Composite 6.55 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands just below the bar. The conduct record is genuinely clean, a documented top-10 bipartisan record, a pro-certification posture on January 6, and no established breach, but it is a record of steady, in-bounds service rather than the affirmative, at-cost stands the standard rewards at the top. The late STOCK Act filing and the multi-year disclosure-amendment are honest fiduciary drags, weighed but not floored; the GOP "insider-trading" claim is a discredited allegation and is not scored. A solid record that sits near, but under, the support line.
No military service. Jacky Rosen's pre-office record is civilian, a computer programmer in Southern Nevada and president of Congregation Ner Tamid synagogue in Henderson before entering politics. Listed here for completeness only; nothing in this section is 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?Constitutional fidelity is clean and affirmative: voted against both the Arizona and Pennsylvania objections to certify the 2020 result while the Capitol was under attack, and voted to convict in the 2021 impeachment trial. No process-subversion, no organizing/leading/pressuring against a lawful count. Upper-middle, solid oath conduct without the apex, at-cost stand reserved for sacrificing political standing purely for the oath. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Documented top-10 Lugar Bipartisan Index ranking three years running (6th overall, 4th among Democrats in 2023), with ~90%+ of personally introduced legislation bipartisan. Genuine cross-aisle conduct. Held at upper-middle rather than higher because the bipartisanship is sustained-and-real but not paired with a documented high-cost break from her own side. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?Persons of Equal Worth: no documented instance of denying an opponent's or any person's standing as a person, no slur, dehumanizing rhetoric, or anti-belonging episode of record. A clean, conventional-restraint record; upper-middle absent an affirmative high-mark dignity anchor like McCain's Lakeville. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of the office's procedural machinery against rivals, no fake-electors, amicus to void another state's result, count-pressure, or rules-nullification of a constitutional function. Clean on abuse-of-power conduct. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetorical conduct: a measured, low-heat public voice with no documented incitement, threat, or sustained inflammatory pattern. Middle-to-upper, restraint of record, but without a documented affirmative de-escalation moment that would lift it further. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?Fiduciary drag of record: amended her Senate financial disclosures dating to 2018 to add her omitted 'trustee' title, a sustained accuracy lapse self-corrected via her attorney. A genuine appearance/accuracy concern; no rule-violation finding or sanction. Middle, reflecting the documented disclosure lapse without overstating it into a breach. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?Passive-clean on the power-accountability duty: no documented breach to lower it, but also no documented aggressive call-out of her own side's conduct at cost to raise it. The active-duty standard places a clean-but-quiet record at the middle of the scale. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?Discretion test: no documented misuse of discretionary power to harm, and no documented apex act of voluntarily forgoing a self-serving advantage either. A clean middle-to-upper record on the use of latitude. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 7 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap or pattern of saying one thing privately and another publicly. The off-camera reputation tracks the on-camera one across the record. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 7 | why?Institutional service: documented constituent-service and committee work (Armed Services cyber-subcommittee ranking member, Commerce), with bipartisan legislation aimed at Nevada interests. No documented donor-capture conduct. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 7 | why?Office-attributable enrichment ONLY: a documented 2017 STOCK Act late filing (automatic/corporate-action trades reported past the deadline) is a real timeliness drag. The GOP 'insider trading' accusation is a discredited allegation, a claim, not a finding, and per the evidentiary rule is NOT scored; she also co-sponsored a congressional stock-trading ban. No office-driven enrichment finding. Upper-middle, carrying the documented late-filing drag only. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Institutional decorum: a regular-order, low-spectacle floor and committee posture across her tenure; no documented decorum breach. Upper-middle, honors the institution without a singular standout institutional-fidelity moment. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 7 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern; consistent acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the 2020 result and of electoral outcomes. The disclosure-accuracy lapse is scored as fiduciary conduct at M06, not as a deception pattern here. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive command in a defined lane, a former computer programmer serving as ranking member of the Armed Services cybersecurity subcommittee, applying domain expertise to policy. Solid substance; middle-to-upper rather than the deep multi-decade command that marks the top of this measure. [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 | Amended Senate financial disclosures dating back to 2018 to add her omitted 'trustee' designation on a family trust, a multi-year accuracy lapse disclosed via her attorney in 2025 ↳ Fiduciary disclosure-accuracy (active-duty disclosure duty) | Self-corrected through amendment; no rule-violation finding or sanction of record |
| M11 | 2017 STOCK Act late filing, traded up to ~$15K (LogMeIn, Spectra Energy) via automatic corporate actions and reported past the statutory deadline ↳ STOCK Act timeliness drag | Automatic/corporate-action trades, not discretionary; co-sponsored a ban on member stock trading; GOP 'insider-trading' claim is discredited and NOT scored |
| M07 | No documented aggressive call-out of her own side's conduct at personal cost ↳ Active-duty accountability, passive-clean, not affirmative | - |
| Pillar II | The multi-year disclosure-accuracy lapse is a drag on Self-Reflection/Discipline (the active-disclosure duty asks for accuracy before being asked) ↳ Discipline/Self-Reflection drag | Teachability, self-corrected via amendment once identified |
| Pillar III | A clean but quiet protective record, solid constituent service without a documented at-cost stand in defense of an institution or a person ↳ Courage-in-Conflict drag (presence without a standout protective act) | - |
| Pillar IV | A steady, in-bounds legacy of service rather than a defining moral-courage act of record ↳ Moral Courage drag | Integrity and consistent institutional fidelity carry the legacy positively |
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 demonstrated: Responsibility, Steadiness Under Pressure, Loyalty to the oath, the January 6 certification votes cast during an active attack on the Capitol, and the impeachment conviction vote, show Courage and Responsibility under pressure. Held below the top tier by the absence of a documented apex sacrifice and a drag toward the opposite of Discipline in the disclosure-accuracy lapse. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Consistency, Authenticity, Teachability, a steady public voice that matches its private reputation, and a self-correction once the disclosure gap was identified. Drag toward Discipline's opposite in the multi-year disclosure-accuracy lapse keeps it at upper-middle; the amendment (Teachability) is what prevents a lower mark. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Reliability, Presence, documented constituent service and substantive cybersecurity/defense committee work, with no drag toward Exploitation. Held at upper-middle by the absence of a documented at-cost protective stand (Courage in Conflict) of the kind that defines the highest marks here. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Consistency, Servant-Leadership, a durable record of in-bounds bipartisan service and institutional fidelity. The disclosure-accuracy asterisk is a real but minor drag toward Favoritism's appearance; the legacy is one of steady service rather than a singular act of Moral Courage, which keeps it at upper-middle. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 26/40 |
Total 26/40, Moderate. A clean, steady, bipartisan service record with honest fiduciary drags; the pillars hold at upper-middle because the conduct is in-bounds throughout but lacks the extraordinary at-cost stands that lift the strongest records into the top tier.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“In the face of violence, democracy prevailed. I am glad that the United States Senate reconvened quickly and fulfilled our duty to certify the 2020 Presidential Election.”
Statement after voting against the objections and certifying the 2020 result, hours after the Capitol attack · Rosen Senate office, certification statement · CIVIC · cite
“Over 90% of the legislation I've personally introduced has been bipartisan.”
On her Lugar Bipartisan Index top-10 ranking, third consecutive year · Rosen Senate office, bipartisan-ranking release · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Jacklyn Sheryl "Jacky" Rosen (born August 2, 1957, Chicago, Illinois). Junior U.S. Senator from Nevada since 2019; U.S. Representative for Nevada's 3rd congressional district 2017-2019. B.A. in psychology, University of Minnesota (1979); associate degree in computing and information technology, College of Southern Nevada (1985). A former computer programmer in Southern Nevada and president of Congregation Ner Tamid synagogue in Henderson before entering politics; recruited to run for the House by Sen. Harry Reid. Elected to the Senate in 2018, defeating Republican incumbent Dean Heller; re-elected in 2024.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center Bipartisan Index top-10 overall three consecutive years (9th for 2021, 7th for 2022, 6th for 2023, 4th among Senate Democrats in 2023), with ~90%+ of personally introduced legislation bipartisan. Committee portfolio: Armed Services (ranking member, Cybersecurity subcommittee), Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Foreign Relations, and Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Legislative focus tracks her background, cybersecurity workforce, technology, aviation/space, and Nevada-specific economic measures. Her contested policy votes are recorded as policy and are NOT scored in either direction, per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy.
3. Constitutional Moments
January 6-7, 2021: voted against the objections to both Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electoral votes to certify the 2020 result, casting those votes after being evacuated during the Capitol attack and issuing a statement that "democracy prevailed." February 2021: voted to convict former President Trump in the impeachment trial. The record shows the constitutional certification function used as designed, no objection-organizing, count-pressure, or process-nullification conduct.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
A measured, comparatively low-heat public voice with no documented incitement, dehumanizing rhetoric, or sustained inflammatory pattern. No anti-belonging episode of record. The rhetorical record is one of conventional restraint, clean, but without a documented affirmative high-mark moment (the kind of cross-crowd defense of an opponent's dignity that anchors the very top of the discourse measures).
5. Fiduciary Profile
Two documented fiduciary items, both weighed as honest drags rather than breaches. (1) A 2017 STOCK Act late filing: trades of up to ~$15,000 (LogMeIn, Spectra Energy) arising from automatic corporate actions, reported past the statutory deadline. (2) A 2025 disclosure amendment: she amended Senate financial disclosures dating to 2018 to add her omitted "trustee" designation on a family trust, a multi-year accuracy lapse self-corrected through her attorney, with no rule-violation finding or sanction. Separately, Republican groups ran ads alleging "insider trading"; those claims are discredited and disprovable from public disclosure records, a claim, not a finding, and NOT scored. Rosen co-sponsored legislation to bar members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. The disclosure-accuracy lapse and the 2017 late filing are fiduciary appearance/timeliness concerns, neither rising to a flag, neither sanctioned. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Rosen's record is clean and steady: a documented top-10 bipartisan posture three years running, a pro-certification stand on January 6 cast during an active attack on the Capitol, an impeachment conviction vote, and substantive cybersecurity and defense committee work drawing on a programmer's background. The standard records the drags honestly, the 2017 STOCK Act late filing and the multi-year disclosure-accuracy amendment, while refusing to score the discredited "insider-trading" allegation, which is a claim, not a finding. What keeps her under the support line is not any breach but the absence of the affirmative, at-cost stands that lift the strongest records: this is a record of in-bounds, reliable service that lands just below the bar.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Senate certification votes Jan 6-7 2021 (Rosen statement)
Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia
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.