Composite 5.11 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Unfit band at credit 548, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 6 | why?Oath-fidelity is clean of process-subversion conduct. Carson took office in 2008 and is a Democrat, he
could not and did not sign the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and there is no documented
fake-elector activity, election-overturn effort, or appointment-blocking-by-clock conduct attributable to
him. Held at an honest middle rather than higher because the affirmative oath-defense record (a documented
stand for a constitutional limit against one's own side at cost) is thin; absence of subversion earns the
middle, not the top.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?The Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index places Carson near the bottom of the House (score around
-0.97, rank in the low 300s), reflecting consistently low cross-party bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship.
This is a conduct measure of institution-over-win behavior, scored independent of his policy positions, a member can hold any ideology and still build across the aisle. The low BPI is a genuine drag on this
measure, not a partisan penalty.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of treating constituents or classes of citizens as outside the circle of equal
worth in the service sense. The drag against a higher mark is rhetorical: the 2011 "hanging on a tree" /
"Jim Crow" framing of Tea Party-aligned colleagues cast political opponents in dehumanizing terms (see
M05). Restricted to a 2011 episode he later called a "distraction" while standing by the substance.
Honest middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals, no abuse of investigative or committee authority
for personal or partisan retaliation, no criterion-8 process-subversion conduct. Intelligence and
Transportation committee service shows no record of office power turned against opponents. Clean of
capping conduct; middle reflects the absence of an affirmative power-restraint anchor rather than any
abuse.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 4 | why?The documented drag is the August 2011 remark that some Tea Party members of Congress "would love to see
you and me... hanging on a tree," paired with "this is the effort that we're seeing of Jim Crow."
Casting opponents in lynching imagery is a real anti-belonging instance. Mitigation: it was a single
episode, directed at "certain leaders" not a whole movement per his clarification, and he conceded the
analogy was a "distraction", though he stood by the substance rather than retracting. A broader pattern
is not established (his "white-supremacist domestic-terror is the larger threat" framing is contested
policy characterization, not enemy-making), so this is a measure-level drag, not a capping flag.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No documented fiduciary breach, no STOCK Act late-filing penalty, no self-dealing finding on record.
Standard periodic financial disclosures and sponsored-travel disclosures are filed as required. Absent a
documented appearance-concern (such as Keating-class regulator contact for a donor), this sits at a sound
middle on disclosure hygiene rather than the floor.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. The record shows little of this: when a
Jewish coalition pressed him over association with Louis Farrakhan (whose antisemitism is documented),
Carson's reply was that the group "doesn't have any credibility" with him, a defensive posture rather
than an own-side accountability moment. He did at other points denounce specific Farrakhan antisemitic
comments, which is a partial credit. Net below-middle: limited documented willingness to incur cost
calling out allies.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?The discretion test, using unobserved latitude well, has no defining anchor either direction on the
record. No documented instance of choosing personal advantage when unwatched, and no documented purest
sacrifice-of-self test passed. Honest middle for lack of dispositive evidence.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap (no leaked recordings or staff-abuse findings). The
heated public rhetoric (2011 Tea Party remarks) was on-the-record, not a hidden-face contradiction. Middle
reflects absence of evidence either way on off-camera consistency.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Long-tenured representation of a safe Indianapolis district with regular constituent-service presence;
re-elected repeatedly including a 2026 primary won with roughly two-thirds. The drag against a higher
mark is the enemy-making rhetoric (M05) which divides rather than represents the whole district, weighed
against genuine local-service longevity. Net middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, family-payment
scheme, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue on record. Career background is public
service (state excise police, city-county council) rather than a wealth pipeline. Absent any documented
office-driven enrichment, this sits sound; not higher only because no affirmative anti-enrichment posture
is anchored.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Sustained institutional participation across nearly two decades on substantive committees (Intelligence,
Transportation and Infrastructure, Strategic Competition with China) reflects respect for the
institution's working machinery. The decorum drag is the 2011 lynching-imagery episode, an instance of
spectacle over decorum. Net upper-middle: long institutional service, one notable decorum lapse.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?The truthfulness drag is the March 2010 claim that Tea Party health-care protesters hurled racial slurs at
Rep. John Lewis, an allegation that available audio/video has not substantiated and that he did not
retract. Treated as a weighed accuracy/appearance concern (an unverified public assertion stood by), not a
proven falsehood finding per the evidentiary rule. Combined with the stood-by 2011 imagery, this is a real
below-middle drag on factual care; it is a single-domain concern, not a sustained fabrication pattern.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive command is evidenced by sustained service on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and Transportation and Infrastructure, plus the Select Committee on Strategic Competition with China,
with a prior anti-terrorism / homeland-security professional background. Reflects substance over pure
talking points; held at upper-middle absent a signature authored legislative achievement of national
scope.
