How this list gets made
This is our opinion, based on rubrics we built and are publishing in full below — not an official designation, not a government record, and not tied to any donation page. Here's exactly how it works.
What it takes to be on this list
Someone in Congress, the executive branch, or the Supreme Court, of either party, whose actual record and public conduct show they're protecting free and fair elections — not just saying so. Each branch is scored on its own rubric, because the job is different in each. A senator's voting record and a Supreme Court justice's job have almost nothing in common, and grading them the same way would either force a bad fit or, for the Court, mean grading the legal correctness of actual rulings — a different, far more contestable kind of claim than anything else on this site makes. We don't do that. The judicial rubric never scores or characterizes a specific ruling.
Congress
We score five things:
- Election legitimacy (0–30) — did they accept and certify free and fair election outcomes, including ones they lost; how did they vote on certifying results; have they made public claims disputing a legitimate outcome without evidence
- Voting rights (0–25) — voting record on ballot access, election administration, and voting-rights enforcement legislation
- Checks and balances (0–25) — record on judicial independence, oversight of the executive branch, response to lawful subpoenas and investigations
- Conduct in office (0–20) — documented findings from nonpartisan bodies only (House/Senate Ethics Committees, the GAO, an Inspector General) — never opposition research or a rival campaign's claims
- Bipartisan cooperation (0–10, bonus) — working across the aisle on democracy-adjacent legislation
Executive branch
Same five categories, same point values, re-read for an appointed official instead of an elected one — nothing here is graded on party, only on the specific conduct each category describes:
- Election legitimacy (0–30) — public statements and official actions regarding certified election outcomes and the peaceful transfer of power
- Voting rights (0–25) — agency policy and enforcement affecting ballot access and election administration
- Checks and balances (0–25) — compliance with congressional oversight, lawful subpoenas, court orders, and respecting Inspector General independence
- Conduct in office (0–20) — same rule as Congress: nonpartisan findings only
- Cross-party good faith (0–10, bonus) — working in good faith with the other party's officials, career staff, or Congress, rather than running a purely partisan operation
The Supreme Court
A different, narrower rubric — not the Congress one with new labels. A justice doesn't have a voting record on bills, and "bipartisan cooperation" is the wrong frame for a judge entirely — judicial independence is the actual virtue. So this rubric is entirely about verifiable institutional conduct, never about whether we agree with a ruling:
- Peaceful transfer of power & institutional legitimacy (0–40) — no public statements disputing a legitimate election outcome without evidence; conduct that respects the constitutional process around elections and the transfer of power
- Ethics & disclosure compliance (0–30) — compliance with financial disclosure requirements and recusal standards, from nonpartisan sources only
- Institutional independence (0–30) — adherence to the Code of Conduct for federal judges; no undisclosed gifts or travel from parties with business before the Court
No bonus category, and no field for a justice's own party — justices don't register with a party the way elected officials do. Where we note who appointed them, we label it exactly as that: the appointing president's party, not the justice's own.
The math
Congress and the executive branch: the first four categories are worth up to 100 points combined (30/25/25/20); the bonus category adds up to 10 more, capped at 100 total. The Supreme Court: three categories (40/30/30) sum to the same 100-point scale, no bonus. Everyone needs at least 70 on the core categories before we'll write anything about them at all, and 85 or higher for the "Certified" badge — same bar, every branch.
What this deliberately is not
- Not a "bad" list. Someone who doesn't clear the bar gets no page, no score, no mention here — ever, for that reason. We aren't saying they're bad. We're saying nothing.
- Not a fundraising tool. No donation links anywhere on this list. The only outbound link on a page goes to an official government page — public information, not campaign material.
- Not an official record. It's our editorial opinion, built on real, cited sources, reviewed by a person before anything publishes — same standard the rest of this site holds itself to.
Where the facts come from
Every point on every score traces back to a real, citable source: official voting and committee records, floor statements, agency records, and reporting from credible outlets. Findings about conduct come only from nonpartisan bodies, never from a political opponent. Each page links the specific record behind its score — nothing here is a black box, and nothing is invented.
How often this updates
New people get added on a rolling basis through the year. Everyone already on the list gets re-scored once a year, and the page keeps a visible history of past scores so you can see whether a record improved, held steady, or slipped. Every score — first-time or a re-score — is reviewed by a human before anything changes on the page, same review gate the rest of the site uses before an article publishes.