DOCUMENT: CLS-REBUILD · CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC METHODOLOGY: SYMMETRIC · STATUS: ACTIVE

← Roster

603
Adequate
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
23/40
Weak
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 5.76 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.

Lands in the Adequate band at credit 603, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)

★ Service to Country
None · None · None

No military service record. Career educator and school principal before elected office; founder of the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project. Service to country is honored as context, never scored; this entry is note-only because there is no service record to contextualize.

The 14 measures

Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.

#MeasureScoreWhy
M01 Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law 6
why?
No documented subversion of constitutional process, no Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a Republican filing she could not and did not join), no fake-electors involvement, no election-overturn conduct. Routine partisan voting and impeachment/certification votes are the constitutional process working and are NOT scored here. Held at solid-middle rather than higher: the record shows ordinary oath fidelity without a distinguishing pro-process stand at personal cost. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 4
why?
Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index places her in the bottom tier of the House (ranked ~335th, score ~-1.01 in 2023), a consistently low cross-aisle cosponsorship pattern. This is scored as conduct (willingness to work across the aisle), not ideology. Below middle: her own bills rarely attract opposite-party cosponsors and she rarely cosponsors theirs. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 6
why?
No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. The 2017 public dispute with then-Chief of Staff John Kelly over the Niger condolence call was a heated, mutual political exchange, not anti-belonging rhetoric toward a class of people. Solid-middle: sharp partisan voice, no documented dehumanization pattern. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 6
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; no criterion-class abuse of office. No process-subversion conduct (no Dec 2020 amicus, no fake-electors). Clean on this axis; held at middle absent an affirmative anti-abuse stand at cost. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 6
why?
Generally restrained-to-sharp partisan rhetoric over a long career. The Kelly episode involved pointed personal characterizations on both sides but does not establish a sustained incitement or enemy-making pattern. Middle: a strong partisan voice without documented criterion-class rhetoric. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 5
why?
No documented STOCK Act or financial-disclosure violation, she does not appear in the ethics-group lists of non-filers. The fiduciary drag here is candor: in May 2026 she repeatedly told Axios her retirement was a 'crazy rumor' on the same day she confirmed her retirement to the Miami Herald, after a month of unexplained missed votes. The contradictory public account is an honesty-in-stewardship concern, weighed as an appearance issue, not a finding. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 6
why?
Active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No prominent documented instance of breaking with her party or leadership at personal cost; her dissent is overwhelmingly directed across the aisle. Middle: reliable partisan, limited evidence of costly internal accountability. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 6
why?
Discretion test, conduct when no one is compelling restraint. No documented self-dealing or abuse of discretionary perks. The 2026 month-long absence with no public explanation while privately deciding to retire is a transparency lapse weighed against this, but not exploitation. Solid-middle. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 6
why?
No well-documented private-versus-public contempt gap; her public persona (outspoken, signature-hat advocacy) appears consistent with her reputation. The 2026 'crazy rumor' denial is the one documented say-one-thing instance, but it concerns her own plans, not a contempt gap toward constituents. Middle. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 6
why?
Long-running genuine constituent investment, the 5000 Role Models of Excellence mentorship program she founded over 30 years ago for Black and Latino boys is real, district-rooted service she cited as her reason for holding the seat. Offset by the 31-day unexplained absence (April-May 2026) that left the district unrepresented in 43+ floor votes. Net middle: real service, real representation gap. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 8
why?
Scores office-attributable enrichment ONLY. No documented self-dealing, family payroll abuse, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue. No STOCK Act flags. Raw wealth is NOT penalized. High on this axis, no evidence of office-driven enrichment. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 6
why?
Generally conventional institutional decorum across a long House tenure; no documented contempt-of-institution conduct. Tempered by the 2026 episode in which a month of missed votes went publicly unexplained, an institutional-duty lapse in showing up for the work. Middle. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 5
why?
No documented sustained falsehood pattern across her career on policy or fact. The clear documented drag is the May 2026 sequence: dismissing her own retirement as a 'crazy rumor' to Axios on the very day she confirmed it to the Miami Herald, while her weeks-long absence went unexplained. A concrete candor lapse, weighed honestly, below middle. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 6
why?
Workmanlike substantive record over multiple terms (education, transportation, veterans/military-family issues). No standout reputation for deep policy command, but no evidence of substance-free showmanship either. 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.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M02 Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index bottom-tier (ranked ~335th, ~-1.01 in 2023) across recent Congresses
↳ cross-aisle cooperation deficit
Scored as conduct, not ideology; minority-status baseline already accounted for by the index
M13 May 2026: called her own retirement a 'crazy rumor' to Axios the same day she confirmed it to the Miami Herald
↳ candor / honesty-in-stewardship lapse
Concerns her own plans, not a policy falsehood; cited district-redistricting concern as reason for the delayed announcement
M06 Contradictory public account of her own status amid a month of unexplained missed votes
↳ Fiduciary candor appearance-concern
No STOCK Act or disclosure violation; weighed as appearance, not a finding
M10 31-day unexplained absence (April 20 - late May 2026), missing 43+ floor votes including a FISA reauthorization vote
↳ representation gap, district left unrepresented
Recovering from eye surgery per reporting; long record of district mentorship service (5000 Role Models) weighs the other way
M07 No prominent documented instance of breaking with her own party/leadership at personal cost
↳ active-duty accountability not demonstrated
Absence of evidence, not evidence of abuse
M12 Month of missed votes went publicly unexplained for weeks
↳ institutional show-up-for-the-work lapse
Otherwise conventional decorum; medical context noted
Pillar III Representation gap (Reliability) from the 2026 absence
↳ Reliability drag
Genuine constituent-service legacy via 5000 Role Models
Pillar IV The candor episode is an influence one would not want propagated (Integrity/Love of Truth)
↳ Integrity drag
No pattern of dishonesty across the broader career

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.

