Composite 6.44 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band, just short of the support threshold. The record is genuinely clean on what this standard grades: no ethics findings, no office-driven enrichment, clean disclosures, and an affirmative anti-self-dealing posture in sponsoring congressional stock-trade bans. No criterion-class conduct on either capping axis. What holds it below the line is institutional, not characterological, a strongly partisan profile with below-median cross-aisle collaboration, a thin record of own-side accountability at cost, and documented factual gaffes that read as diligence lapses. A respectable, no-support middle: nothing disqualifying, but not the tested-at-cost record support requires.
No military service on record. Diana DeGette is an attorney (J.D., New York University School of Law, 1982) who practiced law and served in the Colorado House of Representatives before her election to Congress.
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 purpose. She is a Democrat seated continuously since
1997 and is NOT a signatory of the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a Republican-only filing), no criterion-8 exposure. Her 2021 service as an impeachment manager is the constitutional process
working and is NOT scored against her here. Held at upper-middle: oath-fidelity is intact, but the
record does not show an affirmative institutional stand taken at personal cost that would lift it higher.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?The genuine drag on this record. Lugar Bipartisan Index rank near 298 (below the House median) and a
DW-NOMINATE around -0.85 (strongly partisan) indicate limited demonstrated cross-aisle bridge-building
relative to peers. Scored as institutional collaboration conduct, NOT as ideology, a member of either
party with this profile lands here. Offset modestly by a 2023 Javits Prize for Bipartisan Leadership and
genuine reach-across work on stem-cell research law. Middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as people who do not belong. Rhetoric runs
partisan and pointed on contested issues (abortion, guns) but stays within ordinary policy heat, no
criterion-10 enemy-making pattern. Upper-middle: civil baseline, no high-mark affirmative defense of an
opponent's personhood on record to push it higher.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; no abuse-of-office conduct on record. No
criterion-class conduct. Held at upper-middle absent an affirmative instance of constraining power at
cost to herself.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Rhetorical conduct is within normal bounds, assertive partisan advocacy without a documented record of
dehumanizing or inciting language. No sustained incitement pattern. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 7 | why?No ethics-committee findings, no sanctions, no documented appearance-of-impropriety drag across a long
tenure. Reinforced by her sponsorship of congressional stock-trade bans, an affirmative posture against
the very conflicts this measure guards. Held just below the top tier for lack of a singular tested
accountability moment on the public record.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. The record shows accountability directed
across the aisle (impeachment-manager role, Jan-6 statements) but little documented instance of
challenging her own party or leadership at personal cost. Honest middle, the harder, scored direction is
not demonstrated.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?Long-tenured Chief Deputy Whip and senior Energy & Commerce member; discretion exercised without
documented abuse. No record of misusing positional discretion for private or factional advantage, but no
standout instance of declining advantage at cost either. Middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented gap between a private posture and public persona; no reported contempt-behind-closed-doors
pattern. Absent affirmative evidence either way, held at a neutral middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Durable constituent connection in a safe Denver seat (continuous since 1997), with active casework and
district presence. Some divergence between a strongly partisan voting profile and the full breadth of a
diverse urban district is a minor reliability note, not an abuse. Middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 8 | why?No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family-payment, office-info trading, or
foreign-government revenue on record. Not named in STOCK Act non-disclosure complaints; on the contrary, she is a lead sponsor of legislation to bar members (and potentially spouses) from trading individual
stocks. Raw household wealth, if any, is not scored. Strong on the only thing this measure grades.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Sustained institutional decorum across a long tenure, regular-order floor posture, committee leadership, no censure or decorum sanction on record. Honors the institution. Held at upper-middle; partisan
sharpness on contested floor fights tempers it slightly but does not breach decorum.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented pattern of deliberate falsehood. Drag comes from documented factual errors in her own
portfolio, the 2013 high-capacity-magazine remark and a mischaracterization of stem-cell research law, which read as diligence/accuracy lapses rather than intentional deception. Honest middle: candor intact, precision wanting on occasion.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Deep tenure on a powerful committee with substantive legislative authorship (21st Century Cures Act
co-lead). Offset by documented command gaps within her own signature areas (the magazine and stem-cell
misstatements), which keep substance-over-talking-points at a measured middle rather than higher.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Lugar Bipartisan Index rank near 298 (below House median); DW-NOMINATE around -0.85 (strongly partisan) ↳ cross-aisle collaboration conduct (NOT ideology), limited demonstrated bridge-building vs peers | 2023 Javits Prize for Bipartisan Leadership; genuine reach-across work on stem-cell research law |
| M07 | Little documented instance of challenging her own party/leadership at personal cost ↳ active call-out duty, the harder, scored direction undemonstrated | Accountability directed across the aisle is on record; the own-side direction simply is not |
