v4.3 · Tiered (Federal · State · Local) · Dynamic-Max

How the RESOLUTE Citizen Scorecard Works

10 categories. 5 questions each. 2 points per "True." 100 points max — weighted 60 God First / 40 America First because that's the loyalty hierarchy. The 60/40 split is the editorial weapon: it doesn't just measure positions, it measures whom a candidate puts first. Since v4.1 the rubric is tier-aware: federal officials see all 50 questions, while state and local officials see only the questions that actually apply to their office, with the wording adapted to their authority.

100
Points possible (federal tier · all 50 q)
10
Categories
50
Public questions (federal · 43 state · 22 local)

The 60/40 Weighting Why God First isn't just a label

Every Christian voter scorecard ever built treats every issue as equal. We don't. The Bible doesn't. Mark 12:30 — love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength first. Matthew 6:33 — seek first the Kingdom of God, and all these things will be added. Country is downstream of conviction. The scorecard makes that loud and visible.

A representative who scores 56 God First / 8 America First is doing a different thing than one who scores 12 God First / 38 America First. Today's two-subtotal headline tells voters which kind of representative they're actually electing. Old single-number scorecards couldn't show that difference.

Tiered Grading Federal · State · Local · v4.1 → v4.3

The first time we tried to score a city council member against the same rubric as a U.S. senator, it broke. A councilor cannot vote on Article I war powers, cannot order a Pentagon audit, cannot sponsor a federal abortion ban. Marking those questions False by silence treated her like a senator who voted the wrong way, which is editorially dishonest. So we tiered the rubric.

The Boolean spirit of each question is the same across tiers — the question still measures the same conviction. What changes is which questions count and how they're worded for the office a candidate actually holds.

v4.1 — Tier-aware applicability (the N/A mask)

Every one of the 50 questions is tagged with the tiers where it's a fair test of office. A question that only a federal officeholder can vote on (Pentagon audits, Article I war powers, repeal of the National Firearms Act) is automatically marked N/A for state and local officials. N/A answers count toward neither the score nor the dynamic max — they simply shrink the denominator. We retrofitted 61,859 cells across the database on the v4.1 rollout (May 17, 2026). A city councilor's "out of 22" is calibrated to the 22 questions her chair actually decides, not the 50 a senator faces.

Applicable counts at the current snapshot: federal = 50 / 50, state = 43 / 50, local = 22 / 50.

v4.2 / v4.3 — Tier-specific question text

For the questions that do apply at multiple tiers but require different evidence at each, the rubric stores parallel wording. The federal version asks "Has the candidate voted for the Article I war-powers requirement before any U.S. military action?" — the state version asks "Has the candidate voted for state legislative authorization before National Guard deployment?" — the local version asks "Has the city council adopted resolutions opposing U.S. military intervention without congressional authorization?" Same conviction. Different chair. Different evidence base.

The result is that the headline "0 / 10 on Foreign Policy Restraint" means the same restraint conviction at any tier, but a state senator gets graded on the votes she actually had and a city councilor gets graded on the resolutions her body actually considered. We do not require people to vote on bills they cannot vote on.

What stays universal

Why this matters editorially

Most scorecards either skip down-ballot officials or grade them on the same federal questions and let everyone score zero. The first option means voters have no signal for the offices closest to their daily life. The second option produces a uniform F that's useless for distinguishing the school-board candidate fighting CRT from the one introducing it. The tiered rubric lets every elected office below the federal level be graded on the conviction questions their actual chair decides, which is the only honest way to grade them. The Boolean still binds the moral spirit; the implementation shows the chair.

✝ God First 60 pts · 6 categories × 10

The six categories that flow from loving God first.

1.

Sanctity of Life

10 pts
Does this candidate affirm full personhood from conception and oppose abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and embryonic experimentation?
  1. Affirms life begins at conception and personhood from conception
  2. Has voted for or actively advocates abortion abolition (not merely restrictions)
  3. Opposes embryonic stem-cell research, IVF embryo discard, and chimeric experimentation
  4. Opposes euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and quality-of-life rationing
  5. Has never accepted Planned Parenthood, NARAL, EMILY's List, or abortion-industry PAC funding
2.

Biblical Marriage

10 pts
Does this candidate affirm biblical marriage and reject the redefinition of family, sex, and gender in law?
  1. Affirms marriage as exclusively the lifelong union of one man and one woman as instituted by God
  2. Opposes all forms of same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships in law
  3. Rejects transgender ideology and affirms biological sex (male/female) as immutable and God-given
  4. Supports no-fault divorce reform and policies that strengthen the marriage covenant
  5. Opposes promotion of LGBTQ+ identity in public policy, schools, military, and corporate-government partnerships
3.

