The ALA 263-Metric Governor Evaluation System

← Back to Governor Rankings

Table of Contents

Part I — Purpose, Principles & Value Framework

This is the most detailed governor evaluation ever published: 50 sitting governors, 263 individually scored metrics, 1,653 maximum points, 26 scoring dimensions, with ranking stability verified on IBM Quantum hardware.

The Consequence-First, Rights-Based Framework

This evaluation operates on an explicit value framework that we name and defend rather than disguise as neutral objectivity:

Critics who disagree with this framework are not disagreeing with us. They are arguing that preventable deaths should matter less, that corruption should be discounted, or that oath-breaking should be ignored. They are welcome to make that argument publicly.

Nonpartisan by Construction

This methodology was finalized and locked before any governor was scored. We did not know who would rank where when we set the weights, defined the rubrics, or assigned items to tiers. Republican and Democrat governors are evaluated using identical items, identical rubrics, identical data sources, and identical weights. If Tier 1 items disproportionately affect governors of one party, that reflects the governance record of those governors, not a bias in the system. The methodology is published in full so that this claim can be independently verified.

Why This Evaluation Exists

Existing governor rankings rely on third-party indices, opinion surveys, or narrow ideological scorecards. They tell you whether a governor is popular. They do not tell you whether a governor is effective, honest, or faithful to their oath of office.

This evaluation measures what matters. Every score is anchored to primary government data — Bureau of Labor Statistics employment figures, Census population flows, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, CDC mortality data, NAEP education scores, state auditor findings, federal court records — not opinion polls, editorial endorsements, or partisan scorecards.

Foundational Principles

1. No third-party governor scorecards imported. We do not import rankings from Cato, Heritage, Brookings, or any ideological index. We use primary government datasets wherever available. Non-government inputs (e.g., credit ratings, approval polling, ASCE report cards) are clearly labeled as secondary context and are not the basis of the core score.
2. Nonpartisan by construction. Republican and Democrat governors are evaluated using identical items, identical rubrics, and identical weights. The methodology was finalized before any governor was scored.
3. Every score is traceable. Each of the 263 metrics includes the score (0–3), the evidence supporting that score, and the primary source where that evidence can be independently verified.
4. Consequences drive weight. Items involving irreversible harm to citizens (preventable deaths, corruption, constitutional violations) carry more weight than items involving economic statistics or popularity metrics. This is by design, not by accident.
5. Transparency is mandatory. This methodology document, the tier weighting system, the IBM Quantum job record, and every individual governor score are published. Nothing is hidden.

Part II — Evaluation Architecture

The 263 metrics are organized into three sections reflecting the three dimensions of executive governance:

Section	Focus	Items	Max Points	Scoring
Section A: Governance	The governor's own executive actions	100	300	Each item 0–3
Section B: State Outcomes	Measurable results using primary source data	13 categories	975	Each category 0–75
Section C: Oath Fidelity	Fidelity to Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights	4 categories (126 metrics)	−378 to +378	Each metric −3 to +3

Section A: Governance (100 items, max 300 points)

Section A evaluates what the governor personally did or failed to do. These are executive actions within the governor's direct authority. A governor cannot blame the legislature, the federal government, or market forces for Section A scores — these items measure their decisions.

Subsection	Items	Max	What It Measures
A1: Budget Execution	15	45	On-time submission, forecast accuracy, rainy day fund, credit ratings, pension funding, debt management, CAFR timeliness, audit findings, federal grant accounting
A2: Legislative Relations	15	45	Bill signing record, veto strategy, override rate, bipartisan legislation, special sessions effectiveness, legislative relationship quality
A3: Appointments	10	30	Judicial appointment quality, agency head qualifications, vacancy rates, diversity, confirmation success rate
A4: Emergency Management	12	36	Disaster response timeliness, National Guard deployment, FEMA coordination, preventable deaths from state failure, infrastructure failure prevention, pandemic response
A5: Transparency	13	39	FOIA compliance, schedule availability, campaign finance, financial disclosure, open meetings, open data, budget transparency, lobbying disclosure, IG reports, press accessibility
A6: Ethics	13	39	Criminal charges, ethics complaints, gift disclosure, conflicts of interest, state resource misuse, truthfulness, ethics infrastructure, emoluments, donor-to-contract pipeline, foreign influence
A7: Program Management	10	30	Healthcare program delivery, education initiative results, environmental programs, corrections system, transportation projects
A8: Federal Relations	6	18	Federal fund capture rate, grant competitiveness, regulatory relationship, federal litigation costs
A9: Constituent Service	6	18	Constituent response systems, town halls, accessibility, complaint resolution

