Evidence from the 194th General Court (2025–2026) transfers onto the scorecard's 34 items — 4 per plank, 5 for Plank 5 and 5 for Plank 6. The first transfer used bill sponsorship only. This update adds the two stronger evidence types: the roll calls on the two 2026 energy bills, and public statements. The new evidence pulled every score down or left it flat — all eight legislators now sit in the WATCH band, and nobody is above the 70 fund line. Each legislator still gets two numbers: the updated score on the items with evidence, and the floor — what it becomes if every plank with no evidence at all scored 0.
Stronger evidence, lower scores — nobody clears the fund line.
The sponsorship-only transfer put five legislators at or above 70. Adding votes and statements moved all eight into the WATCH band (50–69), two of them exactly on the 50 line. The new evidence is mostly opposition evidence on the two most discriminating items — nuclear (6.3) and immigration enforcement (8.2) — and it filled blanks with zeros instead of leaving them unscored. This is still a pre-screen, not a funding decision: the questionnaire has not been answered, and bands remain arithmetic only, marked with an asterisk.
A bill is treated as evidence of support for the item it addresses. A bill matching only part of an item scores 0.5 for that item — that is why partial plank matches from the research do not transfer at full value. The scorecard's own hierarchy ranks evidence: a recorded vote first, then a public statement, then sponsorship. This update applies that hierarchy — and, just as important, it records where a vote was not allowed to move a score, because an omnibus vote cannot be attributed to one section.
Every one of the 34 items gets 1, 0.5, 0 — or stays blank.
A plank score (0–100) is the average of that plank's scored items. A plank with no scored items has no score.
The overall score averages the planks that have a score, each weighted equally at 12.5%.
The floor is the overall if every wholly unscored plank scored 0. Blank items inside a scored plank stay excluded, as in Step 2 — so the floor zeroes blank planks, not every blank item. The true score lies between floor and the score on the evidence in hand — only the questionnaire resolves it.
Plank 6 now has five items. Item 6.5 opposes large-scale wind and supports alternative energy on all-in cost terms — the comparison is all-in cost: turbines plus backup generation, transmission, and land. There is no evidence on 6.5 for any of the eight legislators yet, so all eight are blank (No Data) on 6.5. Because blanks are excluded from the average, adding 6.5 changes no overall score, no floor, and no count of scored items — only the total, which is now 34 items.
The scorecard template's funding bands, applied here as arithmetic only:
The template warns that a high score on thin evidence should be read with care, and a candidate cannot pass on a few strong planks alone. Coverage — planks with any evidence, and items scored — is shown beside every score for that reason.
Both votes are on omnibus energy bills in the 194th General Court, verified from malegislature.gov on November 8, 2026. A vote on an omnibus bill cannot be read as a vote on the nuclear section alone — so these votes are reported in full, and scored only where a legislator's own stated reason or a targeted amendment ties the vote to the item.
| Legislator | House — H.5175, Feb 26, 2026 (Roll Call No. 141, 128–27) | Senate energy bill, Jul 1, 2026 (Roll Call No. 205, 32–8) |
|---|---|---|
Mike Connolly House, 26th Middlesex, D | No | Not a senator — no vote |
Erika Uyterhoeven House, 27th Middlesex, D | No | Not a senator — no vote |
James B. Eldridge Senate, Middlesex & Worcester, D | Not a representative — no vote | Yes |
Joanne M. Comerford Senate, Hampshire, Franklin & Worcester, D | Not a representative — no vote | Yes |
Patricia D. Jehlen Senate, 2nd Middlesex, D · retiring | Not a representative — no vote | Yes |
Michael J. Barrett Senate, 3rd Middlesex, D | Not a representative — no vote | Yes |
Rebecca L. Rausch Senate, Norfolk, Worcester & Middlesex, D | Not a representative — no vote | Yes |
Ryan C. Fattman Senate, Worcester & Hampden, R | Not a representative — no vote | No |
All 40 senators voted on July 1 — none absent. The Senate vote was on H.5175 as amended by Senate text S.3143, reprinted as S.3166 — not a standalone Senate bill. On July 16, 2026 the House non-concurred and a conference committee was appointed (House: Cusack–Michlewitz–Jones; Senate: Barrett–Creem–Tarr). Neither version was law as of the sources checked.
