Opening Part I, Josh Clinton, Michael Sances, and Mary Sullivan examine the extent to which constituents evaluate incumbents based on their policy actions in office. The authors focus on situations in which representatives cast a vote contrary to the constituent’s views and present two different analyses. First, they examine the universe of issues in the 2008-2017 Congressional Cooperative Election Study (CCES) surveys, which include items designed to relate constituents’ policy preferences to specific roll- call votes in the House. Second, they conduct an in-depth analysis of legislative activity around the Affordable Care Act (ACA), investigating how members of different demographic groups vary in holding House members accountable for policy positions. In both analyses, partisan labels exert a substantial, independent effect on voter evaluations, but issue positions nonetheless matter. Moreover, the ACA analysis indicates that policy effects are larger among wealthier individuals. The findings imply that despite the increasing role of partisanship in U.S. elections, issue representation remains an important force in voter evaluation of incumbents.