Section B: State Outcomes (13 categories, max 975 points)

Section B measures what actually happened in the state. Unlike Section A, governors have partial — not total — control over these outcomes. State economies depend on national trends. Crime rates depend on demographic shifts. Education depends on decades of prior investment. Section B acknowledges this by measuring trajectory during tenure rather than absolute position. A governor who inherits a struggling state and improves outcomes receives credit. A governor who inherits a thriving state and allows decline does not.

Category	Max	Primary Data Sources
B01: Economic Performance	75	BEA SAGDP, BLS LAUS, BLS CES, Census ACS
B02: Population & Migration	75	Census Population Estimates, ACS Migration Flows, IRS SOI Migration Data
B03: Budget & Fiscal Health	75	State CAFR/ACFR, Moody's/S&P/Fitch, NASBO State Expenditure Reports
B04: Public Safety	75	FBI UCR/NIBRS, CDC WONDER Mortality, BJS NPS, state crime lab reports
B05: Education	75	NAEP, NCES IPEDS, state DOE report cards, NCHEMS graduation data
B06: Healthcare	75	CDC WONDER, CMS, Census ACS (uninsured), state vital statistics
B07: Infrastructure	75	FHWA National Bridge Inventory, ASCE Report Card, EPA SDWIS, DOT FARS
B08: Cost of Living	75	BLS CPI, BEA RPP, Census ACS (housing burden), HUD FMR
B09: Government Transparency	75	State FOI logs, POGO, RTI international studies, state AG records
B10: Controversy & Scandal	75	DOJ filings, federal court records, PACER, state ethics commission records
B11: Historical Legacy	75	Academic assessments, institutional policy trajectory, long-term investment analysis
B12: Constituent Verdict	75	Approval polling (aggregated), voter participation rates, ballot measure outcomes
B13: Immigration & Law Compliance	75	DHS enforcement data, DOJ immigration court records, state cooperation agreements, sanctuary policy documentation

Section C: Oath Fidelity (4 categories / 126 metrics, −378 to +378)

Section C is unique. It evaluates whether the governor has been faithful to the oath of office every governor voluntarily swears — to uphold the U.S. Constitution, particularly the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. This is not our standard — it is the governor's own sworn commitment, made publicly, on the day they took office.

Section C scores are anchored to court-confirmed constitutional violations under the governor's administration — federal consent decrees, judicial orders striking down state actions as unconstitutional, and documented failures of constitutional obligations confirmed by courts of law. This section does not score political disagreements, policy preferences, or editorial opinions about what the Constitution should mean. It scores what courts have ruled it does mean.

Section C scores can be negative. A governor whose administration has court-confirmed constitutional violations receives a negative score that subtracts from their total. This is the only section where a governor's score can reduce their overall evaluation below the sum of Sections A and B.

Category	Metrics	Range	Constitutional Authority
C1: Protection of Life	31	−93 to +93	Declaration of Independence: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”
C2: Constitutional Rights	29	−87 to +87	Bill of Rights (1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th Amendments)
C3: Child Welfare & Parental Rights	25	−75 to +75	9th & 10th Amendments, parens patriae obligations
C4: Faithful Discharge of Duties	41	−123 to +123	State constitutional oath of office provisions

Oath Breach Penalties

Court-confirmed violations of constitutional rights trigger additional penalties documented separately. Each governor's evaluation includes an oath breach count, the number that are court-confirmed, the penalty applied, and the specific details of each breach.

Part III — The Three Scoring Categories

The 263 metrics span wildly different types of measurement — from binary yes/no questions (was the governor charged with a crime?) to continuous data comparisons (where does the state rank in GDP growth?). A single scoring rubric cannot fairly handle all item types. Instead, each item falls into one of three scoring categories, each with its own 0–3 logic.

Category 1: Binary Items

Did this happen or didn't it?

Binary items measure events or conditions that either occurred or did not. They are anchored to court records, DOJ filings, ethics commission findings, and official government records. There is no subjective interpretation — the document either exists or it does not.

