Composite 6.26 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 648, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service on record. Pre-congressional public service as chief of staff to the federal Auto Recovery Task Force. Service context is not scored; only conduct against the oath is.
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 7 | why?No documented conduct subverting a constitutional process. As a Democrat she was not eligible to and did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Dec 11 2020); no fake-elector, certification-overturn, or process-defeat conduct on record. Her use of formal constitutional tools, co-sponsoring legislation, introducing articles of impeachment against RFK Jr. (Dec 2025), is the process working, NOT scored against her in either direction. Solid upper-middle for oath fidelity to process; held below the top tier only for absence of a documented at-cost constitutional stand. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Genuine bipartisan posture by affiliation, member of the Problem Solvers Caucus and original co-sponsor of bipartisan ethics and CHIPS measures. But the objective Lugar Bipartisan Index puts her at -0.28 (rank ~186 of the House) for the 118th, middling, modestly below the chamber median on actual cross-party sponsorship. Honest middle: real bipartisan affiliation, average measured behavior. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. Campaign-trail heat and a contested interview exchange over AIPAC funding (May 2026) are partisan-framed and policy-adjacent, not anti-belonging conduct. Persons-of-equal-worth largely intact; upper-middle. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics. No criterion-8 process-subversion conduct (no amicus signature, no certification-overturn). The record is ordinary use of legislative authority. No criterion-class conduct. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Generally measured public rhetoric with no documented slur or sustained incendiary pattern. The 2026 primary produced a defensive, flustered interview moment over donor questions, a poise lapse, not enemy-making rhetoric. Honest middle: no high-mark restraint anchor, no documented breach. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?A genuine fiduciary appearance-concern, weighed not as a finding: a June 2024 corporate-funded Center Forward conference trip to Portugal (sponsors include Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Philip Morris) followed by ~$2.4M+ in Center Forward/super-PAC ads backing her Senate run, plus a $5.3M dark-money/AIPAC-linked ad effort. Legal on its face and disclosed; no charge or ruling. The appearance of donor-alignment is the drag, offset partly by her authored stock-trading ban. Middle. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?Active-duty standard: limited documented evidence of calling out her OWN side at personal cost. She has held pro-Israel and pro-ICE-gratitude positions against progressive pressure within her party (a form of intra-party independence at electoral cost), but there is no signature moment of confronting her own leadership on a principle. Honest middle. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?Discretion test: she affirmatively foregoes individual stock trading and authored/co-sponsored bills to remove the discretionary enrichment lane for herself and colleagues, voluntary self-limitation of a legal advantage. Counts positively. Held at upper-middle absent a costlier, more singular discretion sacrifice. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap or hypocrisy scandal. Some reporting frames her as campaign-cautious (limited town halls), a transparency-access concern rather than a character-duplicity finding. Honest middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Represents a suburban Oakland County swing district she flipped in 2018; constituent-service orientation is generally credited. The donor-alignment appearance-concern (M06) and dark-money backing create a constituent-versus-donor tension that keeps this at an honest middle rather than high. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information stock trades, or foreign-government revenue. She does not trade individual stocks and authored a ban on congressional stock trading. RAW WEALTH is never penalized here. The only weighed item is the appearance-concern of corporate-PAC-funded travel/ads (logged at M06, not double-counted as enrichment). Above-middle: clean on office-driven enrichment with affirmative anti-enrichment legislation. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Sustained institutional-decorum posture, bipartisan caucus participation, regular committee work, no documented floor-disruption or norm-breaking spectacle. Honors the institution over performance. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. Routine campaign messaging and a disputed claim of not authorizing an AIPAC joint-fundraising page are ordinary political friction, not a documented deception pattern. Honest middle. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Demonstrated substantive command in her policy lanes, manufacturing, workforce, and semiconductor/CHIPS policy (background as chief of staff to the federal Auto Recovery Task Force). Substance over talking points in her domain. Upper-middle. [source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M06 | June 2024 corporate-funded Center Forward conference trip to Portugal (sponsors incl. Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Philip Morris, Bloomberg) followed by ~$2.4M+ Center Forward/super-PAC ads and a $5.3M dark-money/AIPAC-linked ad effort backing her 2026 Senate run ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety, donor-alignment | Legal and disclosed; no charge or ruling; partly offset by her authored congressional stock-trading ban. Appearance-concern, not a finding. |
| M02 | Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index 2023 score -0.28, rank ~186, modestly below chamber median on measured cross-party sponsorship despite Problem Solvers Caucus membership ↳ Bipartisanship, affiliation exceeds measured behavior | - |
| M07 | Limited documented instance of calling out her own party leadership on principle at personal cost ↳ Duty to Call Out, active-duty standard not clearly met | Held pro-Israel / pro-ICE positions against progressive intra-party pressure at electoral cost |
| M05 | May 2026 flustered defensive interview exchange over AIPAC donor questions ↳ Temperance/poise lapse | Single campaign-pressure moment, not a rhetoric pattern |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 7 | why?Attributes demonstrated: Steadiness, Loyalty to institution, modest Courage in holding intra-party-unpopular positions. No documented Collapse or oath-betraying conduct; no process-subversion. Held mid-high by the absence of a singular at-cost constitutional stand. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction and Authenticity in her policy lane, plus affirmative self-limitation (the stock-trading ban she authored). Dragged toward Consistency/Temperance opposites by the donor-alignment appearance-concern and a campaign poise lapse. Honest middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Stewardship and constituent Protection for a swing district; no documented Exploitation of office. The corporate-PAC travel/ads appearance-concern is the live drag toward Favoritism, weighed as appearance, not abuse. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity and Love of Truth largely intact with no documented falsehood or enrichment finding. Legacy is mid-career and unresolved; the donor-money cloud is the chief temper on an otherwise clean record. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 25/40 |
Total 25/40, Adequate. The pillars sit in an honest middle: no extraordinary at-cost sacrifice anchors the record high, and no criterion-class breach drives it low. The donor-alignment appearance-concern is the dominant drag; the authored stock-trading ban is the dominant lift.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“No member of Congress should be getting rich off the office they were elected to serve in.”
