR829 shared votes88%
- Jeff EhlersR848 shared votes88%
- Joe AlfieriR850 shared votes87%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Skaug least often
- Steve BerchD813 shared votes57%
- Brooke GreenD688 shared votes59%
- Chris MathiasD798 shared votes59%
- Ilana RubelD791 shared votes59%
- Todd AchillesD425 shared votes60%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
ID 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
No bills for the ID 2025–26 session.No sponsored or cosponsored bills are recorded for this official in this time window.
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Skaug’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Skaug’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 Skaug posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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
Images Skaug posted
No images from Skaug’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 Skaug 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
- e8eea4c8-b669-4609-b991-13ef3a6ff10b
- Open States
- ocd-person/e8eea4c8-b669-4609-b991-13ef3a6ff10b
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