Score	Definition	Example (Item #74: Campaign Donor to State Contract Pipeline)
3	Clean. No incidents, no charges, no violations, no documented concerns. No public record of the event occurring.	No documented cases of campaign donors receiving preferential state contracts. Ethics commission has no related complaints on file.
2	Proximity concerns. No direct involvement, but documented connection to an incident. The governor was not charged or found in violation, but circumstantial evidence exists.	Governor received campaign contributions from entities later involved in corruption, but was not a target of the investigation. No evidence governor knew of the scheme.
1	Documented incident, limited scope. A verified event occurred involving the governor's office, staff, or direct political associates. The governor may have cooperated with investigators.	Governor received $5M+ in campaign contributions from FirstEnergy entities, signed the bill later proven to be the product of a $60M bribery scheme, and did not detect or prevent the corruption despite its scale. Not personally charged.
0	Direct involvement or catastrophic failure. Governor personally charged, indicted, or found in violation. Or: corruption of such scale operated under the governor's authority that failure to detect or prevent it constitutes a fundamental governance failure.	Governor personally indicted or convicted for corruption. Or: governor directed the scheme, received personal financial benefit, and used state resources to facilitate it.

Items scored as binary: Criminal charges (#66), ethics complaints (#67), gift/travel disclosure (#68), conflict of interest (#69), state resource misuse (#70), emoluments/self-dealing (#73), campaign donor pipeline (#74), foreign influence (#75), sexual harassment claims (#76), records preservation (#77), revolving door (#78).

Category 2: Data-Benchmarked Items

Where does the state rank, and which direction is it moving?

Data-benchmarked items are scored by comparing a state's performance to all other states using published national datasets. The scoring uses quartile ranking to account for the fact that governors inherit different starting positions. A governor in Mississippi and a governor in Massachusetts govern from different baselines — what matters is relative performance and trajectory.

Score	Definition	Example (GDP Growth Rate)
3	Top quartile nationally (rank 1–12 among states) OR measurably improving trajectory that moved the state up at least one quartile during the governor's tenure.	State GDP growth rate in top 12 nationally during evaluation period. Source: BEA SAGDP tables.
2	Above median (rank 13–25) OR stable position maintaining existing quartile.	State GDP growth rate ranked 13th–25th nationally. State maintained its economic position without significant gains or losses.
1	Below median (rank 26–38) OR declining trajectory that dropped the state at least one quartile during the governor's tenure.	State GDP growth rate ranked 26th–38th nationally, or state dropped from above-median to below-median during tenure.
0	Bottom quartile (rank 39–50) OR significant decline during tenure (two or more quartile drops).	State GDP growth rate ranked in bottom 12 nationally, or state economic performance collapsed relative to peers during tenure.

Why Quartile-Based Scoring?

1. Controls for inherited conditions. A governor who takes office in a bottom-quartile state and improves it to above-median receives a 3 (trajectory improvement), even though the raw number may still be lower than states with historical advantages.
2. Eliminates national-trend bias. If the entire national economy grows 3%, a state that grew 3% isn't exceptional — it's median. Quartile ranking measures performance relative to peers in the same national environment.
3. Verifiable by anyone. National datasets from BLS, Census, FBI, and CDC are publicly available. Anyone can download the data, rank the states, and confirm the quartile.

Items scored as data-benchmarked: All Section B items across economic performance, population, fiscal health, public safety, education, healthcare, infrastructure, cost of living, and transparency. Also applies to select Section A items where national comparisons exist (e.g., rainy day fund as percentage of expenditure, pension funding ratio).

Category 3: Severity-Scaled Items

Something went wrong. How wrong?

Severity-scaled items measure the magnitude of a failure. Unlike binary items (did it happen?) or data-benchmarked items (how does the state rank?), severity items measure how bad a documented event was, using objective thresholds tied to body counts, financial losses, and federal intervention triggers.

Score	Definition	Example (Item #44: Preventable Deaths from State Failure)
3	No incidents. Zero preventable deaths, zero infrastructure failures resulting in casualties, zero events requiring federal emergency intervention due to state negligence.	No mass casualty events attributable to state government failure during the governor's tenure.
2	Minor incidents. Small-scale event, contained quickly. Fewer than 5 people directly harmed. State response was adequate once the event was identified.	Isolated infrastructure incident (e.g., single bridge failure, localized water contamination) with limited casualties and prompt state response.
1	Significant failure. 5–50 people affected. State response was delayed, inadequate, or poorly coordinated. Federal agencies intervened due to state incapacity.	East Palestine derailment: hazardous material release, delayed environmental monitoring, uncertain long-term health impacts, primarily federal responsibility (NTSB/FRA) but state inspection resources inadequate.
0	Catastrophic. 50+ casualties, OR systemic failure requiring federal takeover, OR irreversible environmental damage affecting an entire region. The governor's authority was directly responsible or directly failed to prevent.	ERCOT grid collapse (Texas, Feb 2021): 246+ preventable deaths. 4.5 million without power for days. Governor's appointed regulators failed to mandate winterization despite 2011 warnings. A known risk, a documented recommendation, and a preventable mass casualty event.

