Menu Adam R Brown

Return to the Guide to the Utah Legislature.

Representative Earl D. Tanner
Utah legislator profile

Years served in the Utah legislature

First session in legislature: 2013
Most recent year of service for which data are available: 2016
Total sessions served in Utah House as of 2016: 4
Total sessions served in Utah Senate as of 2016: 0

How to read the statistical profile

I present a variety of statistics about Rep. Earl D. Tanner'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.

Rep. Tanner's statistical profile

2013201420152016
Service summary. Service prior to 2007 (if any) is not shown here. My database goes back only to 2007.
  Chamber HouseHouseHouseHouse
  District H43H43H43H43
  Party RRRR
Leadership NoneNoneNoneNone
Years in chamber 1234
Years comparison LowerLowerLowerLower
 
2013201420152016
Bills sponsored (learn more) Bills written and promoted by the legislator in his/her own chamber.
Introduced by Tanner 4232
Chamber average 5.86.46.77.0
Difference -1.8-4.4-3.7-5.0
Comparison LowerLowerLowerLowerLowerLower
 
2013201420152016
Bill passage rate (learn more). What percent of Rep. Tanner's sponsored bills pass and are officially "enrolled"? (I ignore whether the governor signed or vetoted the bill.)
Bills introduced 4232
Bills passed 1001
Passage rate 25.0%0.0%0.0%50.0%
Chamber average 65.8%52.2%63.0%53.5%
Difference -40.8-52.2-63.0-3.5
Comparison LowerLowerLowerLowerLowerLowerLower==
 
2013201420152016
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 0010
Chamber average 3.53.53.83.3
Difference -3.5-3.5-2.8-3.3
Comparison LowerLowerLowerLower
 
2013201420152016
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 26131510
Total votes held 658664699657
Absentee rate 4.0%2.0%2.1%1.5%
Chamber average 5.9%6.2%6.3%6.4%
Difference -1.9-4.2-4.2-4.9
Comparison LowerLowerLowerLower
 
2013201420152016
"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 54524552
Total votes held 658664699657
"Nay" rate 8.2%7.8%6.4%7.9%
Chamber average 7.3%7.5%8.6%7.3%
Difference +0.9+0.3-2.2+0.6
Comparison Higher==Lower==
 
2013201420152016
Influence or "floor power" (learn more). What percentage of the time is the legislator on the winning side of a floor vote?
Floor power score 70.7%68.4%77.8%73.2%
Chamber average 66.5%67.1%67.3%66.2%
Difference +4.2+1.3+10.5+7.0
Comparison Higher==HigherHigherHigher
 
2013201420152016
Ideology score 1 (from interest group ratings). Half a dozen interest groups release ratings of each legislator after each legislative session. I rescale them all from 0 (most liberal) to 100 (most conservative) and average them together, resulting in the numbers reported here.
Average rating 62.8nanana
Chamber average 56.8nanana
Difference +6.0nanana
Comparison Highernanana
 
2013201420152016
Ideology score 2 (NOMINATE method) (learn more). Using a widely accepted scaling method, I calculate each legislator's ideology score (called a "NOMINATE" score) after each legislative session. I describe the method here. Scores have no intrinsic meaning; they are useful only for comparing two legislators. A legislator with a higher score is more to the right ideologically of a legislator with a lower scale. In most years, a conservative Republican will have a score above 0; a score close to 100 is extreme.
NOMINATE score -4.216.424.416.5
Chamber average 7.99.519.025.2
Difference -12.1+6.9+5.4-8.7
Comparison ========
 
2013201420152016
Party support score (overall) (learn more). How consistently does Rep. Tanner 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) 90.3%92.1%93.4%91.8%
Chamber average 94.7%94.1%93.8%94.6%
Difference -4.4-2.0-0.4-2.8
Comparison LowerLowerLower==LowerLower
 
2013201420152016
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) 61.1%66.2%78.0%67.8%
Chamber average 81.2%80.1%81.9%85.4%
Difference -20.1-13.9-3.9-17.6
Comparison LowerLowerLowerLowerLowerLowerLower

Votes on Rep. Tanner's bills

Only 3 bills sponsored by Rep. Tanner have come to a vote. Listed below are all votes held on bills that Rep. Tanner sponsored. The votes are sorted by vote margin, with the most divisive votes listed first.

Year Sponsor Bill Ayes Nays Margin
(as % of total votes)
Type of vote
2013 Tanner HB0149S01 22 2 83.3% Senate/ passed 2nd reading
2016 Tanner HB0323S03 67 5 86.1% House/ passed 3rd reading
2013 Tanner HB0149S01 23 1 91.7% Senate/ passed 3rd reading
2014 Tanner HB0089S03 70 3 91.8% House/ passed 3rd reading
2016 Tanner HB0323S03 28 0 100.0% Senate/ passed 2nd & 3rd readings/ suspension
2013 Tanner HB0149S01 70 0 100.0% House/ concurs with Senate amendment
2013 Tanner HB0149S01 68 0 100.0% House/ passed 3rd reading