Introducing the No Getting Rich in Congress Act to ban congressional stock trading · Stevens House office press release · PRINCIPLED · cite
“I did not authorize that joint fundraising appeal and I do not support any Republican Senate candidate.”
Pushing back on an AIPAC joint-fundraising page pairing her with a Republican · Detroit Metro Times · CONTESTED · cite
“RFK Jr. is a self-created threat to the public health of the United States.”
Introducing articles of impeachment against the HHS Secretary, use of a formal constitutional tool · Colorado Politics · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Haley Maria Stevens (born June 24, 1983). U.S. Representative for Michigan's 11th congressional district since 2019 (originally MI-11; suburban Oakland County / northern Detroit suburbs). Democrat. Before Congress, chief of staff to the federal Auto Recovery Task Force under the Obama administration. Announced an April 2025 campaign for the open U.S. Senate seat in Michigan (Gary Peters retiring), running in the 2026 Democratic primary. Member of the Problem Solvers Caucus.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index 2023 (118th Congress): -0.28, rank ~186, modestly below the chamber median on measured cross-party sponsorship, despite Problem Solvers Caucus membership. DW-NOMINATE places her in the mainstream-Democratic center of the caucus. Policy emphasis: manufacturing, workforce, science and semiconductor/CHIPS policy (Education & Workforce and Science committees). Signature ethics work: the No Getting Rich in Congress Act (congressional stock-trading ban) and co-sponsorship of the Trust in Congress Act. NOTE: party affiliation, caucus alignment, and policy positions (Israel, immigration) are NOT scored in either direction per the framework's refusal to grade policy or partisanship.
3. Constitutional Moments
No documented constitutional-subversion conduct. As a Democrat she did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020) and has no fake-elector or certification-overturn conduct. Use of formal constitutional tools, introducing articles of impeachment against HHS Secretary RFK Jr. (Dec 2025), is the constitutional process operating and is logged as conduct-neutral, not scored for or against her.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally measured public rhetoric with no documented slur or sustained enemy-making pattern. The notable drag is a May 2026 defensive, flustered interview exchange over AIPAC donor questions during the Senate primary, a poise lapse under campaign pressure rather than an anti-belonging or incitement instance. Persons-of-equal-worth largely intact.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment: she does not trade individual stocks and authored a bill to ban congressional stock trading. RAW WEALTH is not penalized. The weighed appearance-concern is a June 2024 corporate-funded Center Forward conference trip to Portugal (sponsors including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Philip Morris, Bloomberg) followed by ~$2.4M+ in Center Forward/super-PAC ads and a separate $5.3M dark-money/AIPAC-linked ad effort backing her Senate run. Legal on its face and disclosed; no charge or ruling. The appearance of donor-alignment is the genuine drag, weighed as appearance and not as a finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class (criterion 1-10) capping or terminal conduct. No criterion-8 process subversion (no Texas v. PA amicus signature, no certification-overturn, no fake electors). No criterion-10 sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern. The corporate-PAC travel/ads appearance-concern is a fiduciary drag handled in measure scoring, not a severity flag. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Stevens scores as an honest, unremarkable middle. There is no criterion-class breach, no process subversion, no enemy-making, no documented enrichment, and equally no extraordinary at-cost stand to lift the record high. The affirmative lift is her authored congressional stock-trading ban and clean personal-enrichment record; the chief drag is the donor-alignment appearance-concern from corporate-PAC travel and the heavy dark-money/super-PAC backing of her Senate run, weighed as appearance rather than finding. A sound-to-adequate record, recorded without partisan tilt.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index
Tier 2: Ballotpedia · The Intercept, Center Forward / Portugal investigation
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House office · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.