Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Education · Source
10%
of roll calls missed, the lowest attendance of 50 in the Pennsylvania Senate
Attendance 90%; the average within the Pennsylvania Senate is 98.9%. Ranks 50th of 50, where 1st has the highest attendance. 502 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Williams could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Pennsylvania Senate. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Williams reported $559.9K in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of State Senate Democrats (median $55.5K). Williams voted against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats 12 times; party unity 93.0%, in the bottom quarter of the Pennsylvania Senate (average 93.4%).
The measures on which Williams sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
90%
Pennsylvania Senate average 98.9% · ranks 50th of 50 · 502 roll calls
Itemized, 2026
$559.9K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 47th of 746
Party unity
93.0%
Pennsylvania Senate average 93.4% · ranks 39th of 50 · 12 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.47
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 182nd of 228
CSIP ideology
−0.62
More conservative than 56% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.04
From Pennsylvania, 2026
92%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 387th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Williams, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Williams is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Williams says
Williams criticizes policies less than 82% of State Senate Democrats. Policy criticism in 0.6% of 161 statements, against 10% for the average State Senate Democrat; 274th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Williams’s 161 statements in the PA 2025–26 session (161 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the PA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Williams
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion47 statements
29%
43%
250th of 329
Credit claiming19 statements
12%
16%
183rd of 329
Bipartisanship4 statements
2%
3%
161st of 329
Personal attacks1 statements
1%
2%
141st of 329
Policy criticism1 statements
1%
10%
274th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Williams | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 29% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 12% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 1% | 10% |
161
statements classified
161 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 161 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Williams; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Williams does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Williams used no extreme labels in 161 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 14 | 7.1% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 27.8% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 38.5% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 9.1% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 4 | — (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 | 4 | — (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 | 4 | — (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 ’25 | 6 | — (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 | 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) |
| Nov ’25 | 6 | — (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 | 4 | — (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 | 6 | — (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 | 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) |
| Mar ’26 | 7 | — (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 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 7 | — (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 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 4 | — (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 | 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) |
| Sep ’26 | 5 | — (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 | 6 | — (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 PA 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%. 15 months are hatched here.
In Williams’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 3, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: John Romano · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 7, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health · 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: John RomanoSource
All 161 statements
Newest first, the PA 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: 161 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Williams talks about most: 21% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.47 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 182nd of 228).
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 Williams talks about. The bills Williams sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Williams talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the PA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Williams
Peers
Education10 statements
21%
15%
Agriculture and Food7 statements
15%
5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues7 statements
15%
8%
Health7 statements
15%
17%
Crime and Law Enforcement5 statements
11%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Williams | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 21% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 15% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 8% |
| Health | 15% | 17% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Williams’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 21% | 15% | 5% | 9% |
| Agriculture and Food | 15% | 5% | 0% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 8% | 3% | 5% |
| Health | 15% | 17% | 25% | 15% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 8% | 15% | 9% |
0.47
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 182nd of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Williams legislates on exactly the areas Williams 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 Williams sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Williams sits at −0.62 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 56% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.65 to −0.58, which understates the uncertainty; from 489 donors and 913 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”.
−0.62
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.65 to −0.58. From 489 donors and 913 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Williams, 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 Williams’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 Williams sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Pennsylvania Senate50 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Williams |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 56% |
| Pennsylvania Senate | 50 | +0.2 | 26% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 24% |
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 Williams 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 Williams.
Money
Williams reported $559.9K in the 2026 cycle, 10.1 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 92% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
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.
$559.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 194 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)17 squares$92.3K
- PACs and other committees83 squares$466.2K
- Party committees$1,400
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $92.3K | 16.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $466.2K | 83.3% |
| Party committees | $1,400 | 0.3% |
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $258.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $801.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $386.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $559.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 92% came from Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania$84.9K
- New Jersey$2,720
- Maryland$1,435
- Ohio$1,250
- Delaware$700
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 |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $84.9K |
| New Jersey | $2,720 |
| Maryland | $1,435 |
| Ohio | $1,250 |
| Delaware | $700 |
| Virginia | $560 |
| Florida | $500 |
| Illinois | $100 |
| Georgia | $100 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
194
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
92%
from Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- OWNER$12.0K 3 donors
- LAWYER$10.5K 3 donors
- ATTORNEY$5,060 4 donors
- CEO$2,500 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MAKE A DIFFERENCE PAC$290.0K
- OPERATIONS FOR SKILL PAC$70.0K
- EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY PAC$20.0K
- LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL PAC FUND$10.0K
- STEAMFITTERS' LOCAL UNION 420 COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION FUND$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Williams voted with the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats on 93.0% of party-line votes and missed 10% of 502 roll calls. Pennsylvania Senate on average: 93.4% party unity, 98.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Williams voted against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats 12 times.
