Composite 7.13 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
✓ Clears the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: supported.
Clears the 700 support line at credit 713 (Sound band) with no severity flag, Author's Verdict: supported on the documented conduct.
No military service record. Career background is legal and public finance, securities and public-finance attorney before entering Congress. Listed here 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 subversion of constitutional process. On Jan 6-7 2021 she voted to count the certified Arizona and Pennsylvania electors, one of only two Alabama members to do so, and the certification vote itself is the constitutional process working, not scored for credit per the contamination rule. The score reflects the absence of any process-subversion conduct, not partisan alignment; no crit-8 exposure (Democrat, no Texas v. PA amicus, no fake-elector involvement). Upper-middle: clean on oath-fidelity with no extraordinary at-cost stand documented. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 8 | why?Consistently among the more bipartisan House members and historically the most bipartisan member of Alabama's delegation (ranked 94th most bipartisan in the 114th Congress). Cross-aisle cosponsorship pattern shows willingness to advance legislation with the opposing party rather than denying wins for their own sake. Scored on the working-across-lines record, not on any policy position. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 8 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. Public rhetoric over fifteen years runs to policy disagreement and institutional advocacy (voting rights, district funding) rather than dehumanization. No crit-10 exposure. Held at 8 absent an affirmative high-mark anchor of defending an opponent's personhood at cost. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 8 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against political rivals and no criterion-class conduct. Committee work (Ways and Means; House Administration elections subcommittee) shows institutional engagement within ordinary process, not abuse. Clean. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 8 | why?Career-long rhetorical restraint with no documented slur, incitement, or sustained falsehood pattern. Floor and press statements stay within issue-advocacy register. Upper-middle: consistent restraint, no documented standout exception in either direction. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 7 | why?No sustained ethics finding, sanction, or censure on record. A 2025 FEC complaint touching her campaign committee (a disbursement and segregated-fund question) was dismissed under prosecutorial discretion, a weighed appearance-concern, never a finding. Net solid; held just below top tier by the active-trading appearance note carried at M11. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Sewell publicly breaking with her party or leadership at personal political cost; the record is reliable partisan-aligned advocacy. Not penalized as misconduct, the absence of a documented own-side call-out simply leaves the measure at the middle. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?Discretion test, using available latitude for the public good when nothing compels it. No documented self-sacrificing discretionary stand, and no documented abuse of discretion either. The active personal stock-trading while seated on a committee that oversees trading rules is a modest discretionary-judgment note (mitigated by her support for a congressional trading ban). Middle. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 7 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; the off-camera reputation is not shown to diverge from the on-camera advocacy posture. No contrary evidence. Solid by default with no affirmative high-mark anchor. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 7 | why?Documented, sustained attention to district interests (secured direct district funding in 2026 appropriations; long-running Voting Rights advocacy tied to her Selma-anchored district). Constituent-service orientation is real; held at upper-middle absent evidence weighing against constituent alignment. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, foreign-gov revenue), NOT raw wealth or returns. She is an active stock trader (high reported 2025 portfolio returns) while sitting on a committee that oversees trading rules; no impropriety has been alleged or found, so this is a weighed appearance-concern, not a finding. Mitigated by her public support for banning congressional stock trading. Held at 6: the appearance-concern is real, the enrichment finding is absent. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Sustained ordinary institutional decorum across fifteen years; no censure, no floor-conduct sanction, no documented spectacle-over-institution behavior. Honors regular process. Solid. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 7 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern; acknowledged the certified 2020 results and operates within a fact-based advocacy register. No contrary evidence weighing the measure down. Solid. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Substantive command in her domain, securities and public-finance attorney background, exclusive seat on Ways and Means, Ranking Member of the Oversight Subcommittee. Substance over talking points within tax and finance policy; held at 7 absent a broader cross-domain legislative-architecture record. [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 |
|---|---|---|
| M11 | Active personal stock trading (high reported 2025 returns) while seated on a committee that oversees congressional trading rules; no impropriety alleged or found ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety | Public supporter of legislation banning congressional stock trading; weighed as appearance-concern, NOT an office-enrichment finding, raw returns not penalized |
| M07 | No documented instance of breaking with her own party/leadership at personal political cost ↳ active own-side call-out duty unmet | Absence of a documented call-out, not affirmative misconduct, left at the middle, not driven low |
| M08 | No documented self-sacrificing discretionary stand for the public good ↳ Discretion test, no high-mark anchor | No documented abuse of discretion either; the trading note is modest and mitigated |
| M06 | 2025 FEC complaint touching her campaign committee (disbursement / segregated-fund question), dismissed under prosecutorial discretion ↳ Fiduciary appearance-concern | Dismissed, a resolved allegation weighed as appearance only, never a finding |
