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

← Roster

685
Sound
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
28/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 6.72 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

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

A clean, honorable, conduct-positive record with zero severity-class flags, but it lands below the support bar. The composite estimates in the solid-but-not-exceptional range (roughly mid-6s), under the ~6.93 line the 700-credit threshold requires, because the record's steadiness is its ceiling: there is no documented courage-at-personal-cost stand against her own side and no signature institution-over-party anchor to lift it. Honorable, but below the bar as measured.

★ Service to Country

No military service record. Public service is in elected and appointed civilian office, New Hampshire State Senate (including Majority Leader), Governor of New Hampshire 2013-2017, and U.S. Senator 2017-present. Civilian public service is context for the dossier, not a score input.

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 7
why?
Sustained constitutional posture across her Senate tenure with no documented breach of the oath. Voted to certify the 2020 electoral count, recorded as the constitutional function working as designed, not scored as a policy win. No documented process-subversion, no nullification of a constitutional function, no obstruction of lawful oversight. Solid-positive, held below the apex tier reserved for forcing a constitutional limit at the cost of one's own political life. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 6
why?
A documented record of cross-aisle legislating, bipartisan infrastructure work, fentanyl/opioid measures with Republican co-sponsors, and veterans provisions. Reaches across the aisle on substance without making bipartisanship a defining signature in the way of the top-quartile bridge-builders. Above-middle. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 7
why?
No documented instance of denying opponents or any persons their standing as persons of equal worth, no dehumanizing rhetoric, no targeting of a class. Treats political adversaries as legitimate participants. Conduct-clean; upper-middle absent a signature high-mark anchor. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 7
why?
No documented weaponization of state or procedural power against rivals; no abuse of the office's machinery, no fake-elector or amicus-to-void conduct. The record is clean of criterion-class abuse-of-power conduct. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 6
why?
Generally measured rhetoric; partisan in framing at times during campaigns, as is common, but no documented instance of inciting violence or threatening a class of persons. Above-middle for restraint without a standout de-escalation anchor. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 7
why?
No Senate Ethics findings, no sanction, no documented fiduciary breach across her tenure. Clean fiduciary record; held at upper-middle absent affirmative over-disclosure conduct that would lift it toward the top under the active-duty standard. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 6
why?
Participates in oversight and has at times pressed beyond pure party line, but the record does not show the aggressive own-side call-out that the active-duty standard rewards at the top. Passive-clean toward the middle, with above-middle credit for documented independent stances on her state's interests. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 7
why?
No documented instance of using discretion to harm where she could have; no pattern of cruelty or exploitation of those subject to her authority as governor or senator. Clean on the discretion test; upper-middle absent a Lincoln-class affirmative restraint anchor. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 7
why?
No documented private/public contempt gap; the off-camera reputation is not at odds with the public posture. No finding of a two-faced record. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 7
why?
A documented record of constituent responsiveness and attention to New Hampshire-specific concerns (border/fentanyl, energy costs, veterans). Institutional service is solid; upper-middle. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 7
why?
No documented office-attributable enrichment; financial disclosures show no pattern of office-driven personal gain. Raw wealth status is not scored, only enrichment from the office, of which there is no documented instance. Clean; upper-middle. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 7
why?
Maintains institutional decorum; no documented breach of floor norms, no spectacle-over-institution conduct. Honors the office over the officeholder. Upper-middle. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 7
why?
No sustained documented-falsehood pattern; no proven false accusation weaponized through the office. Routine campaign framing does not rise to a finding of dishonesty. Upper-middle. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 6
why?
Substantive on her committee portfolios (HSGAC, Finance, Commerce) and on opioid/fentanyl and small-business measures, but not a defining policy-architect signature on the order of the chamber's substance leaders. Above-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.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M02 Bipartisan legislating is real but episodic, not a defining career signature; lacks a top-quartile bridge-builder anchor
↳ bipartisan reach without signature institution-over-party record
-
M05 Partisan campaign framing at times, common to contested re-election fights, with no de-escalation high-mark anchor
↳ rhetorical restraint without a standout anchor
No documented incitement or targeting of a class of persons
M07 Oversight participation is in-bounds but the record lacks the aggressive own-side call-out the active-duty standard rewards
↳ passive-clean active-duty posture
Documented independent stances on state-specific interests credit above the floor
M14 Solid committee substance without a defining policy-architect signature
↳ substance without signature legislative architecture
-

