Return to the Guide to the Utah Legislature.
| First session in legislature: | 2009 |
| Most recent year of service for which data are available: | 2024 |
| Total sessions served in Utah House as of 2024: | 0 |
| Total sessions served in Utah Senate as of 2024: | 16 |
I present a variety of statistics about Sen. Luz Robles Escamilla's service in the Utah legislature. I highlight differences from chamber averages using little green and red arrows. The number of arrows is statistically determined. More arrows indicate a larger difference compared to the chamber average, in relation to how much diversity there is among legislators on this metric. If all legislators introduce exactly 5 bills, then a legislator who introduces 10 is very different; if legislators vary wildly in how many bills they introduce (but the average is still 5), then a legislator who introduces 10 bills may be less different from average. The standard deviation measures this diversity.
/
Three arrows mean that the legislator is significantly different from average (i.e. at least two standard deviations from the mean, placing the legislator in the top/bottom 2% or so)./ Two arrows mean that the legislator is somewhat different from average (i.e. at least one standard deviation from the mean, placing the legislator in the top/bottom 16% or so)./ One arrow indicates that the legislator is only slightly different from average (i.e. one-third standard deviation from the mean). A single arrow indicates a very small difference; don't make too much of it.| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Service summary. Service prior to 2007 (if any) is not shown here. My database goes back only to 2007. | |||||||||||||||||
| Chamber | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | Senate | |
| District | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 | S10 | S10 | |
| Party | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | |
| Leadership | CaucusMgr | CaucusMgr | None | None | CaucusMgr | CaucusMgr | AsstWhip | AsstWhip | AsstWhip | AsstWhip | Whip | Whip | Whip | Whip | MinLdr | MinLdr | |
| Years in chamber | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | |
| Years comparison | | | | | == | == | == | == | == | == | | | | | | |
|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
| Bills sponsored (learn more) Bills written and promoted by the legislator in his/her own chamber. | |||||||||||||||||
| Introduced by Escamilla | 7 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 13 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 9 | 10 | |
| Chamber average | 9.0 | 8.9 | 11 | 9.8 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 9.6 | 10 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 11 | 10 | |
| Difference | -2.0 | -1.9 | -6.6 | -1.8 | +2.2 | -2.6 | -4.4 | -4.1 | -3.6 | -3.6 | -2.2 | -2.7 | -2.4 | +1.4 | -2.1 | -0.3 | |
| Comparison | | | | | | | | | | | | | | == | == | == | |
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
| Bill passage rate (learn more). What percent of Sen. Escamilla's sponsored bills pass and are officially "enrolled"? (I ignore whether the governor signed or vetoted the bill.) | |||||||||||||||||
| Bills introduced | 7 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 13 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 9 | 10 | |
| Bills passed | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | |
| Passage rate | 14% | 43% | 25% | 38% | 38% | 25% | 57% | 67% | 71% | 83% | 88% | 71% | 71% | 55% | 56% | 50% | |
| Chamber average | 63% | 69% | 70% | 72% | 65% | 70% | 68% | 68% | 74% | 83% | 78% | 70% | 71% | 71% | 72% | 72% | |
| Difference | -48.8 | -25.6 | -45.2 | -33.7 | -27.4 | -44.7 | -11.2 | -0.6 | -2.7 | -0.3 | +9.6 | +0.5 | +0.3 | -15.9 | -15.9 | -21.8 | |
| Comparison | | | | | | | | == | == | == | | == | == | | | |
|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
| Bills floor sponsored. A "floor sponsor" is like a secondary sponsor of a bill. After a bill passes the sponsor's chamber, its sponsor needs to find a "floor sponsor" in the other chamber to usher it through the other chamber. | |||||||||||||||||
| Total floor sponsored | 4 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 7 | 17 | 12 | 12 | 9 | |
| Chamber average | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 16 | |
| Difference | -7.1 | -11.0 | -10.4 | -7.8 | -9.1 | -8.5 | -7.3 | -6.8 | -6.4 | -6.2 | -1.6 | -6.3 | +4.6 | -1.4 | -3.2 | -7.5 | |
| Comparison | | | | | | | | | | | == | | | == | == | |
|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
| Missed votes (learn more). Usually missed votes occur because of competing obligations within the legislature, not because the legislator has left the capitol. | |||||||||||||||||
| Missed votes | 82 | 112 | 225 | 82 | 225 | 149 | 95 | 89 | 118 | 168 | 102 | 97 | 112 | 138 | 118 | 220 | |
| Total votes held | 807 | 786 | 940 | 890 | 940 | 840 | 951 | 860 | 913 | 926 | 975 | 910 | 919 | 931 | 1,058 | 1,069 | |
| Absentee rate | 10% | 14% | 24% | 9.2% | 24% | 18% | 10% | 10% | 13% | 18% | 10% | 11% | 12% | 15% | 11% | 21% | |
| Chamber average | 11% | 12% | 14% | 9.9% | 11% | 12% | 12% | 14% | 10% | 13% | 11% | 11% | 8.0% | 12% | 13% | 13% | |
| Difference | -1.1 | +2.1 | +9.6 | -0.7 | +13 | +6.5 | -1.7 | -4.0 | +2.6 | +4.9 | -1.2 | -0.5 | +4.0 | +2.8 | -2.1 | +8.2 | |
| Comparison | == | == | | == | | | == | | | | == | == | | == | == | |
|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
| "Nay" votes (learn more). Most floor votes pass by overwhelming majorities, since unpopular bills get weeded out long before they reach the floor. As a result, "nay" votes are rare. | |||||||||||||||||
| "Nay" votes | 73 | 56 | 83 | 76 | 50 | 47 | 77 | 59 | 55 | 54 | 52 | 37 | 62 | 37 | 79 | 97 | |
| Total votes held | 807 | 786 | 940 | 890 | 940 | 840 | 951 | 860 | 913 | 926 | 975 | 910 | 919 | 931 | 1,058 | 1,069 | |
| "Nay" rate | 9.0% | 7.1% | 8.8% | 8.5% | 5.3% | 5.6% | 8.1% | 6.9% | 6.0% | 5.8% | 5.3% | 4.1% | 6.7% | 4.0% | 7.5% | 9.1% | |
| Chamber average | 4.1% | 4.6% | 3.4% | 4.8% | 3.7% | 3.6% | 4.8% | 3.7% | 2.8% | 3.2% | 2.7% | 2.5% | 4.0% | 2.6% | 3.4% | 3.9% | |
| Difference | +4.9 | +2.5 | +5.4 | +3.7 | +1.6 | +2.0 | +3.3 | +3.2 | +3.2 | +2.6 | +2.6 | +1.6 | +2.7 | +1.4 | +4.1 | +5.2 | |
| Comparison | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
| Winning side rate (learn more). What percentage of the time (excluding near-unanimous votes) is the legislator on the winning side of a floor vote? | |||||||||||||||||
| Winning side rate | 39% | 43% | 23% | 47% | 54% | 65% | 47% | 43% | 51% | 54% | 39% | 46% | 52% | 62% | 29% | 26% | |
| Chamber average | 70% | 70% | 72% | 70% | 69% | 67% | 68% | 67% | 68% | 68% | 70% | 71% | 70% | 71% | 74% | 74% | |
| Difference | -30.8 | -27.6 | -48.5 | -23.8 | -15.0 | -2.0 | -22.0 | -24.2 | -16.5 | -14.5 | -30.9 | -25.0 | -17.9 | -8.4 | -45.0 | -48.0 | |
| Comparison | | | | | | == | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
| Ideology score (NOMINATE method) (learn more). Using W-NOMINATE algorithm developed by Congressional scholars, I calculate each legislator's relative ideology after each General Session. I describe the method here. Scores have no intrinsic meaning. They are only relative: A legislator with a higher score is to the right ideologically of a legislator with a lower scale. Scores may be compared only within a single chamber and a single year. In most years, a conservative Republican will have a score above 0; a score close to 100 is extreme. | |||||||||||||||||
| Contact me for scores. They get misinterpreted often enough that I now provide them only to political scientists. | |||||||||||||||||
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