#PillarScoreWhy
I Trust & Loyalty
  • Would I follow them into uncertainty or adversity?
  • Would I trust them with my life or reputation?
  • Would I trust them to lead others honorably when the stakes are high?
6
why?
Attributes: Steadiness, Loyalty, Selfless Service, a long, durable commitment to her district and to a signature mentorship cause. Held at middle by limited evidence of costly courage against her own side and the 2026 transparency lapse.
II Aspiration & Integrity
  • Do I admire their values and how they live them?
  • Do they reflect the kind of person I hope to become?
  • Do I feel challenged to be better because of their example?
5
why?
Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, a clear, consistent advocate's voice over decades. Pulled to just-below-middle by the May 2026 candor episode (a documented break from Authenticity/Consistency) in which she publicly denied her own decided retirement.
III Protection & Influence
  • Would I trust this person to protect what I love most?
  • Would I trust them to influence someone I care deeply about?
  • Would those under their authority be safer and better for it?
6
why?
Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, used her platform for constituents and at-risk youth (5000 Role Models). No documented Exploitation. The 2026 absence is a Reliability drag, not an abuse of power.
IV Legacy & Virtue
  • Would I be proud if my child grew up to be like them?
  • Do they embody the virtues I want carried into the future?
  • If their influence continued in others, would the world be better or worse?
6
why?
Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth, a substantive long-service legacy of advocacy. The candor lapse and the unexplained absence are real Integrity/Reliability drags that temper without erasing a record of genuine civic investment.
TOTAL: Weak 23/40

Total 23/40, an honest middle. A durable advocacy and constituent-service record, tempered by a low cross-aisle cooperation profile and a concrete 2026 candor-and-attendance episode.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“I'm a rock star now.”

Responding to the national attention from the Kelly/Niger condolence-call dispute · RealClearPolitics video archive · CONTESTED · cite

“I think it's time, and I think I really held on as long as I did because of the 5000 Role Models program.”

Announcing she would not seek a ninth term · Reporting on her retirement announcement · CIVIC · cite

“[It's a] crazy rumor.”

Denying retirement to Axios the same day she confirmed it to the Miami Herald · Reporting on the contradictory retirement statements · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Frederica Smith Wilson (born November 5, 1942). U.S. Representative for Florida's 24th Congressional District since 2011 (originally FL-17). Former Florida state representative and state senator; former Miami-Dade public school principal and educator. Founder of the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project, a mentorship program for Black and Latino boys. Known for her trademark sequined hats. Announced in May 2026 she would not seek a ninth term; her current term runs through January 3, 2027.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index consistently bottom-tier among House members (ranked ~335th, ~-1.01 in 2023), a low cross-aisle cosponsorship profile scored here as conduct, not ideology, with the index's minority-status baseline already built in. Legislative focus on education, transportation, veterans and military families, and youth mentorship. No documented STOCK Act or financial-disclosure violations. Reliable Democratic-caucus voter; routine impeachment and certification votes are recorded as the constitutional process working, NOT scored.

3. Constitutional Moments

No process-subversion conduct on record: not a signatory to the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a Republican filing), no fake-electors involvement, no election-overturn conduct. Her partisan votes, including impeachment votes, are the ordinary constitutional process and are not scored in either direction. The 2017 dispute with the White House Chief of Staff over a Gold Star condolence call is recorded as a political/rhetorical episode, not a constitutional moment.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

A sharp, outspoken partisan voice over a long career, without a documented sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern. The most prominent flashpoint, the 2017 Kelly/Niger condolence-call feud, was a heated mutual political exchange in which both sides traded personal characterizations; it does not establish criterion-class rhetoric. No documented dehumanization of a class of people.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No documented STOCK Act or financial-disclosure violation; she does not appear in ethics-group lists of non-filers. The genuine fiduciary-adjacent concern is candor rather than money: in May 2026 she repeatedly dismissed her own retirement as a "crazy rumor" to one outlet on the same day she confirmed it to another, during a month-long, publicly unexplained absence from House votes. Weighed as an appearance/candor concern, not a finding.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No Criterion-8 process subversion (no Dec 2020 amicus, no fake-electors, no election-overturn conduct) and no Criterion-10 sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern. The 2026 candor-and-attendance episode is a measure-level drag, not a capping flag. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

Frederica Wilson presents an honest middle. The record shows durable district advocacy and a real, decades-long constituent-service legacy in the 5000 Role Models program, with a clean office-enrichment profile and no process-subversion or criterion-class rhetoric. The standard records the drags plainly: a bottom-tier cross-aisle cooperation profile, and a concrete May 2026 candor lapse paired with a month-long unexplained absence that left the district unrepresented in dozens of votes. Adequate, with documented weaknesses counted honestly.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House financial disclosures (LegiStorm mirror)

Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · The Hill, missing-votes / retirement reporting

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures (LegiStorm) · GovTrack profile · Wikipedia

Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: