Composite 7.15 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
✓ Clears the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: supported.
Clears the 700 support line at credit 715 (Sound band) with no severity flag, Author's Verdict: supported on the documented conduct.
No military service on record. Career background: McKinsey & Company business consultant; Economic Development Board for Tacoma-Pierce County (Business Retention Manager, then Vice President); Washington House of Representatives 2005-2007; Washington State Senate 2007-2012. Listed here for context only; not scored.
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?Twelve years of oath-consistent conduct with no documented process-subversion: certified the 2020 and subsequent presidential elections (the constitutional process working, not scored against him), no fake-elector or amicus involvement, no clock-running obstruction of constitutional duties. He could not have signed the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, it was a House-Republican filing and he is a Democrat, and verification of the 126-signatory list confirms his absence. Solid oath fidelity; held at upper-middle rather than the apex tier because the record shows no singular oath-at-personal-cost stand of the kind that defines a 9. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 9 | why?Among the strongest cross-aisle records measured. Chaired the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress and structurally hard-wired bipartisanship: insisted on six Republicans and six Democrats and a two-thirds-vote threshold for every recommendation, producing 202 bipartisan recommendations. Sustained top-quartile Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index placement (ranked 33rd most bipartisan in the 114th; 0.88951 in 2023). Co-founded the bipartisan Fix Congress Caucus. Institution placed over denying the other side a win, by design. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented anti-belonging instances, no record of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. A career oriented toward making the institution work across the aisle is the inverse posture. Clean upper-middle; not elevated higher absent a documented affirmative defense-of-an-opponent's-personhood anchor of the McCain-Lakeville kind. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics; no criterion-class conduct. The record is the inverse, transparency and accountability legislation (Honest Ads Act, Political Accountability and Transparency Act). Held at 7 rather than higher absent an affirmative power-constraining stand at personal cost. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Career-long rhetorical restraint with no documented incitement, enemy-making pattern, or heated-line controversy surfacing in the record. Measured public posture consistent with the modernization/reform brand. No documented exception to weigh against it. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 7 | why?No fiduciary appearance-concern surfaced in the record, no ethics complaint, no sanction, no flagged conflict. Net worth modest (estimated ~$138K in 2012, far below the chamber median). Affirmatively sponsored transparency legislation (PATA, Honest Ads Act). Held at 7 rather than higher absent a documented affirmative recusal/self-accountability anchor. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?The active call-out standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Kilmer's reform record critiques the institution broadly and structurally, but the public record shows limited evidence of him calling out his own party at personal political cost on a specific high-salience issue. Middle: genuine institutional self-criticism, but not the documented own-side-at-cost stand that drives this measure higher. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented discretion-test moment, neither a high-mark refusal of preferential treatment nor any abuse of discretionary advantage. Default middle: clean record, no singular anchor on either side. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented gap between private and public conduct; off-camera reputation is not contradicted by the record. Default middle absent affirmative evidence either elevating or lowering it. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Solid, attentive representation of WA-6 (Olympic Peninsula) across twelve years, economic-development and constituent-service focus consistent with his pre-Congress career. Nothing remarkable in either direction on constituent-vs-donor alignment; honest middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 8 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment, none documented. No self-dealing, family-payment, office-information-trade, or foreign-government-revenue concern surfaced. Net worth modest and below chamber median; no stock-trade ethics complaint (unlike several contemporaries). Raw wealth is explicitly NOT penalized. High mark for the absence of any office-driven enrichment. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 8 | why?Institutional decorum and respect for the institution are the through-line of his career, he literally chaired the committee charged with strengthening 'the People's House,' insisting on bipartisan structure and pragmatic, regular-order reform over spectacle. Honors the office and the institution above the officeholder. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 7 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern surfaced in the record. Consistent acknowledgment of the legitimacy of opponents and of the constitutional process weighs positive. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Deep substantive command of institutional-reform and economic-development policy: Ph.D. (Oxford, comparative social policy), McKinsey and regional economic-development background, and a 202-recommendation modernization report grounded in detailed institutional analysis. Substance over talking points. [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 |
|---|---|---|
| M01 | No documented singular oath-at-personal-cost stand of the apex kind during twelve years of service ↳ Oath fidelity ceiling, solid but not exceptional | Clean process record; certified elections; no subversion conduct |
| M07 | Limited documented evidence of calling out his own party at personal political cost on a high-salience issue ↳ Active own-side call-out duty under-evidenced | Genuine structural self-criticism of the institution via the Modernization Committee |
| M08 | No documented discretion-test moment in either direction ↳ Default middle, no anchor | No abuse of discretionary advantage either |
| M09 | No affirmative evidence of public/private consistency beyond an uncontradicted record ↳ Default middle, no anchor | No documented contempt gap |
| M10 | No remarkable constituent-vs-donor alignment evidence in either direction ↳ Honest middle | Attentive district-service and economic-development focus |
| Pillar III | Under-evidenced own-side call-out (Courage in Conflict) holds the protection pillar just below the top tier ↳ Courage-in-Conflict ceiling | Strong Stewardship and zero Exploitation across the record |
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: Steadiness, Loyalty to the institution, Selfless Service in the reform sense. Twelve years of oath-consistent conduct with no subversion and no drama. Held at 7 absent the extraordinary courage-under-fire evidence that pushes this pillar to 9. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 8 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Consistency. A coherent, sustained civic mission, making Congress work better, pursued bipartisanly and on the record for years. Authentic alignment between stated values (transparency, modernization) and conduct (six-six committee structure, two-thirds rule, transparency bills). |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, Protection of the institution. Used influence to strengthen the institution and increase transparency rather than to exploit it; zero documented Exploitation. Held below the top tier by under-evidenced own-side call-out (Courage in Conflict). |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 8 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth, institutional fidelity. A durable, rare legacy, the structural bipartisan modernization of the House, in an era abandoning institutionalism. No contested moments dragging against it; the ceiling reflects scope, not blemish. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 30/40 |
Total 30/40, Strong. The pillars hold high because the institutional-fidelity record is genuine and unusually clean; they fall short of the apex because the record lacks a documented at-personal-cost sacrifice anchor of the strongest kind.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I insisted that this committee have six Republicans and six Democrats, and that every recommendation require a two-thirds vote, because the way to fix a broken institution is to do it together.”
On the founding structure of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress · Kilmer House office / Modernization Committee record · CIVIC · cite
“Congress can and must work better for the American people, that's not a partisan goal, it's an institutional one.”
On release of the Modernization Committee's final report · Kilmer House office · PRINCIPLED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Derek Christian Kilmer. U.S. Representative for Washington's 6th congressional district (Olympic Peninsula), 2013-2025; Democrat. Born and raised in Port Angeles, WA, to two public-school teachers. B.A. in public affairs, Princeton (Woodrow Wilson School), 1996; M.A. economic development policy and Ph.D. comparative social policy, University of Oxford. Pre-Congress: McKinsey & Company consultant; Economic Development Board for Tacoma-Pierce County (VP); WA House 2005-2007; WA State Senate 2007-2012 (lead capital budget writer). Chaired the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress (116th-117th). Did not seek re-election in 2024; succeeded by Emily Randall. Joined the Rockefeller Foundation as SVP for U.S. Program and Policy in January 2025.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index consistently top-quartile (ranked 33rd most bipartisan in the 114th; 0.88951 in 2023). Signature work: Chair of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, producing 202 bipartisan recommendations (132 advanced, 45 fully implemented) under a self-imposed six-Republican/six-Democrat composition and two-thirds-vote rule. Co-founder of the bipartisan Fix Congress Caucus. Transparency/ethics legislation: Honest Ads Act, Political Accountability and Transparency Act, campaign-finance provisions folded into H.R. 1. House Appropriations member. Policy merits are not graded in either direction, per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
No process-subversion conduct on record. Certified the 2020 and subsequent presidential election results, the constitutional process working, not scored against him. Not a signatory to the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a House-Republican filing; verified absent from the 126-signatory list). The defining institutional-fidelity work is affirmative rather than crisis-driven: the bipartisan structural reform of the House through the Modernization Committee.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Career-long rhetorical restraint with no documented incitement, enemy-making pattern, or anti-belonging instance surfacing in the record. The public posture is consistent with the modernization-and-bipartisanship brand, institution-focused rather than opponent-focused. No documented exception to weigh against it.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No office-attributable enrichment documented, no self-dealing, family-payment, office-information-trade, or foreign-government-revenue concern. Net worth modest (estimated ~$138K in 2012, far below the chamber median) and no stock-trade ethics complaint, unlike several contemporaries. Affirmatively sponsored financial-transparency and accountability legislation. Raw wealth is not penalized; the absence of any enrichment breach is the operative finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process subversion (Criterion 8): not a Texas v. PA signatory, no fake-elector or obstruction conduct, certified elections. No sustained enemy-making or incitement (Criterion 10): the rhetoric record is restrained and institution-focused. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Kilmer's record is unusually clean and coherent: twelve years of oath-consistent service with no subversion, no ethics finding, no enrichment breach, and a genuinely rare affirmative legacy, the bipartisan structural modernization of the House, hard-wired with a six-six committee and a two-thirds rule. The standard records the ceiling honestly: the record lacks a documented at-personal-cost sacrifice or own-side call-out anchor of the strongest kind, which is what separates a Sound record from the apex tier. No capping or terminal flags. Sound, and earned on conduct.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Select Committee on Modernization of Congress, final report (Kilmer House office)
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · OpenSecrets
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · OpenSecrets · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.