| M13 | 2013 high-capacity-magazine remark and a mischaracterization of stem-cell research law ↳ accuracy/diligence lapse in her own portfolio | Reads as imprecision, not intentional deception, no falsehood pattern |
| M14 | Documented command gaps within signature subject areas ↳ substance/diligence drag | Substantive authorship (21st Century Cures) and long committee tenure offset |
| Pillar III | Strongly partisan voting profile relative to a diverse urban district (Reliability) ↳ Reliability drag | No Exploitation; durable constituent service and clean fiduciary conduct |
| Pillar IV | Accuracy lapses as influence one would not want propagated (Love of Truth) ↳ minor Justice/Love-of-Truth drag | No dishonesty pattern; clean ethics legacy dominates |
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
| 6 | why?Attributes: Steadiness, Loyalty, Selfless Service, durable, reliable institutional presence across 14 terms with no breach of trust on record. Held at a solid middle by the absence of a documented stand taken at personal cost to herself (the higher-tier evidence). |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, clear and consistent convictions, authentically held. Drag toward Consistency's harder test (own-side accountability) and toward precision (documented factual misstatements she did not always pre-empt) keeps it at a middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, the stock-trade-ban authorship is real Stewardship against self-dealing temptation; no Exploitation on record. Partisan reliability divergence from a broad district is a minor note, not an abuse. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 7 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth, a clean ethics legacy with no findings, sanctions, or enrichment. Tempered by accuracy lapses and a partisan profile that narrows the bridge-building dimension of the legacy. A record most would be comfortable seeing reflected. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 26/40 |
Total 26/40, Adequate-to-sound. The pillars track the conduct composite closely: clean integrity and genuine fiduciary stewardship, held off the top tier by limited cross-aisle conduct and diligence lapses.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I never thought I'd see a sitting U.S. president incite a deadly attack on our democracy.”
On being present in the Capitol during the January 6 attack · Public statements / news record · CIVIC · cite
“Members of Congress should not be trading individual stocks while they have access to non-public information.”
Advocating a ban on congressional stock trading (paraphrase of her stated reform position) · Reform legislation advocacy / news record · PRINCIPLED · cite
“The number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot.”
Denver gun-control forum; a factual misstatement about how magazines work, corrected by attendees · News coverage of the 2013 forum · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Diana Louise DeGette (born July 29, 1957). U.S. Representative for Colorado's 1st congressional district (Denver) since 1997, currently in her 14th-plus term. Chief Deputy Whip for the House Democratic Caucus; senior member of the Energy & Commerce Committee and co-chair of the congressional Pro-Choice Caucus. Attorney (J.D., NYU School of Law, 1982); former member of the Colorado House of Representatives. Co-led the 21st Century Cures Act; served as an impeachment manager in the 2021 second impeachment trial.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
DW-NOMINATE roughly -0.85 (strongly partisan, left of the House Democratic median). Lugar Center Bipartisan Index rank near 298 (below the House median for cross-aisle collaboration), despite a 2023 Javits Prize for Bipartisan Leadership. Signature legislative authorship: 21st Century Cures Act (2016, co-lead with Fred Upton, R) and longstanding work on stem-cell research and FDA/health policy via Energy & Commerce. Active sponsor of measures to ban congressional individual-stock trading. The partisan profile is recorded as institutional-collaboration CONDUCT, not graded on policy merits in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
Present in the Capitol on January 6, 2021; served as one of the nine House impeachment managers in the 2021 Senate trial, scored here as the constitutional process functioning, NOT as a partisan credit or penalty. Not a signatory to the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a Republican-only filing); no criterion-8 process-subversion exposure. No censure, sanction, or decorum violation on record.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Assertive, partisan advocacy on contested issues, abortion rights, gun policy, health care, that stays within ordinary policy heat. No documented pattern of dehumanizing opponents, casting citizens as enemies, or inciting confrontation; no criterion-10 exposure. The rhetorical drag is precision, not cruelty: several documented factual misstatements within her own subject areas read as diligence lapses rather than bad faith.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No ethics-committee findings, sanctions, or documented appearance-of-impropriety across a long tenure. Not named in STOCK Act non-disclosure complaints; affirmatively sponsors legislation to bar members and spouses from trading individual stocks. No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. The strongest dimension of the record.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process-subversion (criterion 8): she is a Democrat seated since 1997 and is not a Texas v. Pennsylvania signatory. No sustained enemy-making/incitement pattern (criterion 10). Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
DeGette clears the conduct bar. The record is clean on what this standard grades: no ethics findings, no enrichment, clean disclosures, and an affirmative anti-self-dealing posture in sponsoring stock-trade bans. The honest drags are institutional and diligence-based, not characterological, a strongly partisan profile with below-median cross-aisle collaboration, and documented factual misstatements within her own portfolio that the standard counts as accuracy lapses, not deception. No capping conduct on either axis. The result is an honest Adequate middle, nothing disqualifying, but short of the tested-at-cost record support requires.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House Ethics financial disclosure
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · GovTrack · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.