| Party support score (overall) (learn more). How consistently does Sen. Escamilla support his/her party? That is, what percentage of the time does the legislator vote with the majority of the other members of his/her party? Scores are usually easily above 90%. | |||||||||||||||||
| Score (overall) | 97% | 98% | 97% | 97% | 98% | 97% | 99% | 99% | 98% | 98% | 99% | 99% | 99% | 99% | 100% | 99% | |
| Chamber average | 97% | 97% | 98% | 96% | 97% | 97% | 96% | 97% | 98% | 97% | 98% | 98% | 97% | 98% | 98% | 98% | |
| Difference | -0.4 | +1.1 | -0.8 | +0.6 | +1.0 | +0.4 | +2.7 | +1.8 | +0.4 | +0.7 | +1.3 | +0.3 | +1.3 | +1.0 | +1.4 | +1.4 | |
| Comparison | == | | | == | | == | | | == | | | == | | | | |
|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | ||
| Party support score (party-line only) (learn more). This is the same as the "raw" party support score, but we look only at party-line votes when calculating this. A "party-line" vote occurs when the majority of Democrats votes against the majority of Republicans. Although party-line votes are rare, looking at the legislator's party support score in this setting can be revealing. | |||||||||||||||||
| Score (party-line only) | 95% | 98% | 96% | 93% | 94% | 86% | 100% | 100% | 89% | 94% | 100% | 94% | 92% | 92% | 98% | 98% | |
| Chamber average | 89% | 89% | 91% | 88% | 85% | 84% | 83% | 87% | 86% | 85% | 92% | 91% | 88% | 92% | 94% | 94% | |
| Difference | +5.0 | +9.7 | +4.3 | +5.4 | +8.8 | +2.0 | +17 | +13 | +2.1 | +8.4 | +8.2 | +2.6 | +3.5 | +0.1 | +3.1 | +3.9 | |
| Comparison | | | | | | == | | | == | | | | | == | | |
|
Many votes have been held on bills sponsored by Sen. Escamilla. In the interest of space, I display only the most and least divisive votes held on Sen. Escamilla's bills.
Listed below are the 10 votes on bills sponsored by Sen. Escamilla that had the closest vote margin (as a percent of the total votes cast). When there are ties, I list the most recent bills first.
| Year | Sponsor | Bill | Ayes | Nays | Margin (as % of total votes) |
Type of vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Escamilla | SB0141S02 | 36 | 36 | 0.0% | House/ failed |
| 2013 | Escamilla | SB0114 | 15 | 14 | 3.4% | Senate/ passed 2nd reading |
| 2009 | Escamilla | SB0225 | 15 | 14 | 3.4% | Senate/ pass 3rd |
| 2011 | Escamilla | SB0277 | 13 | 14 | 3.7% | Senate/ failed |
| 2010 | Escamilla | SB0044S02 | 13 | 14 | 3.7% | Senate/ failed |
| 2015 | Escamilla | SJR001 | 38 | 34 | 5.6% | House/ passed 3rd reading |
| 2013 | Escamilla | SB0085 | 13 | 15 | 7.1% | Senate/ failed |
| 2015 | Escamilla | SB0208 | 12 | 14 | 7.7% | Senate/ failed |
| 2016 | Escamilla | SB0125S01 | 13 | 11 | 8.3% | Senate/ failed |
| 2011 | Escamilla | SB0277 | 13 | 11 | 8.3% | Senate/ failed |
Listed below are the 10 votes on bills sponsored by Sen. Escamilla that had the widest vote margin (as a percent of the total votes cast). When there are ties, I display the most recent bills first.
| Year | Sponsor | Bill | Ayes | Nays | Margin (as % of total votes) |
Type of vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Escamilla | SCR005 | 20 | 0 | 100% | Senate/ passed 3rd reading |
| 2024 | Escamilla | SCR005 | 22 | 0 | 100% | Senate/ passed 2nd reading |
| 2024 | Escamilla | SB0246S01 | 73 | 0 | 100% | House/ passed 3rd reading |
| 2024 | Escamilla | SB0246S01 | 27 | 0 | 100% | Senate/ passed 3rd reading |
| 2024 | Escamilla | SB0246S01 | 22 | 0 | 100% | Senate/ passed 2nd reading |
| 2024 | Escamilla | SB0233S03 | 23 | 0 | 100% | Senate/ passed 2nd reading |
| 2024 | Escamilla | SB0181S02 | 22 | 0 | 100% | Senate/ passed 3rd reading |
| 2024 | Escamilla | SB0181S02 | 22 | 0 | 100% | Senate/ passed 2nd reading |
| 2024 | Escamilla | SB0176S01 | 25 | 0 | 100% | Senate/ passed 3rd reading |
| 2024 | Escamilla | SB0176S01 | 22 | 0 | 100% | Senate/ passed 2nd reading |