Items scored as severity-scaled: Preventable deaths from state failure (#44), National Guard deployment timing (#43), infrastructure failure prevention (#47), pandemic response effectiveness (#48–51), environmental contamination events, child fatalities in state custody, prison deaths from negligence, emergency response coordination failures.

Part IV — Tier Weighting System

Not all governance failures are equal. A governor who presides over a $60 million bribery scheme and 246 preventable deaths should not be able to outscore a clean governor by posting better job numbers. The tier weighting system ensures that scores reflect the real-world consequences of governance, not just the quantity of items scored.

The Five Tiers

Tier	Weight	What It Contains	Why This Weight
Tier 1	40%	Preventable deaths from state failure. Corruption and fraud under the governor's authority. Court-confirmed constitutional violations. Federal consent decrees. Personal criminal charges or staff indictments.	Irreversible harm. You cannot undo death. Corruption undermines every other metric — if the legislature is for sale, how do you trust the education numbers? 40% means a governor cannot score above 60% overall if they completely fail on accountability, regardless of performance elsewhere.
Tier 2	25%	Child welfare failures (foster care deaths, DFPS federal oversight). Fiscal destruction (credit downgrades, pension collapse). Environmental health damage with community-level impact.	Severe harm to the most vulnerable. Children in state custody cannot advocate for themselves. Pension collapses affect millions of retirees. Environmental contamination can take decades to remediate. These failures define a governorship but do not necessarily taint every other measurement the way corruption does.
Tier 3	20%	Infrastructure reliability. Public safety trajectory. Education outcomes. Healthcare access and quality.	The job description. This is what governors are elected to manage. It affects millions of lives daily. But these are expected competencies — running schools and roads is the baseline, not the ceiling.
Tier 4	10%	Economic performance (GDP, jobs, wages). Cost of living trajectory. Business environment.	Real but indirect. Governors influence economic conditions but do not control them. A state's GDP depends heavily on geography, federal policy, industry mix, national cycles, and decades of prior investment. Give it weight, but not more than it deserves.
Tier 5	5%	Population migration. Constituent approval. Historical legacy comparisons.	Outputs, not inputs. People voting with their feet and poll numbers are the result of governance, not governance itself. A popular governor is not necessarily a good one. An unpopular one who makes hard, correct decisions is not necessarily bad. Informative as a cross-check, not decisive.

Why These Specific Weights

Why Tier 1 is 40% and not higher

At 50%+, the system would effectively measure only corruption and preventable deaths. Governors who are genuinely clean but terrible at governing — crumbling schools, failing hospitals, no economic plan — would receive high scores. The job of governor is more than “don't kill people and don't steal.” 40% ensures accountability dominates without making it the only thing that matters.

Why Tier 1 is 40% and not lower

At 30% or below, the “scoring your way out” problem returns. A governor with a $60M bribery scheme operating under their authority could offset it with enough good economic statistics and positive migration data. That outcome violates the foundational principle: consequences drive weight. 40% is the tipping point where catastrophic Tier 1 failure cannot be compensated by excellent performance elsewhere.

Why Tier 4 (economics) is only 10%

This is where most objections will arise. Critics will say economic performance should count for more. The response is straightforward: governors do not control their state's economy. Texas has oil. California has Silicon Valley. North Dakota has the Bakken formation. New York has Wall Street. These industry concentrations predate every sitting governor by decades. When oil prices rise, Texas GDP grows regardless of who is governor. When tech booms, California grows regardless. Giving economic performance 10% respects that it matters while acknowledging the governor's limited causal role.

Why Tier 5 (approval/migration) is only 5%

If approval ratings drove the score, every governor would optimize for popularity rather than effectiveness. Short-term popular decisions (tax cuts without spending cuts, delaying infrastructure maintenance, avoiding hard policy choices) produce high approval and long-term damage. Migration data is informative — if 500,000 people are leaving a state, something is wrong — but it's a lagging indicator that reflects prior governance, not current performance.