Family & Child Sovereignty

10 pts
Does this candidate defend parental authority over children and protect children from state intrusion, predators, and ideological capture?
  1. Supports universal school choice, homeschool freedom, and opposes compulsory public-school attendance
  2. Supports parental notification and consent on all medical, mental-health, and gender-related interventions for minors
  3. Opposes CRT, SOGI, "comprehensive sex ed," and gender-ideology curricula in K-12 public schools
  4. Supports age-verification on pornographic content and criminal penalties for sexualized content marketed to minors
  5. Supports faith-based adoption/foster agencies and opposes placement of children with same-sex couples
4.

Christian Liberty

10 pts
Does this candidate defend the freedom to publicly profess Christ — including the freedom of others to disagree — without state compulsion against Christian conscience? (We prefer "Christian Liberty" to "Religious Liberty." Religious liberty implies the state blesses any path including the one to hell. Christian liberty names the cost.)
  1. Affirms the right to publicly profess Christ in all spheres (workplace, military, public office, schools)
  2. Supports conscience exemptions for Christian medical professionals, business owners, adoption agencies, and educators
  3. Opposes compelled speech against Christian conviction (pronoun mandates, gospel-proclamation hate-speech laws)
  4. Supports public-square Christian symbols, prayer in public bodies, and Sabbath/Sunday closure protections
  5. Opposes state-funded promotion of non-Christian religious displays, curricula, or holidays in public institutions
5.

Economic Stewardship

10 pts
Does this candidate honor biblical economic mandates — sound money, anti-usury, debt restraint, and opposition to globalist financial capture? (Prov 22:7 — "the borrower is slave to the lender.")
  1. Opposes a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) and supports cash and decentralized crypto as legal tender
  2. Supports sound-money policies including gold/silver as constitutional money and audit/abolition of the Federal Reserve
  3. Opposes deficit spending and supports a balanced-budget constitutional amendment
  4. Supports usury limits, anti-debt-slavery protections, and tithe-friendly tax structures
  5. Opposes WEF/ESG/Davos economic capture and supports anti-trust action against monopolistic financial cartels
6.

Election Integrity

10 pts
Does this candidate support verifiable elections grounded in citizen accountability, free from machine manipulation, mass mail-in, or foreign interference?
  1. Supports hand-counted paper ballots and opposes electronic voting machines
  2. Supports photo voter ID with citizenship verification
  3. Supports single-day in-person voting with absentee only for verified medical/military exceptions
  4. Opposes mass mail-in voting, drop boxes, and ballot harvesting
  5. Opposes private election funding ("Zuckerbucks") and foreign-government election interference

🇺🇸 America First 40 pts · 4 categories × 10

The four categories that flow from putting our nation second only to God.

7.

Border & Immigration

10 pts
Does this candidate enforce U.S. borders, oppose illegal immigration, and defend American sovereignty over foreign claims to U.S. territory and labor?
  1. Supports completed physical border barrier and active military border presence
  2. Supports mandatory deportation of all illegal aliens, including those who entered as minors
  3. Opposes sanctuary city/state policies and supports federal preemption against them
  4. Supports mandatory E-Verify for all employment and benefit eligibility
  5. Opposes birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, tourist births, and opposes foreign ownership of U.S. farmland
8.

Self-Defense & 2A

10 pts
Does this candidate defend the unalienable right to bear arms as a check against tyranny and a defense of household, neighbor, and homeland?
  1. Supports constitutional carry without permit requirements
  2. Opposes red-flag laws, magazine limits, "assault weapons" bans, and gun registries
  3. Supports repeal of the National Firearms Act (NFA), Gun Control Act (GCA), and other federal gun regulations
  4. Supports castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws with full civil immunity for lawful defense
  5. Opposes ATF overreach, citizen disarmament initiatives, and U.N. small-arms treaty participation
9.

Foreign Policy Restraint

10 pts
Does this candidate honor Article I war powers, oppose forever wars, and refuse foreign-lobby capture of U.S. policy?
  1. Supports Article I congressional war-powers requirement before any U.S. military action
  2. Supports immediate withdrawal from forever wars and repeal of standing AUMFs
  3. Opposes foreign aid to nations hostile to U.S. interests or actively persecuting Christians
  4. Has never accepted donations from foreign-backed lobbies (e.g., AIPAC) or foreign-linked PACs
  5. Opposes U.S. participation in WHO, U.N. governance overreach, NATO expansion, and supranational governance
10.

Industry Capture & Sovereignty

10 pts
Does this candidate oppose corporate-state capture across Pharma, Big Ag, and the Military-Industrial Complex — defending citizens against cartel power?
  1. Opposes pharmaceutical mandates of any kind (COVID, childhood, employer-required) and supports informed consent
  2. Supports repeal of pharma liability shields (1986 NCVIA, PREP Act) and restoration of tort accountability
  3. Opposes Big Ag consolidation (Bayer/Monsanto/Cargill) and supports anti-trust action against agricultural cartels
  4. Supports raw-milk freedom, small-farm protections, and opposes USDA / EPA overreach against family farms
  5. Supports defense-contractor accountability, completion of Pentagon audits, and ending revolving-door appointments

Letter Grades Old-school report card

Each candidate's total score gets a letter grade. Same scale as the schoolwork that shaped your judgment of effort.

GradeRangeWhat it means
A90 – 100Resolute. Acts and votes consistent with biblical conviction across nearly every category. Vote with confidence; expect them to fight when others fold.
B80 – 89Strong. Some weak areas but the core is sound. Verify the weak categories before any high-stakes vote.
C70 – 79Mixed. Establishment lane: strong where the party demands, silent where it costs. Watch for drift under pressure.
D60 – 69Compromised. Multiple core failures. Likely takes establishment money and votes the way the lobbies want.
F0 – 59Failing. Hostile to most of what we score. A Christian household has no business voting for them under any "lesser of two evils" framing.

Two Rules That Govern Every Score

Rejection of Neutrality

If a candidate frames the state as "neutral," "multi-faith," or "inclusive," that is a confession of refusal to acknowledge Christ's Lordship. Ranked as failure. There is no middle ground on abortion. There is no "moderate" position on whether marriage is between a man and a woman. Candidates don't get credit for being politely silent. Silence is a position — and we score it accordingly.

Evidence-First

We don't focus on party platforms, PAC endorsements, or campaign promises. We use voting records, official statements, sponsored bills, campaign websites, social media posts, and live debate or council-meeting footage. If a candidate says they're pro-life but voted to expand abortion access, the vote is what we count. Every scored candidate has source links on their profile page so you can verify it yourself.

A purely performative position — e.g., using "Judeo-Christian" rhetoric to avoid naming Christ Jesus — is ranked as failure.

Foreign-Lobby Penalty Why scores can go below baseline

Documented donations from foreign-backed lobbies (AIPAC chief among them, with China-linked and Soros-network donor vectors also tracked) trigger both a per-category penalty in Foreign Policy Restraint and a total-score adjustment. The adjustment can pull a candidate's headline score down by several points. The methodology page on the .org ministry side documents the bracket schedule, donor sources, and historical context.

This is the single feature that prevents the scorecard from rewarding candidates who say all the right things while taking dual-loyalty money quietly.

Deep Dives — One Page Per Category

Each of the 10 categories has its own page with the full rubric, scored questions, key bills + votes + organizations we track, position-level disqualifiers, and the Scripture anchor for that domain. Every candidate profile page links the category header straight to its deep-dive — click any category title in a profile to land here. The deep-dive shows the federal-tier wording by default; tier variants are documented in the Tiered Grading section above.

1. Sanctity of Life · ✝ God First 2. Biblical Marriage · ✝ God First 3. Family & Child Sovereignty · ✝ God First 4. Christian Liberty · ✝ God First 5. Economic Stewardship · ✝ God First 6. Election Integrity · ✝ God First 7. Border & Immigration · 🇺🇸 America First 8. Self-Defense & 2A · 🇺🇸 America First 9. Foreign Policy Restraint · 🇺🇸 America First 10. Industry Capture & Sovereignty · 🇺🇸 America First

Version history

v4.3 — Local-tier question variants (May 18, 2026)

Added local-tier display text for 22 questions so city council, mayor, school-board, and sheriff candidates get rubric wording that matches what their chair actually decides. Boolean unchanged.

v4.2 — State-tier question variants (May 18, 2026)

Added state-tier display text for 39 questions. A state senator's "Article I war powers" line now reads "state legislative authorization for National Guard deployment." A state legislator's federal-only questions remain N/A.

v4.1 — Tier-aware N/A masking (May 17, 2026)

Tagged every one of the 50 questions with the tiers where it's a fair test of office. Retrofitted 61,859 cells across the database: state officials get 43-of-50 applicable, local officials 22-of-50, federal officials remain 50-of-50. Dynamic-max grading shrinks the denominator instead of penalizing officials for questions outside their chair's authority.

v4.0 — God First / America First (May 2026)

The previous rubric was 7 categories × 5 questions × 2 pts = 70 points. v4.0 added three categories — Economic Stewardship, Industry Capture & Sovereignty, and the elevation of Election Integrity from a sub-question to a full category — and reorganized the existing seven into the God First / America First two-tier structure. PCH/CBG was retired as a label and its substance absorbed into Family & Child Sovereignty + Christian Liberty.

Result: the scorecard now catches gaps the old rubric masked. Specifically — establishment Republicans who score well on culture-war questions but take Pharma + defense-contractor + Big Ag money quietly. The new categories exist precisely to surface that pattern.

← Back to the Scorecard