View this post on the web at [link removed]

Idaho GOP Chairwoman Dorothy Moon recently published an op-ed discussing the role of the Idaho GOP Platform [ [link removed] ] and the various scorecards that attempt to measure how legislators vote in relation to it. I think some of her concerns about scorecards deserve a closer look.
First, let me say that I agree with much of what she wrote. The Idaho GOP Platform is the defining document of the Republican Party in this state. It is debated and adopted every two years by delegates at the State Convention. It represents what Idaho Republicans stand for. No argument there.
I also agree that no scorecard is “officially endorsed” by the Idaho Republican Party. In fact, I was walking through an airport in Colorado trying to catch a connecting flight with my family when Chairwoman Moon called and asked about our scorecard that had just come out. Her first question to me was, “Why wasn’t I told about this?” Then her next comment was a dismissal of it, “It looks just like the IFF scores.”
It would’ve been nice if she had inquired about the methodology, but she did not.
The Idaho GOP doesn’t endorse any scorecard because they don’t rate legislation or lawmakers. That’s not their job. Maybe that is why she did not ask more about it. Their job is to support Republican candidates and promote the principles in the Platform.
But here’s the thing. Somebody needs to do the rating. Somebody needs to connect the dots between what legislators say in their districts and how they actually vote in Boise. If the Party isn’t going to do it, then outside organizations will. And they should.
The Question She Asked
Chairwoman Moon asked a great question in her op-ed: “How can voters know whether their elected officials are voting the same way they campaigned?”
That’s exactly the question scorecards answer.
Legislators vote on hundreds of bills each session. Most voters don’t have time to read every bill, watch every committee hearing, and track every vote. That’s not a criticism of voters. That’s just reality. People have jobs and families and lives. They can’t spend all day on the Legislature’s website.
Scorecards take all that complexity and boil it down to something useful. Did your legislator vote in line with the principles they ran on? Here’s a number. Here’s a letter grade. Here’s a simple way to see if the talk matches the walk.
That’s not a weapon. That’s a public service.
The AI Concern
Chairwoman Moon expressed concern about “the growing use of artificial intelligence to analyze legislation.” She wrote that AI “can never replace God-given human reason and discernment.”
I understand the hesitation. AI is new. It’s different.
But let me explain why we use it.
Traditional scorecards rely on humans to read bills and decide how to score them. The Idaho Freedom Foundation does this, and they do it very well. They have clear metrics. They have experienced analysts. They publish their methodology for anyone to review. IFF has been the gold standard for legislative scorecards in Idaho and across the country for good reason.
Our approach is different. We use multiple AI systems to independently analyze each bill against the Idaho GOP Platform. Each system reads the bill text and compares it to the Artiles in the Platform. When they agree, we publish the consensus rating. When they disagree, we don’t guess. We mark it neutral.
There’s no human deciding what a bill “really” means. There’s no editorial judgment about whether a vote was “strategic” or not. It’s just the text of the bill measured against the text of the Platform.
Is this better than human analysis? Not necessarily. It’s different. It’s another tool. (Read more about our methodology and how we use AI [ [link removed] ])
“Weapons Against Fellow Republicans”
This is the part of Chairwoman Moon’s op-ed that concerns me most. She wrote that “too often, scorecards have been used as weapons against fellow Republicans rather than as tools for understanding.”
I’ve heard this argument before. Usually from legislators with bad scores.
Here’s my question: if a Republican legislator consistently votes against the Republican Platform, is it unfair to point that out? Is that using the scorecard as a “weapon”? Or is that just... accountability?
The Platform exists for a reason. Republican voters expect Republican legislators to vote like Republicans. When they don’t, voters have a right to know.
If pointing out a bad voting record feels like an attack, maybe the problem isn’t the scorecard. Maybe the problem is the voting record.
More Tools, Not Fewer
The Idaho Freedom Foundation has proven the value of legislative scorecards over many years. Their Freedom Index is respected nationwide. Their methodology is transparent. Their analysts do excellent work. I would encourage every Idaho voter to look at IFF’s scores alongside any other scorecard they find useful. Unlike some, we aren’t trying to regulate the information that people can and can’t use to form opinions.
Stop Idaho RINOs is building something different. We’re using technology to remove potential human bias from the analysis. We measure alignment with the Idaho GOP Platform specifically, because that’s the document Republican legislators claim to support.
Other organizations have their own scorecards with their own methodologies and their own focus areas. That’s a good thing. The more information voters have, the better decisions they can make.
Chairwoman Moon is right that voters ultimately decide who represents them. But voters need information to make those decisions. They need to know if their legislators are keeping their promises. They need to see if the campaign rhetoric matches the voting record.
That’s what scorecards provide. That’s why they matter. And that’s why legislators, and their screaming attack dogs, will keep trying to discredit the entire concept of accountability.
The Bottom Line
Scorecards aren’t going away. The Idaho Freedom Foundation will keep publishing their Freedom Index [ [link removed] ]. Stop Idaho RINOs will keep publishing our Platform alignment scores. Other organizations will keep developing their own tools.
Legislators can complain about it. They can call it unfair. They can warn about the dangers of AI. They can suggest that holding them accountable is somehow “factional.”
Or they can vote in line with the Platform they claim to support and let the scores speak for themselves.
The Platform is public [ [link removed] ]. The votes are public. Scorecards just connect the dots.
If connecting those dots makes some legislators uncomfortable, that tells you everything you need to know.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?