CSIP score −0.41 (approximate range −0.49 to −0.33, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 0 donors and 171 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 Lalley sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
2 measures against State House Democrats. 61% of the 82 bills Lalley sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom half of the Vermont House.
The measures on which Lalley 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 conservative than 81% of State House Democrats · ± 0.08
Out of committee
Vermont House average 62% · ranks 80th of 150
Statements
Roll calls
Compared with Vermont House
Bills sponsored
and 0 cosponsored
In office since
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Lalley, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Lalley is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Lalley says
No statements for the VT 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the VT 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Lalley sits at −0.41 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 81% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.49 to −0.33, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 171 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 −0.49 to −0.33. From 0 donors and 171 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Lalley, 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 Lalley’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 Lalley sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Lalley |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 81% |
| Vermont House | 147 | −0.4 | 48% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 36% |
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 Lalley 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 Lalley.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Lalley voted with the majority of Vermont House Democrats on 95.5% of party-line votes and missed 4.0% of 74 roll calls. Vermont House on average: 92.1% party unity, 92.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Lalley voted against the majority of Vermont House Democrats 2 times.
74 roll calls Lalley could vote on in the VT 2025–26 session, compared with Vermont 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 Lalley voted with the majority of Vermont House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Vermont House Democrats
Party unity 95.5%, Vermont House average 92.1%, ranks 80th of 143. 74 roll calls in the VT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Lalley, the thin grey bar the Vermont House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Lalley | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.9% | 92.3% |
| Party unity | 95.5% | 92.1% |
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 VT 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2026 | JRS 56 Joint resolution relating to final adjournment of the General Assembly in 2026 Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 65 of 130 to Pass -- Yeas = 114, Nays = 16 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 59–11 · R 46–2 · I 2–1Democrats 59 yea, 11 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 2 nay; Independents 2 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| May 29, 2026 | H 955 An act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont’s education system Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 68 of 135 to Pass -- Yeas = 125, Nays = 10 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 68–7 · R 46–2 · I 2–1Democrats 68 yea, 7 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 2 nay; Independents 2 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | H 949 An act relating to homestead property tax yields, the nonhomestead property tax rate, and technical changes to education finance Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 67 of 134 to Pass -- Yeas = 111, Nays = 23 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 58–16 · R 45–3 · I 1–2Democrats 58 yea, 16 nay; Republicans 45 yea, 3 nay; Independents 1 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 28, 2026 | S 64 An act relating to amendments to the scope of practice for optometrists Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 66 of 131 to Pass -- Yeas = 93, Nays = 38 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 39–33 · R 46–1 · I 2–1Democrats 39 yea, 33 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 1 nay; Independents 2 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 26, 2026 | S 71 An act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 66 of 132 to Pass -- Yeas = 129, Nays = 3 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 67–2 · R 48–1 · I 3–0Democrats 67 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 48 yea, 1 nay; Independents 3 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 Lalley most often
- Charlie KimbellD70 shared votes100%
- Leslie GoldmanD71 shared votes99%
- Peter ConlonD70 shared votes99%
- Emilie KornheiserD70 shared votes99%
- Marc MihalyD69 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lalley least often
- Todd NielsenR56 shared votes30%
- Kevin WinterR58 shared votes31%
- Mike TagliaviaR71 shared votes32%
- Debbie PowersR71 shared votes34%
- Zak HarveyR65 shared votes34%
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
VT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Lalley sponsored 82 bills in the VT 2025–26 session; 5 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 61% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Vermont House average 62%; 80th of 150).
The bills Lalley sponsored and cosponsored in the VT 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 VT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 82 | 77 | 50 | 5 | 5 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Lalley sponsored, ochre blocks bills Lalley 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
Vermont House average 62%. Ranks 80th of 150.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Lalley, by number of shared bills in the VT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Phil Pouech13
- Dara Torre11
- Mollie Burke9
- Sarita Austin9
- Kate Logan8
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 Lalley’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HCR 307 | House concurrent resolution honoring Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie of Hartford for his inspirational civic leadership and extending future best wishes | Sponsor | May 21, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ceremonial Reading May 26, 2026 |
| HCR 303 | House concurrent resolution extending best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery to the indomitable Representative Anne de la Blanchetai Donahue of Northfield | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ceremonial Reading May 19, 2026 |
| HCR 300 | House concurrent resolution in memory of gay rights advocate, political activist, culinary bibliophile, and chocolatier maven Terje Anderson | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ceremonial Reading May 20, 2026 |
| HCR 305 | House concurrent resolution honoring former Representative Francis Matthew (Topper) McFaun for his exemplary public and community service | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ceremonial Reading May 21, 2026 |
| SCR 12 | Senate concurrent resolution in memory of former Washington County Senator Mary Just Skinner of Middlesex | Sponsor | May 7, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | As adopted by Senate and House May 8, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Lalley’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Sep 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Lalley’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 Lalley posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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 Lalley posted
No images from Lalley’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
5 turns, May 30, 2025 to May 29, 2026
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 Lalley 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
- f9d0a963-ca4d-4ab2-a761-ad4aa6983055
- Open States
- ocd-person/f9d0a963-ca4d-4ab2-a761-ad4aa6983055
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