DOCUMENT: CLS-REBUILD · CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC METHODOLOGY: SYMMETRIC · STATUS: ACTIVE

← Roster

558
Unfit
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
24/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 5.23 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.

Below the support threshold on the conduct standard. The record is clean of criterion-class flags and carries genuine substantive merit on deepfake/AI accountability, but the conduct composite lands at an honest middle: low cross-aisle cooperation, an unmet duty to call out her own side at cost, and the cleared-but-real 2013 Azerbaijan travel-disclosure appearance-concern hold it under the bar. No capping flag, simply an Adequate, not a Sound, conduct record.

★ Service to Country

No military service on record. Civic service career: New York City Council (2002-2006) before election to the U.S. House in 2006. Service is context, not a score; only conduct is graded.

The 14 measures

Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.

#MeasureScoreWhy
M01 Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law 6
why?
Discharges the basic oath: certified the 2020 election, no participation in process-subversion, no Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (she is a Democrat and was not a signatory), no fake-elector conduct. Contamination guard applied, NOT scored on impeachment votes or partisan caucus alignment, which are the constitutional process working. Held at an honest middle because the record shows ordinary oath-keeping without a documented apex moment of defending the constitutional order at personal cost. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 4
why?
A measured conduct drag: the McCourt/Lugar Bipartisan Index places her below the House midpoint (~ -0.73), and reporting notes she joined bipartisan bills among the least often of members with 10+ years of service. This scores cross-aisle cooperation as conduct, not policy or party, the willingness to let the other side share a win, and the documented pattern is low. Not floored, as there is no obstruction-for-its-own-sake finding; just sustained low cooperation. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 6
why?
No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as people who do not belong. Sharp criticism of the prior President ('bigot,' 'state-sponsored violence') is policy/political heat aimed at an officeholder's conduct, expressly NOT scored as anti-belonging under the framework. A resurfaced 'more people in my district for redistricting' clip is a contested, context-disputed remark, not a conduct violation. Honest middle: no high-mark defense-of-an-opponent anchor, no documented breach. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 6
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against rivals, no abuse-of-office pattern, no criterion-class process subversion. Not a Democrat-as-such question, the conduct record simply shows no instance of turning state machinery against opponents. Sits at a clean middle absent an affirmative power-restraining anchor of the kind that lifts this measure higher. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 5
why?
Conventional partisan rhetoric with occasional sharp lines toward the opposing administration. No sustained dehumanizing or incitement pattern (that would trigger criterion 10); no standout restraint anchor either. The single contested resurfaced clip is weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding. Net middle. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 4
why?
A genuine fiduciary appearance-concern: the 2013 Azerbaijan/Baku trip was disclosed as funded by a single non-profit, but OCE found undisclosed funders including Azerbaijan's state oil company (SOCAR). EVIDENTIARY RULE applied, the Committee on Ethics CLOSED the matter and cleared the traveling members in 2015; the 'concerted, possibly criminal' deception was attributed to the trip ORGANIZERS and referred to DOJ, not found against her, and she recused herself from the committee action. So this is a weighed appearance-concern (disclosure that proved incomplete through others' conduct), not a sanction or finding. Drag, not a floor. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 4
why?
The active-duty standard here is calling out one's OWN side at cost. The record shows reliable criticism of the opposing party but little documented willingness to break with her own party or leadership at personal cost. Below the middle for an unmet call-out duty, not floored, because there is no documented instance of covering for clear in-party wrongdoing either. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 6
why?
Discretion test: no documented instance of exploiting a position of trust for private benefit, and no documented refusal-of-privilege high-mark either. The Azerbaijan travel touches this area but is handled under M06 as an appearance-concern. Clean middle. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 5
why?
No documented private-versus-public contempt gap, no leaked off-camera conduct contradicting her public posture. Absent affirmative evidence of consistency under pressure, held at a neutral middle. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 5
why?
Long-tenured representation of a safe district (NY-9); responsive to constituent concerns on her stated issues. No documented donor-over-constituent capture pattern, but also no standout constituent-fidelity anchor at cost. Middle. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 5
why?
Contamination guard applied, M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, foreign-government revenue), NOT raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, family payroll, or trading-on-office pattern. The one foreign-government-linked item is the 2013 SOCAR-funded travel, already weighed under M06 as a cleared appearance-concern; it is a minor, non-cumulative drag here rather than a finding. Held at a neutral middle. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 6
why?
Sustained ordinary institutional decorum across a long House tenure, regular committee work (Energy & Commerce, Homeland Security), no documented disruption-of-proceedings or contempt-of- institution episodes. No standout institution-over-spectacle anchor either. Solid middle. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 6
why?
No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. Partisan framing is present but within the normal range; no record of repeated fabrications presented as fact. The contested resurfaced clip is a disputed- context concern, not a documented falsehood. Honest middle. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 7
why?
Real substantive command in a defined lane: an early and sustained legislative author on deepfake/synthetic-media accountability (DEEP FAKES Accountability Act 2019/2023) and cybersecurity via Homeland Security and Energy & Commerce work. Substance over talking points in her subject area; held below the top tier because expertise is concentrated rather than broad. [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.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M02 McCourt/Lugar Bipartisan Index below the House midpoint (~ -0.73); joined bipartisan bills among the least often of 10+ year members
↳ cross-aisle cooperation (conduct, not policy)
No obstruction-for-its-own-sake finding; low cooperation, not active sabotage
M06 2013 Azerbaijan/Baku trip disclosed as single-nonprofit-funded; OCE found undisclosed funders incl. SOCAR (Azerbaijan state oil)
↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety (incomplete travel disclosure)
Committee CLOSED/cleared travelers 2015; deception attributed to organizers and referred to DOJ, not found against her; she recused, appearance-concern, not a finding
M07 Little documented willingness to break with her own party/leadership at personal cost
↳ unmet active call-out duty (calling out one's OWN side)
No documented instance of covering for clear in-party wrongdoing
M01 Ordinary oath-keeping without a documented apex moment of defending the constitutional order at personal cost
↳ no high-mark constitutional-courage anchor
Certified 2020 election; no process-subversion; no Texas v. PA amicus
Pillar I Reliable oath-keeping but no demonstrated sacrifice or break-with-own-side under pressure
↳ Courage/Selfless Service drag
No disloyalty or self-interest finding
Pillar III 2013 travel-disclosure appearance-concern (Stewardship) + low cross-aisle cooperation (collaborative protection)
↳ Stewardship/Reliability drag
Cleared by committee; substantive protective work on deepfakes/cybersecurity

