Why Amber

• Collins has demonstrated respect for congressional war powers and supported some safeguards governing federal immigration enforcement.
• However, her support for substantially expanded ICE enforcement and detention authority has not been matched by a comparably strong record of insisting on constitutional restraint and accountability.
• The resulting record is mixed rather than sufficiently consistent to warrant Green.

Why Green

• Collins’s record demonstrates consistent support for constitutional checks, independent oversight, and institutional accountability.
• She has exercised congressional authority to scrutinize executive actions, defend independent watchdogs, and oppose uses of government power and public funds she viewed as inconsistent with established legal and accountability processes.
• Her willingness to apply these principles to leaders and actions of her own party provides affirmative evidence of commitment to the rule of law and constitutional oversight.

Why Amber

• Collins has consistently defended certified election results, rejected unsupported fraud claims, and supported the peaceful transfer of power.
• However, her support for the SAVE Act raises significant concerns under CIU's voter-access criteria because of the burdens its identification requirements could impose on eligible voters.
• Taken together, the record reflects strong support for election legitimacy but a meaningful inconsistency regarding lawful voter access.

Why Amber

• Jackson has articulated clear constitutional limits on both military and domestic enforcement power, including congressional authority over military action, due process, accountability, and restraint in the use of government force.
• However, his record is based primarily on stated positions rather than a sustained governing record demonstrating how he would apply those principles in practice.
• The available evidence therefore falls short of the affirmative constitutional conduct required for Green.

Why Amber

• Jackson's stated positions generally favor constitutional restraint, but the available record provides limited evidence of how he would defend institutional checks and balances when exercising federal authority.
• The record is therefore too limited for Green.

Why Amber

• Jackson has affirmatively supported voting rights and has no identified record of election denial or efforts to undermine certified outcomes.
• However, the available record provides limited evidence of how he has applied broader constitutional election principles in practice, leaving an insufficient record for Green.