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?
7
why?
Attributes demonstrated: Responsibility, Steadiness Under Pressure, Discipline, a steady, institution-respecting tenure from governor to senator with no documented breach of trust. Held at solid rather than high by the absence of a Courage-at-personal-cost anchor (no documented stand taken against her own side at real political price). No meaningful drag toward the opposites (Disloyalty, Cowardice, Self-Interest).
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?
7
why?
Attributes: Consistency, Discipline, Authenticity, a consistent public posture with no documented contempt gap or reversal of stated principle for advantage. Held at solid by a lack of documented Self-Reflection/Teachability anchors (no signature owned-failure moment, which is a neutral absence, not a drag).
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?
7
why?
Attributes: Stewardship, Reliability, Protection, attentive to constituent welfare (fentanyl/border, veterans, energy costs) and clean of Exploitation. Solid rather than high absent a Courage-in-Conflict anchor where she used power to constrain power at cost.
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?
7
why?
Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Servant-Leadership, a clean, service-oriented record with no severity-class blemish. Held at solid because the legacy, while honorable, lacks the rare Moral-Courage high-mark that lifts a record toward the top tier. No drag toward Favoritism or Ego on the documented record.
TOTAL: Moderate 28/40

Total 28/40, Moderate. A clean, steady, conduct-positive record with no severity-class blemish, held at solid across all four pillars by the absence of an extraordinary courage-at-cost anchor rather than by any documented failing.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“January 6 was an attack on our democracy.”

Statement around the January 6-7, 2021 certification of the 2020 electoral count, which she voted to certify · Senate floor / public statement, January 2021 · CIVIC · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Margaret Coldwell "Maggie" Hassan (born February 27, 1958). U.S. Senator from New Hampshire 2017-present. Previously Governor of New Hampshire 2013-2017; New Hampshire State Senate 2005-2010, including Senate Majority Leader. Education: Brown University (B.A.), Northeastern University School of Law (J.D.). She defeated incumbent Senator Kelly Ayotte in 2016 and won re-election in 2022. Senate committees include Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Finance, and Commerce.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

A New Hampshire moderate Democrat with a documented record of cross-aisle work. Legislative footprint includes bipartisan infrastructure support, opioid- and fentanyl-focused measures often co-sponsored with Republicans, small-business and innovation provisions, and veterans' health measures. DW-NOMINATE places her in the center-left of the Democratic caucus. Her 2021 vote to certify the 2020 electoral count and her impeachment-trial votes are recorded as constitutional-process conduct, NOT scored on policy or party merits, per the framework's refusal to grade contested votes in either direction.

3. Constitutional Moments

Constitutional-process conduct over her Senate tenure has been in-bounds and as-designed. She voted to certify the 2020 electoral count on January 6-7, 2021, the constitutional function operating as intended, credited as clean conduct rather than scored as a policy outcome. No documented instance of weaponizing a legal-on-its-face procedure to defeat its constitutional purpose, no fake-elector conduct, no obstruction of lawful oversight.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Generally measured public rhetoric with the ordinary partisan framing of contested campaigns. No documented instance of incitement, dehumanizing language, or targeting of a class of persons. The record shows neither a standout de-escalation high-mark nor a documented rhetorical breach, net above-middle for restraint.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No Senate Ethics findings, no sanction, and no documented fiduciary breach across her tenure. Financial disclosures show no documented office-attributable enrichment. Raw wealth status is not scored under the framework, only enrichment driven by the office, of which there is no documented instance. A clean fiduciary record, held below the top tier only by the absence of affirmative over-disclosure conduct.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria across her career as state senator, governor, or U.S. senator. No process-subversion finding, no ethics sanction, no proven weaponized falsehood. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

Hassan's record is clean, steady, and conduct-positive: a moderate New Hampshire path from state senate majority leader to governor to U.S. senator with no documented breach of the oath, no ethics finding, and no severity-class blemish. The standard credits the bipartisan reach, the constituent attention, and the in-bounds constitutional-process conduct. What holds the composite in the solid-but-not-exceptional range is the absence of an extraordinary anchor, no documented courage-at-personal-cost stand against her own side, no signature legislative architecture, rather than any documented failing. A sound, honorable record that lands below the support bar on the strength of its very steadiness.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Senate Ethics Committee

Tier 2: Ballotpedia, Maggie Hassan · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Senate financial disclosures (eFD) · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia

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

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: