Composite 6.95 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
✓ Clears the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: supported.
Clears the 700 support line at credit 701 (Sound band) with no severity flag, Author's Verdict: supported on the documented conduct.
No military service record. Prior career as a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and service in the Nevada State Senate (1988–2008, including minority leader) before 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. As a Democrat seated in 2013 she could not and did
not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and she voted to certify the 2020 electoral count (her caucus
voted against the objections), the constitutional process working, which is NOT scored against her.
Held at upper-middle rather than higher because the record shows reliable adherence to oath duties without
a standout, costly act of constitutional defense that would earn the top tier.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 8 | why?Genuinely top-quartile on the Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index (ranked ~94th of 435 House members in the
118th Congress), a measured willingness to co-sponsor across the aisle rather than denying the other
side a win. Sustained cross-party legislative behavior over a long tenure earns a high mark.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as enemies who do not belong. Career rhetoric
stays inside policy disagreement. Held at upper-middle (not higher) because she works in a sharply
partisan delegation and the record does not show a standout cross-aisle defense of an opponent's
personhood of the kind that anchors the top tier.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; no criterion-class conduct. Her oversight
letters (e.g., demanding CFTC review of a nominee's ties, questioning a state fine dismissal) are ordinary
accountability requests through proper channels, not abuse of power. No process-subversion flag applies.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Broadly restrained rhetoric across a long career, with a minor temperance lapse: a profanity-laden public
complaint about her own redistricting ('I totally got f***ed by the Legislature'), for which she
immediately apologized. A coarse-language note, not enemy-making or incitement. Net middle-upper.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 7 | why?Affirmative fiduciary accountability: in 2010 she returned campaign contributions from colleagues
(Rangel, Waters) once they were found to have or face ethics findings. Offsetting drag is a
documented preference for handwritten/opaque disclosure filings that drew a 'nebulous' characterization, though her office maintained she met all annual filing requirements, a transparency-practice concern, not a violation. Net upper-middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?The higher bar here is calling out one's OWN side at cost. The strongest documented instance cuts the
other way: ex-staff report she quietly helped kill an effort to unionize her own office despite her
public labor-ally brand, a private deviation from her stated coalition, not a principled public stand
against her side. She returned tainted intra-party contributions (a modest accountability mark), but
there is no standout instance of publicly confronting her own party at real cost. Net middle.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 7 | why?Service on the House Committee on Ethics, including an investigative subcommittee judging peers, reflects
acceptance of an uncomfortable institutional duty, a discretion-test marker. No documented abuse of
discretionary authority for personal benefit. Held at upper-middle absent a singular high-cost discretion
moment.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?A documented public/private gap drag: a longtime public labor ally who, per ex-staff, privately worked to
defeat her own office's unionization. This is a single sourced reporting thread (ex-staff accounts), so it
is weighed as an appearance/consistency concern rather than a finding, but it is a real divergence
between the on-camera brand and off-camera conduct. Net middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Reliable constituent-service posture for a working-class, majority-minority Las Vegas district, including
tourism/gaming and veterans oversight. No documented donor-over-constituent capture. Held at middle
absent affirmative evidence of standout constituent-first stands against party or donor pressure.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 8 | why?No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information
trades, or foreign-government revenue on the record. The 2010 return of contributions from ethics-tainted
colleagues is the opposite of self-enrichment. Raw wealth is NOT scored. High mark for a clean
enrichment record; one point withheld only for the opaque-disclosure-practice transparency note.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Sustained institutional decorum across a long House tenure; no censure, no formal decorum proceeding. Works
within regular order and committee process. The lone coarse-language town-hall remark is a minor blemish,
not an institutional-disrespect pattern. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 7 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. Public statements track conventional partisan framing without a
record of fabrication or repeated debunked claims. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Substantive command of her portfolio, a former UNLV political-science professor with deep gaming/tourism, transportation/infrastructure, and veterans-affairs expertise, reflected in detailed oversight letters and
committee work. Substance over talking points. 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 |
|---|---|---|
| M07 | Ex-staff report she quietly helped defeat unionization of her own congressional office despite a public labor-ally brand ↳ Own-side call-out duty unmet; brand/conduct divergence | Single sourced reporting thread (ex-staff accounts), weighed as appearance-concern not finding |
| M09 | Documented public/private gap on the same office-unionization matter, public labor ally, private opposition ↳ Consistency / public-private alignment | Allegation via ex-staff reporting, not an adjudicated finding |