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.

#PillarScoreWhy
I Trust & Loyalty
  • Would I follow them into uncertainty or adversity?
  • Would I trust them with my life or reputation?
  • Would I trust them to lead others honorably when the stakes are high?
6
why?
Attributes: reliable oath-keeping, steady institutional presence across a long tenure. Drag toward the higher tier is the absence of any documented sacrifice or willingness to break with her own side at cost; no drag toward disloyalty or self-interest. Honest middle.
II Aspiration & Integrity
  • Do I admire their values and how they live them?
  • Do they reflect the kind of person I hope to become?
  • Do I feel challenged to be better because of their example?
6
why?
Attributes: consistent public conviction on her core issues (civil rights, tech accountability). Held at a middle by the 2013 travel-disclosure appearance-concern and the absence of documented self-correction anchors; no authenticity breach found.
III Protection & Influence
  • Would I trust this person to protect what I love most?
  • Would I trust them to influence someone I care deeply about?
  • Would those under their authority be safer and better for it?
6
why?
Attributes: substantive protective legislating on deepfakes/synthetic media and cybersecurity. Drag from low cross-aisle cooperation (Lugar BPI) and the SOCAR-funded-travel appearance-concern; no exploitation-of-power finding.
IV Legacy & Virtue
  • Would I be proud if my child grew up to be like them?
  • Do they embody the virtues I want carried into the future?
  • If their influence continued in others, would the world be better or worse?
6
why?
Attributes: a durable, scandal-light record of representation. No criterion-class conduct; held at a middle by the absence of a defining integrity high-mark and the weighed travel appearance-concern.
TOTAL: Moderate 24/40

Total 24/40, an honest middle. The pillars track the conduct composite closely: a clean, long-serving record without criterion-class flags, and without an extraordinary character anchor that would lift it.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“It is imperative that Congress not only establishes a clear standard for identifying deepfakes but also provides prosecutors, regulators, and especially victims with the necessary tools to combat fake or manipulated content.”