| Pillar III | Active-trading-on-oversight-committee appearance note (Stewardship) ↳ Stewardship drag | Zero documented Exploitation; supports a trading ban, keeps the drag modest |
| Pillar I | No documented own-side call-out at cost (Courage in Conflict) ↳ Trust/Loyalty high-mark absent | Reliable institutional conduct; certification vote shows oath-fidelity even where not scored for credit |
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: Reliability, Steadiness, Selfless Service in district advocacy. Demonstrated oath-fidelity in voting to count certified electors. Held at 7 by the absence of a documented Courage-in-Conflict moment of breaking with her own side at cost; no drag toward the opposites. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 7 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, a consistent issue-advocacy identity (voting rights, public finance) across fifteen years. No documented integrity break. Held at 7 absent a documented self-correction or at-cost principled stand. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Protection of constituents (district funding, voting-rights advocacy), Stewardship within ordinary process. Minor Stewardship drag from the active-trading-on-oversight-committee appearance note, mitigated by support for a trading ban. No Exploitation. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 7 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice in the voting-rights tradition tied to her district. No sustained falsehood pattern. Contested moments (trading appearance, dismissed FEC complaint) are real but minor drags that temper without eroding the record. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 28/40 |
Total 28/40, Adequate-to-Sound. An honest middle: a clean, reliable institutional record with no documented criterion-class conduct and no extraordinary at-cost stand, plus a modest fiduciary appearance-concern weighed as appearance rather than finding.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I voted to uphold the will of the American people and certify the results of a free and fair election.”
Statement on voting to count the certified 2020 electoral votes, one of two Alabama members to do so · Birmingham press coverage of the Jan 6-7 2021 certification · CIVIC · cite
“Members of Congress should not be trading individual stocks while in office.”
Stated support for legislation to ban congressional stock trading, the committee on which she sits oversees trading rules · Congressional stock-trading coverage · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Terrycina Andrea "Terri" Sewell (born January 1, 1965). U.S. Representative for Alabama's 7th Congressional District since 2011, the first Black woman elected to Congress from Alabama. A native of Selma, she holds degrees from Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Law, and practiced as a securities and public-finance attorney before her election. She sits on the exclusive House Ways and Means Committee (Ranking Member of the Oversight Subcommittee) and the Committee on House Administration (Ranking Member, Elections Subcommittee).
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
DW-NOMINATE places her on the center-left of the House Democratic caucus. Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index ranks her among the more bipartisan House members and historically the most bipartisan member of Alabama's delegation. Signature legislative identity centers on voting rights (the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act) and tax/public-finance policy from her Ways and Means seat. Policy positions are noted for context only and are NOT scored in either direction per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
On January 6-7, 2021 she voted to count the certified Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral votes, one of only two members of Alabama's congressional delegation to do so. The certification vote is recorded as the constitutional process working and is not scored for credit per the contamination rule; it is noted because it forecloses any process-subversion (criterion-8) exposure. No Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory; no fake-elector involvement.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Career-long rhetorical restraint with no documented slur, incitement, or sustained-falsehood pattern. Public statements stay within an issue-advocacy register, voting rights, district investment, tax policy. No documented enemy-making pattern (no criterion-10 exposure). No high-mark anchor of defending an opponent's personhood at cost is on record either; net upper-middle.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No sustained ethics finding, sanction, or censure. The weighed appearance-concern is active personal stock trading (high reported 2025 portfolio returns) while she sits on a committee that oversees congressional trading rules, no impropriety has been alleged or found, and M11 scores only office-attributable enrichment, so this is weighed as appearance rather than a breach. Mitigated by her stated support for banning congressional stock trading. A 2025 FEC complaint touching her campaign committee was dismissed under prosecutorial discretion, a resolved allegation, appearance only.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process subversion (she voted to certify), no enemy-making/incitement pattern, no weaponization of state power. The only sustained fiduciary note is the active-trading appearance-concern, which is weighed as appearance, not a finding. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest middle. Sewell's record is clean on the things the standard weighs most heavily: no process-subversion, no enemy-making pattern, no ethics sanction, and a documented vote to count certified electors that places her on the right side of the 2020 constitutional test (noted, not scored for credit). What holds the composite at an adequate-to-sound level rather than higher is the absence of a documented at-cost stand against her own side (M07/M08) and a real-but-modest fiduciary appearance-concern, active trading while overseeing trading rules, weighed honestly as appearance rather than inflated into a finding.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House votes #10/#11, Jan 6-7 2021 (electoral count) · House financial disclosures (eFD)
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · Campaign Legal Center, STOCK Act analysis
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures (eFD) · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · GovTrack · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.