Civic Intelligence Unit
The Constitutional Accountability Scorecard
See how candidates actually behave when constitutional guardrails are tested
Measure the record—not the rhetoric
Evidence Over Ideology
The Civic Intelligence Unit (CIU) is a nonpartisan research and public-education initiative focused on how public officials exercise power when constitutional guardrails are tested.
We develop clear, evidence-based tools to help independent and moderate voters assess whether public officials’ power is being exercised with restraint, accountability, and respect for constitutional norms.
Our work does not advocate for parties or candidates. It evaluates conduct, process, and institutional behavior using objective, transparent standards and publicly verifiable evidence.
What We Do
-
![]()
Research & Indices
We develop clear, evidence-based frameworks – including The Constitutional Accountability Scorecard - that organize complex political behavior into measurable standards.
-
![]()
Public Scorecards
We present candidate and officeholder assessments in a format that is clear, comparable and easy to use.
-
![]()
Civic Clarity
We help independent and moderate voters cut through partisan noise and focus on what public officials actually do.
Nearly Half of Americans Identify as Independent
U.S. Political Party Identification, 2025
Why Independents Matter
Independents are now the largest voting bloc in the country—45% of the electorate, according to Gallup.¹
But most political analysis still assumes voters think in partisan terms.
That leaves many voters without tools that match how they actually evaluate politics: by conduct, not slogans; by restraint, not rhetoric; and by whether institutions function as intended.
CIU exists to close that gap.
¹ Gallup, New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents, January 12, 2026.
Why America’s Largest Voting BlocMatters:
Understanding How Independent Voters Evaluate Public Officials
Independent voters are now the largest political bloc in the United States, representing roughly 45% of voting age Americans. Yet they are often misunderstood as simply being "between" Democrats and Republicans. In reality, independents are a diverse group united less by ideology than by how they evaluate government, public officials, and institutions.
Many independent-minded voters place a high value on accountability, fairness, competence, and practical outcomes. They are often skeptical of political parties, resistant to ideological extremes, and more likely to judge public officials based on conduct rather than rhetoric.
While independents share certain broad characteristics, they are not a single voting bloc. Some prioritize institutional stability and constitutional norms, while others focus more on government performance, corruption, accountability, or practical day-to-day concerns.
To better understand these differences, CIU developed a framework that identifies four major independent-minded voter segments: Institutional Moderates, Civic Skeptics, Low-Engagement Independents, and Anti-Institutional Populists. Each group approaches politics differently, but all provide important insight into how independent-minded Americans evaluate public leadership.
Understanding these voters is central to CIU's mission. Our Constitutional Accountability Scorecards help citizens evaluate public officials using consistent, evidence-based standards focused on constitutional accountability rather than partisan affiliation.
The SAVE Act: Balancing Election Integrity and Voter Access
Election integrity and voter access are both foundational democratic values.
Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The policy debate surrounding the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is therefore not whether election integrity matters — it clearly does — but whether the scale and structure of the proposed remedy are proportional to the demonstrated scale of the underlying problem.
The SAVE Act would significantly expand documentary proof-of-citizenship and voter identification requirements for federal elections. Supporters argue these measures would strengthen public confidence and safeguard election integrity. Critics argue the legislation could impose substantial documentation and registration burdens on eligible voters relative to the limited documented evidence of widespread noncitizen voting.
Existing research suggests the burden would fall unevenly across voter groups and certain demographics, particularly younger voters, lower-income populations, disabled voters, and some minority communities. At the same time, multiple state audits and academic studies have found relatively small numbers of confirmed noncitizen voting cases compared with the total number of ballots cast nationally.
The central question is not partisan — it is structural: whether the proposed remedy is proportionate to the demonstrated risk, and whether implementation would create significant barriers for eligible voter participation in the process of addressing a documented problem.
CIU evaluated the SAVE Act through the lens of proportionality, evidence-based governance, and potential impact on lawful voter access..