| M06 | Documented preference for handwritten/opaque financial-disclosure filings characterized as 'nebulous' ↳ Fiduciary transparency practice | Office maintained all annual filing requirements were met; offset by 2010 return of ethics-tainted contributions |
| M05 | Profanity-laden public complaint about her redistricting at an AFL-CIO town hall ↳ Temperance / public restraint | Immediate apology; isolated, not a pattern |
| M11 | Opaque disclosure-filing practice ↳ Transparency note (NOT enrichment) | No office-attributable enrichment of any kind on record; raw wealth not scored |
| Pillar II | The unionization episode is a documented break from her own labor-ally brand (Authenticity/Consistency) ↳ Authenticity/Consistency drag | Sourced via ex-staff reporting, not adjudicated |
| Pillar IV | Brand/conduct gap on labor + disclosure-transparency note temper the legacy (Integrity) ↳ Integrity drag | Clean enrichment record and bipartisan legislative legacy dominate |
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, Reliability, Loyalty to institution, a long, stable House tenure with consistent oath adherence (certified the 2020 count, served on the Ethics Committee judging peers). No drag toward Collapse or Self-Interest; held at 7 absent an extraordinary high-cost loyalty test. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, held below the others by a documented Authenticity/Consistency drag (the labor-ally-vs-private-opposition unionization episode) and a transparency-practice note. The 2010 contribution return and immediate town-hall apology show Self-Reflection and keep it at 6, not lower. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, Courage in Conflict, uses oversight power through proper channels (CFTC, state-fine inquiries) without exploitation; clean enrichment record. No standout high-cost protective stand pushes it above 7. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 7 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, durable bipartisan service, a top-quartile bipartisan legislative legacy and clean fiduciary record, tempered by the labor brand/conduct gap and disclosure-transparency note. A record most would be content to see reflected, with honest asterisks. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 27/40 |
Total 27/40, Adequate-to-Sound. Solid institutional fidelity and a clean enrichment record carry the pillars; the authenticity/consistency drags on labor and disclosure practice hold them out of the top tier.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I totally got f***ed by the Legislature on my district.”
AFL-CIO town hall, complaining about her redistricting; she apologized for the language · Washington Examiner · CONTESTED · cite
“She has met the Ethics Committee's requirements to provide a financial disclosure each year since she first became a candidate for Congress in 2008.”
Spokesperson response to reporting on opaque (handwritten) disclosure filings · Roll Call · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Alice Costandina 'Dina' Titus (born May 23, 1950). U.S. Representative for Nevada's 1st congressional district since 2013; previously represented NV-3 (2009–2011). Democrat. Before Congress, a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a Nevada State Senator (1988–2008), serving as state Senate minority leader. Seeking an eighth House term in 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index top-quartile in the House (ranked roughly 94th of 435 in the 118th Congress), measured cross-party co-sponsorship over a long tenure. Portfolio centers on gaming/tourism, transportation and infrastructure, and veterans affairs, reflecting her Las Vegas district and academic background. Served on the House Committee on Ethics, including an investigative subcommittee. Policy positions are NOT scored here, only conduct against the oath.
3. Constitutional Moments
Voted to certify the 2020 electoral count (her caucus opposed the objections), the constitutional process working, not scored against her. As a Democrat seated in 2013, she was not a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory and could not have been. Service on the House Ethics Committee, judging peers, is an institutional-duty marker. No documented process-subversion conduct.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Career-long rhetoric stays within policy disagreement, with one documented temperance lapse, a profanity-laden public complaint about her own redistricting, for which she immediately apologized. No documented pattern of enemy-making, incitement, or casting opponents or citizens as illegitimate. A coarse blemish, not a pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue on the record. In 2010 she returned campaign contributions from colleagues (Rangel, Waters) once ethics concerns surfaced, affirmative accountability. The one genuine fiduciary drag is a documented preference for handwritten/opaque disclosure filings characterized as 'nebulous,' though her office maintained all annual filing requirements were met. Raw wealth is not scored.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. She did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, voted to certify the 2020 count, and shows no documented pattern of enemy-making or incitement. The labor-unionization episode and the opaque-disclosure-practice note are weighed as ordinary honesty/consistency drags within the measures, not as criterion-class flags. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
A solid, durable House record with genuine bipartisan legislative behavior and a clean enrichment sheet, no self-dealing, and the affirmative return of ethics-tainted contributions. The standard records the honest drags: a sourced public/private gap on her own office's unionization that cuts against her labor brand, an opaque-disclosure-filing practice, and a coarse public remark she apologized for. No criterion-class conduct, no process subversion. The middle-to-upper bands reflect reliable oath adherence without a standout, high-cost act of constitutional or own-side courage that would earn the top tier.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House Committee on Ethics, financial disclosure
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · Nevada Independent, office-unionization reporting · Roll Call, disclosure-filing 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.