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

← Roster

624
Adequate
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
24/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 5.99 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

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

Lands in the Adequate band at credit 624, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)

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?
No documented process-subversion conduct. Seated January 3, 2023, could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and post-dates the Jan-6 certification entirely. No fake-elector activity, no effort to defeat a certified result, no clock-running appointment blockade on record. Routine constitutional conduct; held at upper-middle because the tenure is short and there is no affirmative cross-pressure stand against her own side that would push toward the apex tier. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 5
why?
Conduct measure of willingness to legislate across the aisle, not policy or party. The measured record is below median: Lugar Bipartisan Index of roughly -0.40 in the 117th Congress (ranked ~189th), and GovTrack's 2024 report card placed her as joining bipartisan bills the 3rd least often in the California delegation. Membership in several bipartisan task forces is noted but does not offset the measured cosponsorship pattern. Honest middle-low, this scores cross-party legislative behavior, not the substance of any position. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 6
why?
Persons-of-equal-worth measure. Her public rhetoric is sharply partisan, framing opponents' agenda as dismantling government and harming constituents, but the documented record is policy heat directed at positions and actions, not a sustained pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. No criterion-10 enemy-making pattern found. Upper-middle: combative but within ordinary advocacy bounds. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 7
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against rivals, no abuse-of-office conduct, no criterion-8 process-subversion. The record shows ordinary legislative and oversight activity. No criterion-class conduct. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 6
why?
Rhetoric measure. Partisan and pointed, especially on Trump-administration policy, but no documented use of dehumanizing language or incitement. Heated framing of policy fights is weighed as ordinary advocacy, not as an anti-belonging instance. Upper-middle. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 6
why?
Fiduciary-judgment measure. The May 2026 Qualcomm sale (up to ~$2M from the Sara J. Jacobs 1999 Trust) was disclosed via a Periodic Transaction Report under the STOCK Act and reported on time, which is the compliant conduct. The appearance-concern, a House Armed Services member trading a defense-adjacent semiconductor firm her grandfather co-founded, is weighed as an appearance issue, not a finding (no investigation, no rule violation alleged). Middle: clean disclosure conduct, real optics drag. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 4
why?
The active-duty standard here is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Jacobs publicly breaking with her party or leadership on a matter of principle at political cost. Her cross-pressure stands are aimed at the opposing party, which does not meet the higher bar. Below middle, absence of evidence of the costly own-side call-out, not evidence of bad conduct. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 6
why?
Discretion test, conduct when no one is compelling the right choice. No documented failures of discretion; timely STOCK Act disclosure of the family-trust trade is a modest point in favor. No standout sacrifice-of- self-interest moment on record either. Honest middle for a short tenure. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 6
why?
Private-versus-public consistency. No documented gap between an off-camera reputation and her public posture; sustained accessible town-hall program (telephone, virtual, in-person, varied times) is consistent with the public-facing brand. No contradictory evidence found. Middle-upper. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 6
why?
Constituent-responsiveness conduct. Active, deliberately accessible town-hall schedule and willingness to take questions, including stepping in for a neighboring district whose member declined public forums. The drag is the inherited-wealth distance from median constituents (weighed as disconnect, not breach). Middle-upper. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 6
why?
Scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The Qualcomm holding and the May 2026 sale originate from the Sara J. Jacobs 1999 Trust, inherited, pre-office family wealth (grandfather Irwin Jacobs co-founded Qualcomm), NOT office-driven enrichment, and not penalized as a breach. The residual concern is appearance only: a sitting Armed Services member transacting a defense-adjacent firm. No self-dealing, family payments, office-information trade, or foreign-government revenue documented. Middle reflects the appearance drag, not a finding. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 6
why?
Institutional decorum. No documented breaches of floor or committee conduct, no stunt-driven spectacle on record. Ordinary institutional behavior; held at middle for a short tenure without a standout institution-over-self moment. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 7
why?
Truthfulness measure. No documented sustained pattern of falsehoods or fabricated claims. Her contested statements are partisan characterizations of opponents' policy, not documented factual fabrications. Upper-middle; no falsehood pattern found. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 7
why?
Substantive command measure. Serves on House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs (Ranking Member, Africa subcommittee), with a documented working focus on national-security, AI, and child/family policy. Demonstrated substantive engagement over pure talking points. 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.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M02 Lugar Bipartisan Index ~-0.40 (117th Cong., ranked ~189th); GovTrack 2024 placed her 3rd-least-bipartisan in the CA delegation
↳ cross-party legislative behavior, below median
Member of several bipartisan task forces; this scores cosponsorship conduct, not policy
M07 No documented instance of breaking with her own party/leadership on principle at political cost
↳ active own-side call-out duty, not met
Absence of evidence, not evidence of bad conduct; short tenure
M06 May 2026 Qualcomm sale (~$2M) by an Armed Services member in a defense-adjacent firm her family co-founded
↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety
From a 1999 family trust; disclosed on time via STOCK Act PTR; no investigation or rule violation
M11 Qualcomm holding/sale tied to family ties while serving on Armed Services
↳ office-adjacent appearance concern
Inherited pre-office trust wealth, NOT office-driven enrichment, not penalized as a breach; appearance only
M10 Inherited family wealth creates distance from median-constituent reality
↳ wealth-disconnect
Active, deliberately accessible town-hall program partly offsets
M03 Sharply partisan framing of the opposing party's agenda
↳ rhetorical heat
Directed at policy/actions, not a documented enemy-making pattern; no criterion-10

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: Steadiness, Selfless Service, Accountability. Consistent public posture and accessible constituent engagement support Loyalty to the role; no documented courage-at-own-cost stand pulls it above middle, and no collapse pulls it below.
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: Conviction, Authenticity. Clear, consistent advocacy with no documented integrity breach; held at middle by the absence of a demonstrated self-correction or own-side principle stand, and by the wealth/holdings appearance 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?
6
why?
Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. Uses the office for active constituent engagement; the only drag is the inherited-wealth appearance concern around a defense-adjacent holding, weighed as appearance not exploitation. No abuse of power on record.
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: Integrity, Love of Truth. No falsehood pattern, no criterion-class conduct; short tenure and the bipartisanship/appearance drags keep this at an honest middle rather than higher.
TOTAL: Moderate 24/40

Total 24/40, an honest middle. The record shows clean disclosure conduct, accessible constituent work, and no criterion-class subversion or enemy-making; it is held to the middle by a below-median bipartisan-legislation record, no documented costly own-side stand, and the inherited-holding appearance concern.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“Congresswoman Jacobs is committed to accessibility and transparency, and she loves hearing directly from her constituents at town halls.”

Town-hall accessibility commitment, varied formats and times · sarajacobs.house.gov town halls · CIVIC · cite

“The Qualcomm shares were sold from the Sara J. Jacobs 1999 Trust and disclosed in a Periodic Transaction Report under the STOCK Act.”

House Periodic Transaction Report; family-trust sale by an Armed Services member · House financial disclosures (clerk) · CONTESTED · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Sara Jacobs (born February 1, 1989). U.S. Representative for California's 51st Congressional District since January 3, 2023; previously represented CA-53 (2021-2023). Democrat. Serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where she is Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Africa, and serves as Parliamentarian of the House Democratic Caucus. Granddaughter of Qualcomm co-founder Irwin Jacobs.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Below-median bipartisan-legislation record by the Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index (~-0.40 in the 117th Congress, ranked ~189th) and GovTrack's 2024 report card (3rd-least-bipartisan in the California delegation). Committee focus on national security (Armed Services), foreign affairs (Africa subcommittee ranking member), AI policy, and child/family welfare. Policy positions are not scored here in either direction; the bipartisan figure is recorded as a measure of cross-party legislative conduct, not ideology.

3. Constitutional Moments

Seated January 3, 2023, post-dates the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and the January 6, 2021 certification entirely; not a signatory and not present for those events. No documented process-subversion, fake-elector, or appointment-blockade conduct. No criterion-8 capping conduct on record.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Sharply partisan and pointed, especially on Trump-administration policy, but the documented record is heat aimed at positions and actions rather than a sustained pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. No criterion-10 enemy-making pattern found. No dehumanizing language or incitement on record.

5. Fiduciary Profile

Inherited family wealth tied to Qualcomm (grandfather Irwin Jacobs co-founded the company). The May 2026 sale of up to ~$2M in Qualcomm stock came from the Sara J. Jacobs 1999 Trust and was disclosed via a timely STOCK Act Periodic Transaction Report. The genuine concern is appearance, a House Armed Services member transacting a defense-adjacent firm with family ties, weighed as an appearance issue, not a finding: no investigation, no rule violation, no self-dealing, no office-information trade, no foreign-government revenue. The holding is pre-office, inherited wealth and is not scored as office-driven enrichment.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Seated after December 2020, so no criterion-8 amicus/fake-elector exposure; no documented sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern under criterion-10. The Qualcomm appearance-concern is an optics matter resolved by timely disclosure, not a flag. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

An honest middle record. Jacobs shows clean disclosure conduct, an accessible constituent-engagement program, and no criterion-class subversion, enemy-making, or abuse of office. She is held to the middle by a below-median bipartisan-legislation record, the absence of any documented costly stand against her own side, and the appearance concern around an inherited defense-adjacent holding she trades while serving on Armed Services. No capping flags; the composite, not a flag, governs the verdict.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · U.S. House financial disclosures (clerk)

Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures (clerk) · GovTrack profile · Wikipedia

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

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: