CSIP score −1.04 (approximate range −1.08 to −1.00, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 532 donors and 1,149 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 Hope sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 10% of the 20 bills Hope sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Michigan House. 68% of Hope’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Michigan, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Hope sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 92% of State House Democrats · ± 0.04
Out of committee
Michigan House average 32% · ranks 94th of 107
From Michigan, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1696th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1581st of 2,082
Party unity
Michigan House average 93.2% · ranks 57th of 110 · 49 votes against the majority of Michigan House Democrats
Attendance
Michigan House average 99.9% · ranks 55th of 110 · 653 roll calls
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hope, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hope is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hope says
No statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Hope sits at −1.04 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 92% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.08 to −1.00, which understates the uncertainty; from 532 donors and 1,149 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 −1.08 to −1.00. From 532 donors and 1,149 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hope, 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 Hope’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 Hope sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hope |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 8% |
| Michigan House | 110 | +0.4 | 11% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 4% |
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 Hope 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 Hope.
Money
Hope reported $11.1K in the 2026 cycle, 27% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 68% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
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 8 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)9 squares$1,010
- PACs and other committees91 squares$10.1K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $1,010 | 9.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $10.1K | 90.9% |
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 | $47.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $45.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $38.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $11.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 68% came from Michigan.
- Michigan$685
- Maryland$325
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 |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $685 |
| Maryland | $325 |
| 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 |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| 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 Michigan
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 Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$250 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$3,000
- MICHIGAN BEER AND WINE WHOLESALERS STATE PAC$2,700
- WITWER FOR MICHIGAN$2,000
- HEALTH POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE MI HEALTH AND HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION$750
- MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE JUSTICE PAC$350
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Hope voted with the majority of Michigan House Democrats on 97.8% of party-line votes and missed none of 653 roll calls. Michigan House on average: 93.2% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hope voted against the majority of Michigan House Democrats 49 times.
653 roll calls Hope could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan 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 Hope voted with the majority of Michigan House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Michigan House Democrats
Party unity 97.8%, Michigan House average 93.2%, ranks 57th of 110. 653 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Hope, the thin grey bar the Michigan House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Hope | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 97.8% | 93.2% |
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 MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2026 | SB 102 Counties: employees and officers; request for transcript and abstract of paper or record; modify. Amends sec. 1 of 1895 PA 161 (MCL 48.101). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #367 Yeas 103 Nays 0 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 47–0 · R 56–0Democrats 47 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 22, 2026 | SB 947 Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for. Amends and adds (See bill). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5485'26 passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #366 Yeas 96 Nays 7 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 47–0 · R 49–7Democrats 47 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 7 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 22, 2026 | HB 5120 Civil procedure: service of process; cost for service of process for personal protection orders; eliminate. Amends secs. 2559 & 2950 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2559 & 600.2950). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5121'25, HB 6033'26 passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #363 Yeas 96 Nays 7 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 47–0 · R 49–7Democrats 47 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 7 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 22, 2026 | HB 6033 Civil procedure: costs and fees; fees for service of process; revise. Amends sec. 2559 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2559). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #365 Yeas 95 Nays 8 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 47–0 · R 48–8Democrats 47 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 48 yea, 8 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 22, 2026 | HB 5121 Civil procedure: service of process; cost for service of process for personal protection orders; eliminate. Amends sec. 2950a of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2950a) & adds secs. 2950d & 2950p. TIE BAR WITH: HB 5120'25, HB 6033'26 passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #364 Yeas 97 Nays 6 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 47–0 · R 50–6Democrats 47 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 6 nay | 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 Hope most often
- Ranjeev PuriD643 shared votes93%
- Natalie PriceD640 shared votes93%
- Erin ByrnesD646 shared votes93%
- Morgan ForemanD585 shared votes93%
- Donavan McKinneyD617 shared votes92%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hope least often
- Steve CarraR653 shared votes38%
- Jaime GreeneR555 shared votes48%
- Jim DeSanaR620 shared votes53%
- Donni SteeleR653 shared votes55%
- Matt MaddockR651 shared votes57%
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
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Hope sponsored 20 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 397 others. 10% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan House average 32%; 94th of 107).
The bills Hope sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 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 MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 20 | 20 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 397 | 397 | 55 | 8 | 8 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Hope sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hope cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Michigan House average 32%. Ranks 94th of 107.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hope, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Carrie Rheingans174
- Sharon MacDonell152
- Natalie Price141
- Jason Morgan125
- Stephanie Young120
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 Hope’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 6434 | Property tax: assessments; protections against uncapping of property tax; provide while a property owner is pursuing correction of title. Amends secs. 27a & 53b of 1893 PA 206 (MCL 211.27a & 211.53b). TIE BAR WITH: HB 6433'26 | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | bill electronically reproduced 10/21/2026 Oct 28, 2026 |
| HB 6436 | Civil procedure: statute of limitations; statute of limitation for libel or slander; modify. Amends sec. 5805 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.5805) & adds sec. 5819. | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | bill electronically reproduced 10/21/2026 Oct 28, 2026 |
| HB 6435 | Civil procedure: civil actions; cause of action for deed fraud; provide for. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 2980. | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | bill electronically reproduced 10/21/2026 Oct 28, 2026 |
| HB 6433 | Property: recording; process for expedited quiet title; provide for. Amends sec. 2529 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2529) & adds secs. 2932a, 2932b, 2932c & 2932d. | Sponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | bill electronically reproduced 10/21/2026 Oct 28, 2026 |
| HB 6419 | Consumer credit: collection practices; consumer protection act exemptions; modify. Amends sec. 4 of 1976 PA 331 (MCL 445.904). TIE BAR WITH: HB 6418'26 | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Finance and Financial Sector(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/24/2026 Sep 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Hope’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Hope’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 Hope posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 6
pages crawled
4changes 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 Hope posted
No images from Hope’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 Hope is most unusual among State House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- f5c9b37d-39a5-4c63-a526-6f35f45cf5cf
- Open States
- ocd-person/f5c9b37d-39a5-4c63-a526-6f35f45cf5cf
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