Composite 7.29 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
✓ Clears the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: supported.
Clears the 700 support line at credit 725 (Sound band) with no severity flag, Author's Verdict: supported on the documented conduct.
No military service on record. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is a small-business owner (auto-repair shop, Skamania County, WA) and former trade worker; her pre-office record is entrepreneurial and civic, not military. Listed for completeness; no service score is implied.
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 process-subversion conduct on record. Seated January 2023, could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and is not on the signatory list. Affirmatively advanced oath-protective structural reform: a congressional stock-trading ban, an end to automatic pay raises, an extended lobbying prohibition, and a 'cognitive acuity' fitness standard tied to ethics review. Defense of constitutional process is the record, not its subversion. Not scored on any certification or impeachment vote per the contamination rule. Held below the apex tier reserved for institution-defining stands at the loss of office. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 8 | why?Ranked 12th of 436 on the Lugar Bipartisan Index in 2023, top three percent, most bipartisan ever recorded for WA-03 since the index began in 2014, with 48 bipartisan bills introduced and a 76% bipartisan vote rate. Co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition and member of the Problem Solvers Caucus. Country and institution placed above denying the other side a win; near the top of the measured field. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented anti-belonging rhetoric casting opponents or constituents as people who do not belong. Represents a closely divided district and frames disagreement in good-faith terms. Upper-middle on a clean record without a singular high-mark anchor. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics. No criterion-class process-subversion conduct. Seated after December 2020, so the Texas v. PA capping criterion does not apply. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Measured, governance-focused public rhetoric centered on transparency and good government rather than enemy-framing. No documented pattern of incitement or dehumanizing language. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 7 | why?Active fiduciary-reform record: co-sponsored the TRUST in Congress Act (blind-trust requirement) and introduced the bipartisan No Corruption in Government Act to bar self-enrichment. The one drag is a pre-office appearance-concern, 2016 and 2018 personal financial disclosures for the family auto-repair business gave inconsistent ownership figures (raised by a partisan committee, never charged or adjudicated), weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding. Net upper-middle given the affirmative reform posture. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 8 | why?Repeatedly called out her own side at cost, one of only two House Democrats to vote against the 2023 White House student-debt plan, among a handful crossing to pass the SAVE Act, and authored the House resolution rebuking a fellow Democrat for what she termed election subversion. The active call-out duty, the higher bar of holding one's OWN side accountable, met more than once at political cost in a swing district. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented discretion-test failure, no record of using private latitude for personal advantage. A shorter House tenure (since 2023) limits the documented opportunities to demonstrate the test in its purest form; held at a solid middle on an adequate but not extensively tested record. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 7 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap; the transparency-and-accountability posture presented publicly matches a constituent-service-forward reputation. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 7 | why?Demonstrated constituent alignment over party-line fidelity, willing to break with her party on votes that tracked her purple district, and an Appropriations seat used to secure Southwest Washington priorities. Strong responsiveness to constituents rather than donors. Upper-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 findings. Affirmatively legislated against the very mechanisms of office enrichment (stock-trading ban, automatic-pay-raise repeal, extended lobbying ban). Raw wealth and the partisan-raised pre-office disclosure question are excluded from M11 per the contamination rule. Strong. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 8 | why?Institution-honoring posture: regular-order, problem-solving orientation, decorum over spectacle, and reform aimed at restoring public trust in the body itself. Honors the office over the show. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 7 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern; public communications are governance-focused and verifiable. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Substantive command of small-business, workforce-training, rural-infrastructure, and appropriations detail drawn from running an auto-repair business; pursued specific structural reforms (cognitive-acuity standard, stock-trading ban) with legislative specificity rather than slogans. 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 |
|---|---|---|
| M06 | 2016 and 2018 personal financial disclosures gave inconsistent ownership figures for the family auto-repair business (no stake in 2016, secretary then 51% owner later); raised by a partisan committee, never charged or adjudicated ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety (pre/early-office disclosure) | Uncharged, unresolved partisan allegation weighed as appearance-concern, not a finding; offset by an affirmative anti-corruption legislative record |
| M08 | Shorter House tenure since 2023 limits documented opportunities to demonstrate the discretion test at its strongest ↳ Thin discretion-test record (insufficient demonstration, not a failure) | No discretion-test failure of any kind on record; drag is evidentiary thinness only |
| M03 | Clean rhetoric record without a singular high-mark belonging anchor on par with the top-tier cases ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, solid but un-anchored | No anti-belonging instance; the deduction reflects absence of a standout moment, not a fault |
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: Selfless Service, Steadiness, Loyalty to the oath over party, repeatedly broke with her own caucus when her conscience and district demanded it, at political cost in a swing seat. Held at 7 by a comparatively short tenure that limits the depth of the demonstrated record, not by any drag toward Self-Interest. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 8 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Reform-mindedness, pursued unglamorous structural reforms (stock-trading ban, cognitive-acuity standard, automatic-pay-raise repeal) that constrain her own institution and herself. Held below 9 only by the pre-office disclosure-consistency appearance-concern, weighed honestly as unresolved. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, Courage in Conflict, used an Appropriations seat for constituent benefit and authored a resolution rebuking a member of her own party for election subversion. No drag toward Exploitation; no office-enrichment finding. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 7 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Love of Truth, Justice, a transparency-and-good-governance brand backed by concrete anti-corruption legislation. Contested only by the partisan-raised disclosure question, which tempers but does not define an early-career record. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 29/40 |
Total 29/40, Adequate-to-Strong. The pillars hold a notch under the strongest measured records mainly on tenure depth: the conduct is clean and the reform posture is real, but the body of demonstrated extraordinary moments is still accumulating.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Preventing Members and their families from trading individual stocks is a necessary step forward as we work to restore the American people's trust in their government.”
Introducing the TRUST in Congress Act / No Corruption in Government Act · House.gov press release · PRINCIPLED · cite
“There's a real appetite for transparency and good governance.”
KGW interview on congressional ethics reform · House.gov / KGW · CIVIC · cite
“It's about systemic transparency and accountability.”
CNN interview on government reform · House.gov / CNN · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. U.S. Representative for Washington's 3rd Congressional District since January 3, 2023; up for reelection in 2026. Democrat. Small-business owner (co-owner of an auto-repair and machine shop in Skamania County, WA) before office. Co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition; member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus; member of the House Appropriations Committee. Known for a swing-district, cross-the-aisle governing profile.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Ranked 12th of 436 on the Lugar Center Bipartisan Index in 2023 (top 3%), the most bipartisan score for WA-03 since the index began in 2014; 48 bipartisan bills introduced and a 76% bipartisan vote rate. Signature focus: congressional ethics and self-restraint, the TRUST in Congress Act (blind-trust / stock-trading ban), the bipartisan No Corruption in Government Act (stock-trading ban + automatic-pay-raise repeal + extended lobbying prohibition), and a "cognitive acuity" fitness standard for members. Documented cross-party votes (2023 student-debt plan, 2024 SAVE Act) recorded as conduct on the own-side-accountability measure, NOT graded on policy merits per the framework's refusal to score policy in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
Seated January 2023, after the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, which she therefore could not and did not sign; not on the 126-signatory list. Authored a House resolution rebuking a member of her own party for what she described as election subversion, an own-side accountability act on a constitutional-process question. Her reform agenda (stock-trading ban, fitness standard, pay-raise repeal) is aimed at restoring institutional trust rather than expanding personal or partisan power.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Governance-and-transparency-forward rhetoric with no documented enemy-making or incitement pattern. Frames disagreement, including with her own party, in good-faith terms suited to a closely divided district. No documented dehumanizing language; the standard records a clean rhetoric record without a singular standout belonging anchor.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No office-attributable enrichment on record: no self-dealing, family-payment, office-information-trade, or foreign-revenue findings. Affirmatively legislated against the mechanisms of office enrichment. The one appearance-concern is pre/early-office: 2016 and 2018 personal financial disclosures gave inconsistent ownership figures for the family auto-repair business, surfaced by a partisan committee, never charged or adjudicated, and weighed here as an unresolved appearance-concern rather than a finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. She was seated after December 2020 and therefore could not have signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Criterion 8); she is not on the signatory list. No documented enemy-making or incitement pattern (Criterion 10). Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An early-career record that is clean and points the right direction. What stands out is the willingness to hold her own side accountable at real cost in a swing district, a top-3% bipartisan ranking, and a concrete anti-corruption / self-restraint legislative agenda that constrains her own institution. The standard records the one honest drag, a partisan-raised, unresolved pre-office disclosure-consistency question, as an appearance-concern, not a finding. No capping flags. The composite sits in the upper-middle, held there mainly by tenure depth rather than by any conduct fault. Phase 1: awaiting the human verification gate before any number is published.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record (G000600) · U.S. House Clerk member profile
Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House.gov official site · GovTrack · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.