Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 28, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
64%
of itemized money from Texas donors, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats
64% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Texas. Ranks 1728th of 1,983, where 1st is the highest share. 50 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Texas, ranked among State House Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against the Texas House. Collier sits at −0.58 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 57% of State House Democrats. 49% of the 41 bills Collier sponsored got out of committee, in the top half of the Texas House.
The measures on which Collier sits furthest from the middle of the Texas House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
97.2%
Texas House average 85% · ranks 6th of 143 · 258 votes against the majority of Texas House Democrats
From Texas, 2026
64%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1728th of 1,983 State House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.58
More conservative than 57% of State House Democrats · ± 0.06
Attendance
95.4%
Texas House average 93.1% · ranks 65th of 143 · 3,700 roll calls
Out of committee
49%
Texas House average 49% · ranks 71st of 145
Itemized, 2026
$41.8K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1021st of 2,082
Peer group: Texas House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Collier, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Collier is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Collier says
Collier claims credit less than 75% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 4.4% of 45 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 576th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Collier’s 45 statements in the TX 2025–26 session (45 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 TX 2025–26 session
0%80%
Collier
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion13 statements
29%
39%
541st of 764
Policy criticism7 statements
16%
10%
192nd of 764
Bipartisanship2 statements
4%
3%
167th of 764
Credit claiming2 statements
4%
14%
576th of 764
Personal attacks1 statements
2%
3%
246th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Collier | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 29% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 16% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 4% | 14% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
45
statements classified
45 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 45 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Collier; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Collier does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Collier used extreme labels in 2.2% of statements, 2.3 times the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Trump; peers 1.0%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Trump1
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 TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 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 ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 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 ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 0 | — (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 ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 0 | — (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% | 14.3% | 14.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 7.1% |
| Sep ’25 | 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) |
| Oct ’25 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 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) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 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) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (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 TX 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%. 21 months are hatched here; 12 of them have no statements.
In Collier’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 28, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 13, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Trump · 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.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Bo FrenchSource
All 45 statements
Newest first, the TX 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: 45 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Collier talks about most: 31% of policy statements, 2.0 times the peer share. Peers give it 15%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 Collier talks about. The bills Collier sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Collier talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TX 2025–26 session
0%39%
Collier
Peers
Education4 statements
31%
15%
Agriculture and Food3 statements
23%
5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues2 statements
15%
10%
Government Operations and Politics2 statements
15%
15%
Armed Forces and National Security1 statements
8%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Collier | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 31% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 23% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 15% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Collier’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 39%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 31% | 15% | 1% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 23% | 5% | 0% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 10% | 1% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 15% | 1% | 8% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Collier legislates on exactly the areas Collier 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 Collier sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Collier sits at −0.58 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 57% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.64 to −0.52, which understates the uncertainty; from 104 donors and 885 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”.
−0.58
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.64 to −0.52. From 104 donors and 885 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Collier, 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 Collier’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 Collier sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Texas House148 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Collier |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 57% |
| Texas House | 148 | +0.3 | 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 Collier 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 Collier.
Money
Collier reported $41.8K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 64% of itemized individual money came from Texas.
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.
$41.8K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 50 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)20 squares$8,338
- PACs and other committees80 squares$33.5K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $8,338 | 19.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $33.5K | 80.1% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $111.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $126.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $120.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $41.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 64% came from Texas.
- Texas$5,321
- California$1,788
- Colorado$340
- Maryland$160
- New York$115
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 |
|---|---|
| Texas | $5,321 |
| California | $1,788 |
| Colorado | $340 |
| Maryland | $160 |
| New York | $115 |
| Michigan | $100 |
| Virginia | $100 |
| Florida | $100 |
| Ohio | $57 |
| Massachusetts | $55 |
| Utah | $50 |
| District of Columbia | $35 |
| Alaska | $25 |
| North Carolina | $25 |
| Nevada | $20 |
| Connecticut | $20 |
| Kansas | $12 |
| Indiana | $10 |
| Illinois | $5 |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
50
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
64%
from Texas
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 Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$400 6 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- JAMES TALARICO CAMPAIGN$7,761
- TEXAS TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION PAC$7,500
- TEXAS MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PAC$5,000
- TEXAS SANDS PAC$4,000
- TEXAS ORTHOPAEDIC PAC$3,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Collier voted with the majority of Texas House Democrats on 97.2% of party-line votes and missed 4.5% of 3,700 roll calls. Texas House on average: 85% party unity, 93.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Collier voted against the majority of Texas House Democrats 258 times.
