FAQs

What is the Civic Intelligence Unit (CIU)?

The Civic Intelligence Unit (CIU) is a nonpartisan research and public education initiative that develops objective frameworks for evaluating how democratic institutions and public officials perform when constitutional guardrails are tested.

Rather than advocating policy positions or political outcomes, CIU provides evidence-based tools that help citizens assess constitutional accountability.

What does CIU do?

CIU focuses on three core functions:

  1. Research & Frameworks – We develop evidence-based frameworks that organize complex political behavior into consistent evaluation standards.

  2. Public Scorecards – We apply those frameworks through tools such as the Constitutional Accountability Scorecard, assessing candidates and public officials using transparent criteria and publicly available evidence.

  3. Civic Clarity – We help independent-minded voters cut through partisan rhetoric by focusing on documented conduct rather than political ideology.

What does CIU NOT do?

CIU does not:

  • Endorse candidates or political parties.

  • Recommend how anyone should vote.

  • Evaluate candidates based on ideology or policy preferences.

  • Predict election outcomes.

Our goal is to provide objective information—not voting recommendations.

Who is CIU for?

CIU is designed for citizens who want to evaluate public officials based on constitutional accountability rather than party affiliation.

While our work is particularly valuable for independent-minded and moderate voters, anyone seeking objective constitutional analysis can use our scorecards. Independent-minded voters are the nation's largest voting bloc, yet they often lack nonpartisan tools that evaluate public officials based on documented constitutional conduct rather than political ideology. CIU was created to help fill that gap.

What is the Constitutional Accountability Scorecard (CAS)?

The Constitutional Accountability Scorecard is a transparent framework that evaluates whether candidates demonstrate respect for core constitutional guardrails.

Current scorecards evaluate three areas:

  • Use of Force

  • Rule of Law & Oversight

  • Election Integrity

Does the Scorecard evaluate ideology or policy positions?

No.

The Scorecard does not evaluate whether a candidate is conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

Nor does it evaluate general policy positions.

Instead, it evaluates publicly documented conduct against clearly defined constitutional standards.

What evidence does the Scorecard use?

CIU relies only on publicly available, verifiable evidence, including:

  • Official votes

  • Legislation

  • Court opinions

  • Public statements

  • Official government actions

  • Candidate platforms

  • Findings by courts or election authorities

  • Congressional oversight activities

Every scorecard includes supporting documentation.

How does CIU ensure the Scorecards are objective?

CIU is built on a transparent, evidence-based methodology.

Candidates are evaluated using the same published criteria and publicly available evidence, allowing readers to review both the standards and the supporting documentation.

CIU promotes objectivity by:

  • Publishing its evaluation criteria.

  • Applying the same standards to every candidate.

  • Relying on publicly verifiable evidence.

  • Evaluating patterns of conduct, not isolated statements.

  • Excluding guilt by association, policy disagreements, and unsubstantiated allegations.

Readers are encouraged to examine both the methodology and supporting evidence.

How does CIU distinguish between isolated incidents and patterns of conduct?

CIU evaluates the broader record of constitutional conduct using multiple forms of publicly available evidence. In most cases, ratings are based on consistent patterns rather than isolated events. However, a single egregious constitutional breach may itself justify a significant negative rating when it reflects a serious departure from constitutional norms. This approach reduces the influence of isolated statements or votes while recognizing that some actions are so consequential they cannot reasonably be treated as ordinary events.

What if I disagree with a rating?

Reasonable people may disagree with individual ratings. CIU does not ask readers to accept our conclusions at face value—we encourage them to evaluate our methodology and supporting evidence.

When reviewing a scorecard, consider questions such as:

  • Are the evaluation standards clearly defined?

  • Are those standards applied consistently to every candidate?

  • Are the supporting sources publicly available?

  • Does the evidence demonstrate the broader record of constitutional conduct?

CIU believes the credibility of its work rests not on universal agreement, but on the transparency, consistency, and evidence-based nature of its methodology.

How do I read the Scorecard?

The Scorecard uses a clear, color-coded format so that readers can quickly understand how candidates’ records align with constitutional guardrails.

Every candidate receives a rating in each applicable category.

🟢 Green — Clear, consistent evidence of constitutional restraint and accountability.

🟡 Amber — Mixed, limited, or incomplete record; no clear constitutional breach.

🔴 Red — Egregious or repeated conduct that undermines constitutional guardrails.

N/A — Insufficient or non-applicable evidence for that office.

CIU asks readers to judge its work by the transparency, consistency, and evidence supporting its methodology—not by whether they agree with every individual rating.