Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Law; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
50%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top quarter of the North Carolina House
50% of 20 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the North Carolina House is 27%. Ranks 25th of 110, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Arp sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the North Carolina House. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
4 measures against the North Carolina House. Arp sits at +0.44 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 66% of State House Republicans. Arp missed 5.0% of 482 roll calls, attendance in the bottom half of the North Carolina House (average 92.6%).
The measures on which Arp sits furthest from the middle of the North Carolina 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
100%
North Carolina House average 92.6% · ranks 11th of 120 · 1 votes against the majority of North Carolina House Republicans
Out of committee
50%
North Carolina House average 27% · ranks 25th of 110
CSIP ideology
+0.44
More conservative than 66% of State House Republicans · ± 0.10
Attendance
95.0%
North Carolina House average 92.6% · ranks 64th of 120 · 482 roll calls
Statements
18
18 posts on X
Roll calls
482
Compared with North Carolina House
Peer group: North Carolina House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Arp, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Arp is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Arp says
Arp stresses bipartisanship less than 85% of State House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 18 statements, against 1.8% for the average State House Republican; 677th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Arp’s 18 statements in the NC 2025–26 session (18 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the NC 2025–26 session
0%80%
Arp
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion8 statements
44%
32%
196th of 791
Policy criticism4 statements
22%
9%
84th of 791
Credit claiming3 statements
17%
13%
248th of 791
Personal attacks2 statements
11%
3%
43rd of 791
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
677th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Arp | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 44% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 22% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 17% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 11% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
18
statements classified
18 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 18 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Arp; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Arp does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Arp used no extreme labels in 18 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
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 NC 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 NC 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 14 of them have no statements.
In Arp’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 30, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 13, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; Education; target: Gov · 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 · policy criticism · policy discussion · Education · target: GovSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TheAssemblyNCSource
All 18 statements
Newest first, the NC 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: 18 posts on X.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Arp talks about most: 63% of policy statements, 5.0 times the peer share. Peers give it 12%. 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 Arp talks about. The bills Arp sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Arp talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NC 2025–26 session
0%69%
Arp
Peers
Economics and Public Finance5 statements
63%
12%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues1 statements
13%
6%
Crime and Law Enforcement1 statements
13%
11%
Education1 statements
13%
15%
Families1 statements
13%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Arp | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 63% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 13% | 6% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 13% | 11% |
| Education | 13% | 15% |
| Families | 13% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Arp’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. 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 69%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 63% | 12% | 15% | 2% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 13% | 6% | 6% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 13% | 11% | 3% | 11% |
| Education | 13% | 15% | 9% | 9% |
| Families | 13% | 4% | 12% | 2% |
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 Arp legislates on exactly the areas Arp 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 Arp sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Arp sits at +0.44 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 66% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.34 to +0.54, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 579 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”.
+0.44
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.34 to +0.54. From 0 donors and 579 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Arp, 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 Arp’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 Arp sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
North Carolina House120 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Arp |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 65% |
| North Carolina House | 120 | +0.4 | 63% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 81% |
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 Arp 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 Arp.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Arp voted with the majority of North Carolina House Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed 5.0% of 482 roll calls. North Carolina House on average: 92.6% party unity, 92.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Arp voted against the majority of North Carolina House Republicans 1 time.
482 roll calls Arp could vote on in the NC 2025–26 session, compared with North Carolina 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 Arp voted with the majority of North Carolina House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1
votes against the majority of North Carolina House Republicans
Party unity 100%, North Carolina House average 92.6%, ranks 11th of 120. 482 roll calls in the NC 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Arp, the thin grey bar the North Carolina House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Arp
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.0%
92.6%
64th of 120
Party unity
100%
92.6%
11th of 120
Show the data
| Row | Arp | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.0% | 92.6% |
| Party unity | 100% | 92.6% |
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 NC 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 2–40 · R 61–0 · I 1–0Democrats 2 yea, 40 nay; Republicans 61 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 42–1 · R 66–0Democrats 42 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 1–36 · R 64–0 · I 2–0Democrats 1 yea, 36 nay; Republicans 64 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | much discussed | |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 12–43 · R 81–0 · I 2–0Democrats 12 yea, 43 nay; Republicans 81 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | party crossover · much discussed | |
| Aug 5, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 26–28 · R 67–0 · I 2–0Democrats 26 yea, 28 nay; Republicans 67 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Arp most often
- Reece PyrtleR451 shared votes100%
- Erin ParéR448 shared votes100%
- Larry PottsR446 shared votes100%
- Larry StricklandR446 shared votes100%
- Dudley GreeneR421 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Arp least often
- Pricey HarrisonD429 shared votes42%
- Marcia MoreyD456 shared votes52%
- Deb ButlerD395 shared votes52%
- John AutryD249 shared votes57%
- Mary BelkD450 shared votes58%
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
NC 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Arp sponsored 20 bills in the NC 2025–26 session; 7 became law. Cosponsored 34 others. 50% of sponsored bills got out of committee (North Carolina House average 27%; 25th of 110).
The bills Arp sponsored and cosponsored in the NC 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 NC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 20 | 20 | 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Cosponsored | 34 | 34 | 19 | 7 | 6 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Arp sponsored, ochre blocks bills Arp cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
50%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
North Carolina House average 27%. Ranks 25th of 110.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Arp, by number of shared bills in the NC 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Bill Ward19
- Jeff McNeely17
- Brian Biggs12
- Donnie Loftis12
- Paul Scott11
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 Arp’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 3 | Relief at the Pump. | Sponsor | Oct 7, 2026 | Became law | Taxation(model) | Signed by Gov. 10/9/2026 Oct 9, 2026 |
| HB 1146 | 2026 Governor's Budget. | Sponsor | Apr 30, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Passed 1st Reading May 4, 2026 |
| HB 1167 | 2026 Governor's Budget. | Sponsor | Apr 30, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Passed 1st Reading May 4, 2026 |
| HB 1123 | UNC Omnibus and Capital Contracting Law Changes. | Sponsor | Apr 29, 2026 | Became law | Education(model) | Signed by Gov. 6/19/2026 Jun 19, 2026 |
| HB 1086 | Child Care Initiative Funds/Reform/Study. | Sponsor | Apr 28, 2026 | In committee | Families(model) | Reptd Fav Com Substitute May 12, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Arp’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Arp’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 Arp posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 7
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.
Images Arp posted
No images from Arp’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 Arp is most unusual among North Carolina 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
- ffdbb3fa-0445-460a-9501-18b5028fbe50
- Open States
- ocd-person/ffdbb3fa-0445-460a-9501-18b5028fbe50
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