502 roll calls Williams could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania Senate. 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 Williams voted with the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
12
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats
Party unity 93.0%, Pennsylvania Senate average 93.4%, ranks 39th of 50. 502 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Williams, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Williams
Peers
Rank
Attendance
90%
98.9%
50th of 50
Party unity
93.0%
93.4%
39th of 50
Show the data
| Row | Williams | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 90% | 98.9% |
| Party unity | 93.0% | 93.4% |
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 PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2187 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in administrative organization, further providing for criminal history background checks of employees and contractors with access to Federal tax information. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 27–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 558 An Act amending the act of April 6, 1951 (P.L.69, No.20), known as The Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, in creation of leases, statute of frauds and mortgaging of leaseholds, providing for rental applications. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 13–14Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 14 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 1098 An Act amending the act of November 22, 1978 (P.L.1166, No.274), referred to as the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency Law, providing for Investigation and Prosecution of Internet Crimes Against Children Program. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 27–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 807 An Act amending the act of November 6, 1987 (P.L.381, No.79), known as the Older Adults Protective Services Act, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions; in administration, further providing for investigations of reports of need for protective services, for immunity from civil a FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–8 · R 27–0Democrats 15 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2437 An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in unconventional gas well fee, further providing for Statewide initiatives. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 22–1 · R 27–0Democrats 22 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 27 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 Williams most often
- Wayne FontanaD444 shared votes97%
- Jay CostaD450 shared votes97%
- Vincent HughesD439 shared votes96%
- Art HaywoodD409 shared votes96%
- Steve SantarsieroD450 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Williams least often
- Jarrett ColemanR450 shared votes66%
- Dawn KeeferR450 shared votes66%
- Doug MastrianoR444 shared votes69%
- Scott HutchinsonR450 shared votes70%
- Chris GebhardR450 shared votes71%
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
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Williams sponsored 3 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 42 others.
The bills Williams sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 42 | 42 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Williams sponsored, ochre blocks bills Williams cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Williams, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Art Haywood30
- Jay Costa29
- Nikil Saval28
- Amanda Cappelletti28
- Sharif Street28
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 Williams’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 1035 | An Act amending the act of April 17, 2016 (P.L.84, No.16), known as the Medical Marijuana Act, providing for compassionate access to medical marijuana. | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | First consideration Sep 29, 2026 |
| SB 1425 | An Act establishing the Jayanna Powell Hit-and-Run Direct Notification System Pilot Program in the city of the first class; requiring registration of motor vehicle repair facilities; and imposing penalties. | Sponsor | Aug 10, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Referred to Law & Justice Aug 10, 2026 |
| SR 354 | A Resolution honoring the life and expressing condolences on the passing of former State Senator Shirley M. Kitchen. | Cosponsor | Jul 12, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Jul 12, 2026 |
| SB 1412 | An Act amending the act of June 13, 1967 (P.L.31, No.21), known as the Human Services Code, in public assistance, providing for transition to chip-enabled access cards. | Cosponsor | Jul 9, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Referred to Health & Human Services Jul 9, 2026 |
| SR 348 | A Resolution directing the Uniform Construction Code Review and Advisory Council to conduct a study and issue a report recommending modifications and limitations to the International Building Code that would allow for a single-exit stairway to serve multifamily residential structures up to six stori | Cosponsor | Jun 26, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Referred to Labor & Industry Jun 26, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 5 times in 90 days. Williams’s official site had 7 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Williams’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 Williams posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 7
pages crawled
5changes 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 Williams posted
No images from Williams’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
200 turns, Jan 28, 2020 to Jul 12, 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 Williams is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- fe79a0f0-7dfd-442a-8b79-f8792613a4de
- Open States
- ocd-person/fe79a0f0-7dfd-442a-8b79-f8792613a4de
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