The five Senate Yes votes were not scored on item 6.3: the bill kept the moratorium, but it was omnibus and no senator's reason is on record — a Yes may reflect other sections. Fattman's No was not scored either: his reason is unknown, and the Senate bill contained no repeal for him to oppose. The House No votes were not scored on 6.3 either — their stated reason was Mass Save.
No statement on nuclear power, SMRs, or Chapter 503 was found for Sen. Barrett — despite his central role as Senate energy chair who helped shape the Senate text and led it through conference. The Senate text omitting the repeal is a legislative outcome, not a quoted position, and his Yes vote was not scored. It is the biggest open question the research left.
Ranked by updated score. Every score fell or stayed flat when votes and statements were added — Uyterhoeven fell furthest, 83.3 to 59.5, because the new evidence filled blanks on Planks 6 and 8 — a door-open 0.5 on 6.3 and a zero on 8.2 — instead of leaving them unscored. Read the ranking together with coverage and floor, as before.
| Legislator | Updated score | Band* | Floor (blank planks = 0) | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Michael J. Barrett Senate, 3rd Middlesex, D · Score unchanged — no new evidence scored against him |
66.7 | WATCH* | 16.7 | 2 of 8 planks · 4 of 34 items |
James B. Eldridge Senate, Middlesex & Worcester, D · Was 75.0 on sponsorship alone |
62.5 | WATCH* | 46.9 | 6 of 8 planks · 12 of 34 items |
Patricia D. Jehlen Senate, 2nd Middlesex, D · Was 75.0 on sponsorship alone |
60.0 | WATCH* RETIRING | 37.5 | 5 of 8 planks · 5 of 34 items |
Erika Uyterhoeven House, 27th Middlesex, D · Senator-elect, 2nd Middlesex, Jan 2027 · Was 83.3 — the biggest fall |
59.5 | WATCH* | 52.1 | 7 of 8 planks · 11 of 34 items |
Mike Connolly House, 26th Middlesex, D · Was 75.0 on sponsorship alone |
57.1 | WATCH* | 50.0 | 7 of 8 planks · 10 of 34 items |
Joanne M. Comerford Senate, Hampshire, Franklin & Worcester, D · Was 76.7 on sponsorship alone |
54.8 | WATCH* | 47.9 | 7 of 8 planks · 10 of 34 items |
Rebecca L. Rausch Senate, Norfolk, Worcester & Middlesex, D · Same number, more coverage than before |
50.0 | WATCH* ON THE LINE | 18.8 | 3 of 8 planks · 3 of 34 items |
Ryan C. Fattman Senate, Worcester & Hampden, R · Score unchanged · the only Plank 8 match in this table |
50.0 | WATCH* ON THE LINE | 6.3 | 1 of 8 planks · 1 of 34 items |
* Band is arithmetic only. On this evidence alone, no band is a funding recommendation: coverage is 1–7 of 8 planks, and the questionnaire has not been answered. Status after the November 3, 2026 election is as reported November 8, 2026; final certified results were not yet published.
The gold range is the uncertainty the questionnaire still has to resolve. Note how the ranges narrowed for Comerford, Uyterhoeven and Connolly: the new evidence replaced uncertainty with low scores on the discriminating items.
Open a legislator to see every scored item and the evidence behind it — a bill, a statement, or a targeted amendment — and why partial matches scored 0.5 instead of 1. “No Data” means no evidence of any kind was found for that plank — the items are blank, not zero. Where a statement produced a 0, the quote and its source are given so the basis can be judged.
All eight now sit in WATCH — exactly where a pre-screen should land: worth talking to, not yet fundable. Send the 34-question questionnaire to the returning members with real coverage — Eldridge, Comerford, Connolly, Uyterhoeven, and Barrett. Their answers will fill the remaining blanks, including new item 6.5 and the discriminating items 6.3 and 8.2 where the record is now mostly zeros. Jehlen is excluded because she is retiring; Rausch and Fattman still rest on very few items.
Until then, every score on this page should be quoted with its floor and its coverage: for example, “Eldridge, 62.5 updated, floor 46.9, on 12 of 34 items.”
This scorecard is published as its own page so the homepage stays short. Questions about Thrive — what it is, how the PAC and endorsements work, and how to get involved — are answered on the Thrive Party FAQ, published as its own page alongside this one.
