Public Reason Institute, LLC
Election Standards & Neutrality Framework
This document establishes the Public Reason Institute's institutional standards for election-related research, candidate evaluation, and public polling. These standards govern how PRI conducts, presents, and distributes election-cycle analysis.
Institutional Neutrality Framework
PRI is a nonpartisan policy research organization. Our election-cycle work is governed by the following neutrality principles:
No Candidate Endorsement by Default
PRI's standard analytical framework does not constitute a candidate endorsement. Evaluations assess publicly documented qualifications, governance record, and policy positions — not partisan preference. An evaluation that rates a candidate as "Highly Qualified" is a qualification assessment, not a recommendation to vote for that candidate.
Consistent Rubric Application
All candidates in a given race are evaluated using the same 10-dimensional rubric applied with the same standards, regardless of party, ideology, or incumbent status. PRI does not apply different criteria to different candidates.
Transparent Criteria
Scoring dimensions, rating thresholds, and evaluation methodology are published and available for public review. PRI does not use undisclosed scoring weights or subjective modifiers.
Public Record Only
Evaluations draw exclusively from publicly available information: campaign materials, voting records, official statements, legislative activity, news coverage, and verifiable sources. Personal opinions of PRI staff are not used as evaluation criteria.
Candidate Evaluation Methodology
PRI evaluates candidates using a structured 10-dimensional rubric. Each dimension is scored 1–5 based on documented evidence. Total scores range from 10 to 50.
Each dimension is scored 1–5. Total range: 10–50.
Rating Scale
Highly Qualified
Strong documented record across most dimensions.
Qualified
Solid qualifications with some areas for further review.
Mixed / Needs More Information
Notable gaps or inconsistencies in the public record.
Significant Concerns
Material concerns across multiple evaluation dimensions.
Insufficient Information
Inadequate public record to complete a meaningful evaluation.
Endorsement Safeguards
PRI's standard evaluation system does not produce endorsements. Endorsement mode is a separate, restricted institutional process with the following safeguards:
- •Endorsement requires explicit institutional authorization separate from the standard evaluation workflow.
- •Any endorsement must include a written rationale statement, an approval record, and identification of the approving institutional authority.
- •Endorsed evaluations are clearly labeled with the endorsement designation and the approval date.
- •Standard evaluations — including those rated 'Highly Qualified' — are never presented as endorsements.
- •Polling data and poll insights are never used to generate implicit endorsements.
Polling Limitations & Disclosure
PRI's public polling tools are informational civic feedback instruments, not scientific election forecasts. The following limitations apply to all PRI polling activity:
- •PRI polls use opt-in, self-selected respondent pools and do not represent statistically random samples of any population.
- •Results should not be interpreted as predictive of election outcomes.
- •Poll data is presented to illustrate relative issue priorities and civic concerns among participating respondents.
- •Geographic, demographic, and other breakdowns are available only where sufficient response volume supports meaningful segmentation.
- •Poll results that show preference for a candidate or policy position do not constitute a PRI institutional position.
- •Any poll using a disclosed sampling methodology and external validation will be clearly identified as such.
Transparency Rules
- •All evaluation criteria, dimensions, and rating thresholds are published on the Methodology page.
- •Evaluator names and evaluation dates are included with each published evaluation.
- •Source citations are required for all qualitative assessments in candidate evaluations.
- •Polling disclaimers appear on all poll results and poll insight outputs.
- •Updates or revisions to published evaluations are documented with version notes.
- •PRI does not accept payment or consideration of any kind in exchange for evaluation ratings or polling outcomes.
Institutional Disclaimer
PRI candidate evaluations and polling insights are intended to support informed civic understanding. They do not constitute endorsements, voting recommendations, or official institutional positions on electoral outcomes. All evaluations reflect publicly documented information available at the time of publication.