On introducing the DEEPFAKES Accountability Act of 2023 · clarke.house.gov press release · CIVIC · cite

“These troubling allegations have reached a level that I believe impedes Governor Cuomo's ability to serve the people of New York State to the best of his abilities.”

Statement calling for Gov. Andrew Cuomo (a fellow Democrat) to step down · Rep. Clarke official X account · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Yvette Diane Clarke (born November 21, 1964). U.S. Representative for New York's 9th Congressional District (central Brooklyn) since January 3, 2013, and previously for NY-11 from 2007-2013. Daughter of former New York City Council member Una Clarke. Served on the New York City Council (2002-2006). Member of the Congressional Black Caucus; Energy & Commerce and Homeland Security committee service. Democrat.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Long-tenured Brooklyn Democrat. DW-NOMINATE places her on the progressive wing of the House Democratic caucus. Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index below the House midpoint (~ -0.73), with low cross-aisle bill co-sponsorship relative to similarly tenured members, recorded here as cooperation conduct, not as a policy or ideology judgment. Signature substantive lane: synthetic-media/deepfake accountability (DEEP FAKES Accountability Act, 2019 and 2023) and cybersecurity/homeland-security work. Committee service on Energy & Commerce and Homeland Security.

3. Constitutional Moments

Certified the 2020 presidential election; took no part in process-subversion conduct and did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus. Impeachment and confirmation votes are treated as the constitutional process working and are NOT scored as conduct in either direction. The notable cross-pressure moment on record is her 2021 call for fellow Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign, a limited instance of accountability applied within her own party.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Conventional partisan rhetoric with occasional sharp lines toward the opposing administration (e.g. describing the prior President's conduct as bigoted / encouraging 'state-sponsored violence'). Under the framework this is policy/political heat aimed at an officeholder, NOT anti-belonging or incitement, and is not scored against her. No documented sustained enemy-making pattern toward citizens or opponents. A resurfaced 'more people in my district for redistricting' clip is a contested, context-disputed item weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding.

5. Fiduciary Profile

The one sustained fiduciary appearance-concern is the May 2013 trip to Baku, Azerbaijan, disclosed as funded by a single non-profit but later found by the Office of Congressional Ethics to have undisclosed funders, including Azerbaijan's state oil company (SOCAR). The House Committee on Ethics closed the matter in 2015 and cleared the traveling members; the 'concerted, possibly criminal' deception was attributed to the trip's organizers and referred to the Justice Department, not found against her, and she recused herself from the committee's action. Weighed as an appearance-concern, not a sanction or finding. No documented office-driven self-enrichment, family payroll, or trading-on-office pattern.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process-subversion (certified 2020; no Texas v. PA amicus), and no sustained enemy-making/incitement pattern (criticism of the opposing administration is policy heat, not criterion-10 conduct). The 2013 travel matter is a cleared appearance-concern, not a finding. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

An honest middle. Clarke's record is that of a long-serving, scandal-light Brooklyn Democrat who keeps the basic oath, does real substantive work on deepfake accountability and cybersecurity, and carries no criterion-class flags. What holds the composite at a middle rather than higher: below-median cross-aisle cooperation, an unmet active call-out duty (little documented willingness to break with her own side at cost), the cleared-but-real 2013 Azerbaijan travel-disclosure appearance-concern, and the absence of a defining constitutional-courage or integrity high-mark. Adequate, not Sound, and below the support threshold on the conduct standard.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Office of Congressional Ethics, OCE Review No. 15-8048

Tier 2: Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index · OpenSecrets

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · OCE referral (Review No. 15-8048) · Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index · OpenSecrets profile · Wikipedia

Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: