Each candidate is scored across seven dimensions — six standard (3 pts each) plus one weighted dimension for their response to Louisiana v. Callais (5 pts). Total: 23 points. The framework deliberately accounts for what each candidate actually controls. Leading a multistate redistricting counteroffensive carries equivalent weight to leading a Senate floor fight. Excuses are not a factor; structural reality is.
01 · Named the Threat
Has explicitly named VRA dismantling as a constitutional crisis
Not just "protecting democracy" — specifically naming Section 5 preclearance, Shelby County, or Section 2 gutting as an existential threat to Black political power.
02 · Policy Record & Map Defense
Federal VRA legislation OR state redistricting leadership
Senators: co-sponsoring or leading the John Lewis VRA Act. Governors: leading blue-state redistricting counteroffensives or passing state-level voting access legislation. Leading a multistate map strategy scores equally to leading a Senate bill.
03 · Executive Action
Used executive authority to protect ballot access
Executive orders, agency directives, signing voting rights legislation, or deploying state resources to expand access. Senators assessed on available leverage — floor leadership, hearings, DOJ pressure.
04 · Legal Defense
Joined or supported litigation defending the VRA
Amicus briefs, state AG coalitions, joining DOJ challenges, or supporting NAACP LDF or ACLU cases. Governors and AGs have more structural leverage here than senators.
05 · Organizational Investment
Partnered with or uplifted Black voting rights infrastructure
Documented partnerships, endorsements, or fundraising for NAACP, Lawyers' Committee, Black Voters Matter, LDF, or state-based Black civic organizations.
06 · Consistency
Track record predating the 2025–26 political moment
Were they doing this before it was electorally advantageous? Pre-2025 record reviewed. Candidates who only appear when Black votes are needed receive a sharp discount.
07 · Louisiana v. Callais
Weighted · 5 Points
Response to the most consequential Section 2 ruling since Shelby County
Scored 0–5 based on specificity, speed, and substance. Did they name the case? Did they explain Section 2 implications? Did they call for a specific remedy? Did they engage Black civil rights organizations publicly?
5Named the case, explained Section 2 implications, called for specific remedy, engaged Black civil rights organizations
4Named the case, explained implications, called for action — at least two with documented follow-through
3Strong public statement naming Callais specifically, even without detailed policy response
2General voting rights statement in context of the ruling, without naming it directly
1Vague "defending democracy" reference without engaging the ruling
0No documented response to Louisiana v. Callais
Per Standard Dimension (01–06) · 0–3 pts
3LeadingActively championing
2ActiveConcrete action taken
1StatementRhetoric only
0SilentNo record
Total Score (out of 23) → Letter Grade
A20–23 ptsLeading champion
B17–19 ptsStrong record, gaps remain
C13–16 ptsModerate engagement
D9–12 ptsReactive, not proactive
F0–8 ptsSilent or absent
NOTE: Grade thresholds in the interactive weight slider above recalculate as a percentage of the weighted maximum — so a candidate's grade reflects their performance regardless of how you set the weights. Default weights reflect the scorecard's editorial position. The Callais dimension defaults to 1.67× since it is scored on a 5-point scale vs. 3 for all others.
BS