Composite 6.94 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
✓ Clears the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: supported.
A clean conduct record with a genuine cross-aisle accountability high-mark. The bipartisan sexual-misconduct task force co-led with a Republican colleague, and the willingness to file expulsion resolutions against members of her own coalition for misconduct, are real accountability conduct met at intramural cost. No ethics findings, no office-attributable enrichment, no criterion-class flags. The honest drags are a modestly below-average bipartisan sponsorship index and a relatively short tenure, which caps confidence rather than the floor. Clears the bar.
No military service record. Pre-office career as a voting-rights, Tribal-affairs, and public- lands attorney in New Mexico, and as an Obama-administration appointee to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Listed for completeness; 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?No documented use of legal-on-its-face power to defeat a constitutional purpose. Seated
Jan 3 2021, could not have signed the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (verified
against the seating date), and did not appear on the signatory list. Voted to certify the
2021 electoral count and treated the objections as baseless, the constitutional process
working, scored as neither credit nor demerit per the contamination rule. Upholds the oath
to the constitutional order without a documented defining stand at personal cost, which holds
this at upper-middle rather than the apex tier.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?The bipartisan task force on congressional sexual misconduct, co-led with Republican
Kat Cammack, is genuine institution-over-party conduct: a shared standard built across the
aisle rather than a partisan cudgel. Weighed against it is a Lugar Bipartisan Index score of
-0.507 (modestly below the Democratic baseline) on bill-sponsorship cross-partisanship.
Net middle: a real cross-aisle accomplishment on the conduct axis, tempered by a below-average
sponsorship pattern.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented anti-belonging conduct, no instance of casting opponents or constituents as
people who do not belong. Rhetoric is policy-contentious in places but stays within
issue-disagreement rather than personhood denial. Upper-middle on a clean but not
affirmatively-tested record.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals. The accountability work she leads
runs through the established Ethics process and bipartisan rule-making, not extra-procedural
targeting. No criterion-class conduct.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Career rhetoric stays in the register of policy and institutional reform; no documented
pattern of dehumanizing or enemy-making language. Some sharp partisan framing on contested
issues, which is policy heat and not scored. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 7 | why?No ethics complaint, investigation, or sanction against her on record. Disclosed holdings are
bond and broad index funds in retirement accounts, no individual-stock trading pattern that
would raise a fiduciary appearance-concern. Clean fiduciary record; held just below the top
tier absent an affirmative accountability event in her own conduct.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 8 | why?Met the higher active-duty standard, calling out one's own side at cost. As Chair of the
Democratic Women's Caucus she filed expulsion resolutions targeting members of her own
coalition over sexual-misconduct allegations and pressed for faster Ethics action regardless
of party. Holding co-partisans to the same standard, at intramural political cost, is the
conduct this measure rewards.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented instance of using discretionary advantage for preferential personal treatment,
and none of abusing discretion against others. Absent a sharp documented discretion test
either way, scored at an honest middle on a clean but limited record.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented gap between private conduct and public posture; the on-record reputation and
the reform advocacy are consistent. Middle reflects the absence of a deep public-vs-private
test rather than any negative finding.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 7 | why?District-aligned representation for NM-3 (rural, Tribal, and northern New Mexico
constituencies); no documented donor-over-constituent capture pattern. Conventional campaign
fundraising with no flagged quid-pro-quo concern. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 8 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment, per the contamination rule. Estimated net
worth (~$2.1M) is raw wealth and is NOT scored. No documented self-dealing, family payments,
office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. Holdings are passive bond/index
funds in IRAs. High, reflecting the absence of office-driven enrichment.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Works through regular order and institutional process, the misconduct reform is pursued via
rule-making, training overhaul, and the Ethics Committee rather than spectacle. Honors the
office over the show. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 7 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. Statements on contested policy are advocacy framed
as such, not fabricated factual claims. Upper-middle on a clean record.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Substantive command in her lane, public-lands, education, and Tribal/cultural-heritage
legislation with specific drafted bills rather than messaging vehicles. As a former voting-
rights and Tribal-affairs attorney she brings real subject-matter depth. 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.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index score -0.507 (117th Cong.), modestly below the Democratic baseline, rank ~216 ↳ below-average cross-partisan bill sponsorship | Co-led a genuine bipartisan accountability task force with a Republican colleague, cross-aisle conduct on the institutional axis offsets the sponsorship metric |
| M08 | No affirmative discretion test on record either direction ↳ clean but untested discretion record | Absence of negative findings; scored at honest middle, not penalized |
| M09 | No deep public-vs-private consistency test on record ↳ limited tenure / untested | No documented private-public gap; middle reflects limited record, not a fault |
| M01 | No defining oath stand at personal cost on record ↳ upholds order without an apex-tier sacrifice event | Voted to certify 2021; could not have signed Texas v. PA (seated after Dec 2020), clean on the constitutional axis |
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, Selfless Service, Accountability, held co-partisans to the same misconduct standard at intramural cost, evidence of loyalty to the institution over the coalition. Held at 7 by a relatively short tenure that limits the depth of the test rather than by any drag toward Self-Interest. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 7 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, consistent, openly-stated reform agenda pursued through process. No documented integrity break; held below 8 only by the limited length of record on which to judge consistency over time. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Courage in Conflict, used the accountability machinery to protect congressional staff and survivors and built it across the aisle. No drag toward Exploitation; office-attributable enrichment is clean. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 7 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, a clean, process-respecting record with a real cross-partisan accountability contribution. Tempered only by the modest bipartisan-sponsorship index and the short window of record. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 28/40 |
Total 28/40, Sound. The pillars sit at a consistent upper-middle: a clean conduct record with a genuine accountability high-mark, capped by tenure length rather than by any documented fault.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Survivors and staff deserve a process that actually works, and that means holding our own side to the same standard.”
On the bipartisan task force to reform how Congress handles sexual misconduct, co-led with Rep. Kat Cammack (R) · NOTUS / Boston Globe reporting, April 2026 · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“The objections were baseless, and certifying the election was our constitutional duty.”
Statement on the 2021 electoral count certification · Rep. Leger Fernandez House statement, Jan 2021 · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Teresa Leger Fernandez (born July 1959). U.S. Representative for New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District since January 3, 2021 (117th-119th Congresses). Chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus. Before Congress, a voting-rights, Tribal-affairs, and public-lands attorney in New Mexico (Yale Law) and a member of the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As of 2026 a candidate for re-election to NM-3.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index -0.507 (117th Cong.), modestly below the Democratic baseline. Sponsorship lane: public-lands and cultural-heritage protection (Caja del Rio Protection Act), education and student-loan relief for educators, and Tribal/voting-rights matters. The 2026 bipartisan congressional-misconduct task force co-led with Rep. Kat Cammack (R) is recorded as institutional/accountability CONDUCT, not as a policy score. Policy positions are not graded in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
Seated January 3, 2021, could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and did not appear on its signatory list. Voted to certify the 2021 electoral count and characterized the objections as baseless; the certification is treated as the constitutional process working and is scored as neither credit nor demerit. No documented process-subversion conduct.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Issue-focused and reform-oriented; sharp on contested policy at times, which is policy heat and not scored. No documented pattern of enemy-making, dehumanization, or casting opponents or constituents as people who do not belong. Net clean on the rhetoric axis.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No ethics complaint, investigation, or sanction on record. Estimated net worth ~$2.1M is raw wealth and is not scored; the contamination rule limits M11 to office-attributable enrichment, of which there is none documented, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign- government revenue. Disclosed holdings are passive bond and broad index funds in retirement accounts. Clean fiduciary profile.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Seated after December 2020, so no Criterion-8 amicus exposure; voted to certify. No documented pattern of enemy-making or incitement under Criterion 10. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest upper-middle conduct record. What lifts it is real: a bipartisan accountability task force built with a Republican colleague and a willingness to file expulsion resolutions against members of her own coalition for misconduct, the higher active-duty standard of calling out one's own side at cost. The drags are modest and counted honestly: a below-average bipartisan-sponsorship index and a relatively short tenure that limits how deeply several measures can be tested. No ethics findings, no office-driven enrichment, no criterion-class flags. Sound, and earned.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House Clerk financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · NOTUS, bipartisan misconduct task force reporting
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures · GovTrack · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.