Scoring Mathematics

Final scoring proceeds in three steps:

The effective per-item multiplier depends on how many items are in each tier:

Tier	~Items	Weight	Per-Item Influence	Effective Multiplier vs. Tier 4 Baseline
Tier 1	~35	40%	1.14% each	~15×
Tier 2	~45	25%	0.56% each	~7×
Tier 3	~90	20%	0.22% each	~3×
Tier 4	~130	10%	0.077% each	1× (baseline)
Tier 5	~100	5%	0.05% each	~0.6×

A single Tier 1 item is worth approximately 15 times a single Tier 4 item. That ratio sounds aggressive until you state it plainly: “Is one item about 246 people dying from a preventable grid failure worth 15 items about job growth statistics?” The answer is self-evident.

Worked Examples

Example A: Governor with strong economics but corruption

Tier	Raw Score	Max	Tier %	× Weight	Contribution
Tier 1	42	105	40%	× 0.40	16.0
Tier 2	108	135	80%	× 0.25	20.0
Tier 3	216	270	80%	× 0.20	16.0
Tier 4	351	390	90%	× 0.10	9.0
Tier 5	255	300	85%	× 0.05	4.25
Final Score:					65.3 / 100

Despite scoring 80–90% on Tiers 2–5, the 40% Tier 1 score drags the final to 65. The corruption matters.

Example B: Clean but mediocre governor

Tier	Tier %	× Weight	Contribution
Tier 1	85%	× 0.40	34.0
Tier 2	65%	× 0.25	16.25
Tier 3	60%	× 0.20	12.0
Tier 4	55%	× 0.10	5.5
Tier 5	50%	× 0.05	2.5
Final Score:			70.3 / 100

The clean, mediocre governor outscores the corrupt, high-performing one. This is the correct outcome.

Part V — Data Sources & Verification Standards

Every score in this evaluation is traceable to a primary data source. We do not import third-party governor scorecards, editorial indices, or ideological rankings. Where non-government sources are used as inputs (e.g., credit rating agencies, approval polling aggregates, ASCE infrastructure grades), they are clearly identified and serve as secondary context rather than core scoring drivers.

What Qualifies as a Primary Source

1. Federal statistical agencies: BLS, BEA, Census Bureau, CDC, FBI, NCES, FHWA, EPA, CMS, DOJ.
2. Federal court records: PACER filings, federal consent decrees, DOJ press releases and case summaries.
3. State government records: CAFR/ACFR financial reports, state auditor findings, ethics commission records, campaign finance filings, vital statistics registries.
4. Independent testing programs: NAEP (congressionally mandated, administered by NCES), credit rating agencies (Moody's, S&P, Fitch).

What Does Not Qualify

• Think tank indices (Cato, Heritage, Brookings, ALEC, Sierra Club scorecards)
• Media editorial rankings
• Advocacy organization ratings
• Self-reported governor's office statistics without independent verification
• Social media sentiment analysis

Complete Data Source Directory

Source	Agency	What It Provides
SAGDP	Bureau of Economic Analysis	State-level GDP, personal income, industry composition
LAUS	Bureau of Labor Statistics	State/metro unemployment rates (monthly)
CES	Bureau of Labor Statistics	Nonfarm payroll employment by state (monthly)
CPI	Bureau of Labor Statistics	Consumer price inflation by metro area
ACS	Census Bureau	Income, poverty, housing costs, insurance coverage, migration
Population Estimates	Census Bureau	Annual state population and components of change
SOI Migration	Internal Revenue Service	County-to-county migration based on tax returns
UCR / NIBRS	Federal Bureau of Investigation	Violent crime, property crime rates by state
WONDER	Centers for Disease Control	Cause-of-death mortality, maternal mortality, drug overdose deaths
NAEP	National Center for Education Statistics	4th/8th grade reading and math scores by state
IPEDS	National Center for Education Statistics	Higher education enrollment, completion, costs
NBI	Federal Highway Administration	Bridge structural condition ratings by state
FARS	Department of Transportation	Fatal traffic crash data
SDWIS	Environmental Protection Agency	Drinking water system violations by state
CMS Data	Centers for Medicare & Medicaid	Medicaid enrollment, hospital quality, state plan data
PACER	Federal Courts	Federal case filings, consent decrees, civil rights cases
CAFR/ACFR	State Governments	Comprehensive annual financial reports
NASBO	Nat'l Assoc. of State Budget Officers	State expenditure reports, fiscal survey
Credit Ratings	Moody's, S&P, Fitch	State general obligation bond ratings

Part VI — IBM Quantum Stability Verification

After all 50 governors were scored across all 263 metrics, the ranking stability was tested using perturbation analysis powered by random numbers generated on IBM Quantum hardware. This section explains exactly what that process does, what it does not do, and why quantum hardware was chosen.

What It Does

Ranking stability verification through sensitivity analysis.

The evaluation system has 26 scoring dimensions (9 governance + 13 outcomes + 4 oath fidelity). Each dimension contributes to the final score. But reasonable people could disagree about how much each dimension should matter. Should budget execution count more than education outcomes? Should public safety outweigh infrastructure?

The perturbation analysis answers the question: “If we changed how much each dimension matters, would the rankings still hold?”

Two complementary tests are performed:

Test A: Weight Sensitivity

1. Take the baseline scores for all 50 governors across all 26 dimensions.
2. Generate a set of random weights for each dimension, varying from 0.5× to 1.5× the baseline weight (±50%).
3. Recalculate all 50 rankings using the new weights.
4. Repeat 4,096 times with different random weights each time.
5. Record how often each governor held their baseline rank (“rank hold percentage”).

Test B: Measurement Noise

1. Take each governor’s Section A, B, and C scores.
2. Apply ±5% random perturbation to each section score to simulate measurement uncertainty.
3. Recalculate all 50 rankings with the perturbed scores.
4. Repeat across the same 4,096 permutations.
5. Record rank stability under score-level noise.

Together, Test A asks “what if we weighted categories differently?” and Test B asks “what if the scores had measurement error?”

Result: Spencer Cox (Utah) held the #1 position in 100.0% of 4,096 permutations. His lead is so substantial that no reasonable reweighting of dimensions changes who finishes first.

What It Does Not Do

Why Quantum Hardware Was Chosen

For this application — generating random weights for a sensitivity analysis — classical pseudorandom number generators (such as Python's Mersenne Twister, /dev/urandom, or any cryptographically secure PRNG) would produce statistically equivalent results. Quantum randomness is mathematically necessary for cryptographic applications and certain physics simulations. It is not mathematically necessary for perturbation analysis.

Quantum hardware was chosen for one reason: auditability.

• The IBM Quantum job record (Job ID: d6uvlc2f84ks73deoqp0) is publicly accessible at quantum.ibm.com.
• Anyone can verify that the circuits ran on real hardware (ibm_fez), not a simulator.
• The random numbers are tamper-proof — they were generated by quantum mechanical processes and recorded by IBM's infrastructure, creating an independent audit trail that no party (including us) could manipulate after the fact.
• Classical PRNGs, while statistically equivalent, are generated locally and provide no independent verification that the random numbers were not cherry-picked to produce a desired outcome.

In short: quantum hardware was chosen for its transparency properties, not its mathematical properties. We disclose this because transparency is not optional in serious research.

Technical Specifications

Parameter	Value
Quantum Backend	ibm_fez (IBM Quantum)
Job ID	d6uvlc2f84ks73deoqp0
Verification URL	quantum.ibm.com/jobs/d6uvlc2f84ks73deoqp0
Number of Qubits	8
Gate Configuration	Hadamard (H) on all qubits — true quantum superposition
Number of Circuits	100
Shots per Circuit	1,024
Total Quantum Samples	102,400
Permutations Generated	4,096
Dimensions Perturbed	26
Weight Range	0.5× to 1.5× per dimension (±50%)
Governors Ranked	50
Verification Date	May 18, 2026

Key Stability Results

Metric	Result
#1 rank hold (Spencer Cox, UT)	100.0% of 4,096 permutations
Top 5 stable	47.0% held exact position
Top 10 stable	6.8% held exact position
Bottom 5 stable	81.8% held exact position

The high stability at the top and bottom indicates that the best and worst governors are clearly differentiated. The middle of the pack shows more movement under perturbation, which is expected — governors with similar scores can swap positions when weights change slightly.

Part VII — Editorial Standards & Senior Editor

Senior Editor: Timothy E. Parker

The 263-item governor evaluation was produced under the editorial authority of Timothy E. Parker, Senior Editor of the Governor Evaluation Project at Parker Intel.