3,700 roll calls Collier could vote on in the TX 2025–26 session, compared with Texas 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 Collier voted with the majority of Texas House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
258
votes against the majority of Texas House Democrats
Party unity 97.2%, Texas House average 85%, ranks 6th of 143. 3,700 roll calls in the TX 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Collier, the thin grey bar the Texas House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Collier
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.4%
93.1%
65th of 143
Party unity
97.2%
85%
6th of 143
Show the data
| Row | Collier | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.4% | 93.1% |
| Party unity | 97.2% | 85% |
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 TX 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2025 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 44–1 · R 46–37Democrats 44 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 37 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 45–0 · R 76–8Democrats 45 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 76 yea, 8 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 1–40 · R 78–7Democrats 1 yea, 40 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 7 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | SB 5 Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. adopt the conference committee report on SB 5. | Yea | With majority | pass | D 43–0 · R 86–0Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 86 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 45–1 · R 41–41Democrats 45 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 41 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed |
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 Collier most often
- Gene WuD3,411 shared votes94%
- Jon RosenthalD3,474 shared votes93%
- Mary GonzálezD3,373 shared votes93%
- Diego BernalD2,993 shared votes93%
- Toni RoseD3,234 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Collier least often
- Briscoe CainR3,290 shared votes46%
- Brian HarrisonR3,433 shared votes47%
- Mike OlcottR3,325 shared votes47%
- David LoweR3,429 shared votes48%
- Steve TothR3,405 shared votes49%
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
TX 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Collier sponsored 41 bills in the TX 2025–26 session; 6 became law. Cosponsored 25 others. 49% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Texas House average 49%; 71st of 145).
The bills Collier sponsored and cosponsored in the TX 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 TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 41 | 37 | 20 | 6 | 6 |
| Cosponsored | 25 | 25 | 13 | 7 | 6 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Collier sponsored, ochre blocks bills Collier cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
49%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Texas House average 49%. Ranks 71st of 145.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Collier, by number of shared bills in the TX 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Toni Rose11
- Lauren Simmons9
- Mihaela Pleșa8
- Suleman Lalani6
- Trey Martinez Fischer6
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 Collier’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 13 | Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide that the officials responsible for appraising property for ad valorem taxation in a county may exclude from consideration the value of new or substantially remodeled residential property when determining the market value of | Sponsor | Jul 14, 2025 | Introduced | Taxation(model) | Filed Jul 14, 2025 |
| HB 42 | Relating to a defense to prosecution for the possession of certain consumable hemp products containing a controlled substance or marihuana. | Sponsor | Jul 14, 2025 | Introduced | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Filed Jul 14, 2025 |
| HB 90 | Relating to the ad valorem tax appraisal of an older residence homestead located in or near a tax increment financing reinvestment zone. | Sponsor | Jul 14, 2025 | Introduced | Taxation(model) | Filed Jul 14, 2025 |
| HR 1280 | Honoring the Molson Coors Fort Worth Brewery on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Miller Lite. | Sponsor | May 16, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled May 23, 2025 |
| HR 1028 | Recognizing May 21, 2025, as Texas Capitol Staff Appreciation Day. | Cosponsor | Apr 30, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled May 24, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Collier’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Collier’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 Collier posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 25
pages crawled
21changes 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 Collier posted
No images from Collier’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 Collier is most unusual among Texas House, 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
- ea169f77-0bd8-4ca0-ac59-f894c9a09e71
- Open States
- ocd-person/ea169f77-0bd8-4ca0-ac59-f894c9a09e71
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