Qualifications

• Guinness World Records: Recognized as the world's most syndicated puzzle compiler, with work appearing in over 1,400 publications worldwide.
• Assessment design: Three decades of professional experience in cognitive assessment design, standardized testing frameworks, and applied intelligence measurement.
• Scale: Parker's assessment systems at Parker Intel have been administered over 180 million times, integrating over 1,000 peer-reviewed research papers.
• Proprietary systems: Creator of Real World IQ, Real Bio Age, RELIQ, and other assessment platforms.

Editorial Role

As Senior Editor, Parker directed:

• Framework design: The structure of the 263-item evaluation — the division into Sections A, B, and C, the 26 dimensions, and the scoring rubrics — was designed under Parker's direction to meet the same standards of rigor applied to standardized cognitive assessments.
• Scoring consistency: Every item was reviewed to ensure the 0–3 score matched the declared rubric for that item's category (binary, data-benchmarked, or severity-scaled). Scores were not assigned by impression — they were assigned by matching evidence to pre-defined thresholds.
• Source verification: Every evidence citation and data source was reviewed for traceability to a primary government source. Items citing secondary sources were revised to cite the underlying primary data.
• Cross-governor consistency: The same rubric thresholds were applied to all 50 governors. If a specific action earned a score of 1 for one governor, the same action earned a score of 1 for every governor who took that action.

Institution

Parker Intel (parkerintel.com) is a cognitive science research institution founded in 1996. Over 30 years, ALA has developed 12 proprietary assessment systems, integrated over 1,000 peer-reviewed research papers, and administered assessments 180 million+ times. The governor evaluation applies ALA's assessment methodology — item construction, rubric design, evidence-based scoring, and statistical validation — to executive governance performance.

Part VIII — Responding to Challenges

This section provides direct responses to anticipated challenges from reporters, detractors, and governors' offices.

Challenge: “You scored my governor unfairly.”

Challenge: “The tier weights are biased toward/against [party].”

Challenge: “A governor shouldn't be blamed for corruption they weren't personally charged in.”

Challenge: “Economic performance should count for more than 10%.”

Challenge: “IBM Quantum Verified implies IBM endorsed this.”

Challenge: “Who decides what a 0 vs. 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 is?”

Challenge: “Section C is subjective — oath fidelity is a matter of interpretation.”

Challenge: “You're not qualified to evaluate governors.”

Part IX — Complete Item Inventory

The 263 metrics span the following dimensions. Full item-level detail (metric name, score, evidence, source) is published for each governor individually at parkerintel.com/governors/.

Section A: Governance (100 items)

Dimension	Items	Max	Tier
A1: Budget Execution	15	45	Tiers 2–3
A2: Legislative Relations	15	45	Tier 3
A3: Appointments	10	30	Tier 3
A4: Emergency Management	12	36	Tiers 1–2
A5: Transparency	13	39	Tiers 2–3
A6: Ethics	13	39	Tier 1
A7: Program Management	10	30	Tiers 2–3
A8: Federal Relations	6	18	Tier 3
A9: Constituent Service	6	18	Tier 4

Section B: State Outcomes (13 categories)

Dimension	Max	Tier
B01: Economic Performance	75	Tier 4
B02: Population & Migration	75	Tier 5
B03: Budget & Fiscal Health	75	Tier 2
B04: Public Safety	75	Tier 3
B05: Education	75	Tier 3
B06: Healthcare	75	Tier 3
B07: Infrastructure	75	Tier 3
B08: Cost of Living	75	Tier 4
B09: Government Transparency	75	Tier 3
B10: Controversy & Scandal	75	Tier 1
B11: Historical Legacy	75	Tier 5
B12: Constituent Verdict	75	Tier 5
B13: Immigration & Law Compliance	75	Tier 2

Section C: Oath Fidelity (4 categories / 126 metrics)

Category	Metrics	Range	Tier
C1: Protection of Life	31	−93 to +93	Tier 1
C2: Constitutional Rights	29	−87 to +87	Tier 1
C3: Child Welfare & Parental Rights	25	−75 to +75	Tier 2
C4: Faithful Discharge	41	−123 to +123	Tier 1

Part X — Data Source Directory

All data sources used in this evaluation are publicly accessible. No proprietary or restricted-access datasets were used.

Federal Statistical Agencies

Agency	URL	Data Used
Bureau of Labor Statistics	bls.gov	Employment, unemployment, wages, CPI
Bureau of Economic Analysis	bea.gov	State GDP, personal income, regional price parities
Census Bureau	census.gov	Population, migration, ACS demographics
CDC / NCHS	cdc.gov/nchs & wonder.cdc.gov	Mortality, maternal health, drug overdose, vital statistics
FBI	ucr.fbi.gov	Uniform Crime Reports, NIBRS crime data
NCES	nces.ed.gov	NAEP scores, IPEDS higher education data
FHWA	fhwa.dot.gov	National Bridge Inventory, highway statistics
EPA	epa.gov	SDWIS drinking water, air quality, enforcement actions
CMS	cms.gov	Medicaid enrollment, hospital quality, state health expenditures
DOJ	justice.gov	Federal prosecutions, civil rights enforcement, consent decrees
IRS	irs.gov/statistics	SOI migration data (county-to-county tax return flows)

Federal Court & Legal Records

Source	URL	Data Used
PACER	pacer.uscourts.gov	Federal case filings, consent decrees, civil rights litigation
Federal Register	federalregister.gov	Executive orders, regulatory actions affecting states
Supreme Court opinions	supremecourt.gov	Constitutional rulings affecting state governance

State-Level Sources (applied per state)

Source Type	Data Used
State Auditor / Comptroller	CAFR/ACFR, audit findings, material weaknesses
State Ethics Commission	Complaints, investigations, financial disclosure records
Secretary of State	Campaign finance filings, lobbying disclosures
State Treasurer	Debt reports, pension funding, rainy day fund balances
Governor's Office	Budget proposals, executive orders, press releases
State DOE	School report cards, graduation rates, teacher data
State Vital Records	Birth/death certificates, health statistics

Independent Assessment Programs

Source	Data Used
NAEP (congressionally mandated)	Standardized 4th/8th grade reading and math scores
Moody's / S&P / Fitch	State credit ratings and outlook
ASCE	Infrastructure Report Card grades by state

Part XI — Error Correction & Revision Protocol

A methodology that cannot be corrected is not rigorous — it is dogma. This section codifies how errors are identified, verified, corrected, and documented.

How to Submit a Correction

1. Identify the specific item. Name the governor, the item number (e.g., Item #74), and the current score.
2. Cite a primary government source. Provide the specific document, dataset, court filing, or official record that contradicts the evidence published in our evaluation. Secondary sources (news articles, opinion pieces, think tank analyses) are insufficient. We require the same standard of source we hold ourselves to.
3. Submit the correction via email to corrections@parkerintel.com.

How Corrections Are Processed

1. Verification. The Senior Editor or designee verifies the primary source cited by the challenger against the original source cited in the evaluation.
2. Determination. One of three outcomes:
   • Correction accepted: The challenger's source contradicts or supersedes our evidence. The score is updated.
   • Correction rejected: The challenger's source does not contradict our evidence, or the source does not meet primary-source standards. The existing score stands. A brief explanation of the rejection is published.
   • Score adjusted but not to challenger's request: The source is valid but supports a different score than the challenger proposed. The score is updated to the rubric-determined value, not the requested value.
3. Publication. All accepted corrections are published in a public change log with:
   • Date of correction
   • Item number and governor affected
   • Previous score and new score
   • The primary source that prompted the correction
   • The editor who approved the change

Version Control

All versions of the evaluation are timestamped and archived. When corrections are made:

• The version number increments (e.g., 1.0 → 1.1).
• The previous version remains publicly accessible for comparison.
• The change log is published alongside the current version.
• Aggregate statistics (total corrections accepted, total rejected, corrections by party of governor affected) are published to demonstrate that the correction process is applied without partisan bias.

What Is Not a Correctable Error

• Disagreements with tier weights. The 40/25/20/10/5 weighting reflects a declared value framework (consequence-first, rights-based). It is a normative choice, not a factual claim. Disagreement with the framework is a philosophical debate, not an error.
• Disagreements with the rubric definitions. If an item's rubric says "bottom quartile = 0" and a state is in the bottom quartile, the score is 0. The rubric is the rubric. Arguing that "bottom quartile should be a 1" is a methodology objection, not a factual correction.
• Political objections. "My governor shouldn't be scored low because they're popular" or "This evaluation is biased against my party" are not corrections. They are opinions. See Ground Rules.