[source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index near the bottom of the House (~-0.97, rank low-300s) ↳ institution-over-win / cross-party bridge-building | Conduct measure scored independent of ideology; no penalty for policy positions |
| M05 | August 2011 remark that Tea Party colleagues 'would love to see you and me hanging on a tree' plus 'Jim Crow' framing ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, anti-belonging / dehumanizing imagery toward opponents | Single episode; clarified as aimed at 'certain leaders'; called the analogy a 'distraction' though stood by substance |
| M07 | Defensive response ('doesn't have any credibility') to resignation calls over Louis Farrakhan ties rather than own-side accountability ↳ active call-out-your-own-side duty | Did denounce specific Farrakhan antisemitic comments on other occasions, partial credit |
| M13 | March 2010 unsubstantiated claim that Tea Party protesters hurled racial slurs at Rep. John Lewis; not retracted despite contrary recordings ↳ factual care / accuracy of public assertions | Weighed as appearance/accuracy concern, not a proven falsehood finding per evidentiary rule |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 6 | why?Attributes: Steadiness, Selfless Service via long public-service career (excise police, council, Congress).
Drag toward Self-Interest is minimal, no enrichment findings. Held at an honest middle by limited
documented courage to break with one's own side at cost (M07).
|
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction and Authenticity are evident, he says what he believes plainly. The drag is toward
Temperance's opposite and limited Self-Correction: the 2011 lynching imagery and 2010 Lewis-slur claim
were stood by rather than fully owned, conceding only that wording was a "distraction."
|
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Stewardship of a long-held district and substantive committee work (Intelligence, China
Select). No documented Exploitation of office power against rivals. Held at middle by the enemy-making
rhetoric that divides rather than protects the whole constituency.
|
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: durable representation and institutional participation. Drag toward Favoritism/heat in the
contested 2010-2011 statements and the low bipartisan posture temper a record that is otherwise clean of
corruption or subversion. Honest middle.
|
| TOTAL: Weak | 22/40 |
Total 22/40, Adequate. Clean of corruption and process-subversion conduct, with genuine long public service, but pulled to the middle by low cross-party conduct, heated enemy-framing rhetoric, and a stood-by unverified accusation. No extraordinary oath-defense anchor lifts it higher.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me... hanging on a tree.”
Congressional Black Caucus event, Miami; Carson later called the analogy a 'distraction' but stood by the substance · CBS News / Associated Press coverage · CONTESTED · cite
“One of the biggest threats to our country is coming from within our country, domestic terrorism, mainly from white supremacist organizations.”
CNN interview on domestic-terror threat assessment · Mediaite coverage · CONTESTED · cite
“Rep. Carson denounces antisemitic comments by Farrakhan.”
Statement distancing himself from specific Farrakhan antisemitic remarks · WISH-TV coverage · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
André Darryl Carson (born October 16, 1974). U.S. Representative for Indiana's 7th Congressional District (Indianapolis) since a March 2008 special election to succeed his grandmother, Julia Carson. One of the first Muslims elected to Congress and Indiana's only Black member of its federal delegation. Prior career: Indiana State Excise Police compliance officer, homeland-security / anti-terrorism work, and the Indianapolis City-County Council (2007-2008). Serves on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Select Committee on Strategic Competition with China.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Long-tenured safe-seat Democrat (IN-7), re-elected repeatedly including a 2026 primary won with roughly two-thirds of the vote. Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index near the bottom of the House, reflecting low cross-party sponsorship conduct (scored as conduct, not ideology). Committee focus on intelligence, transportation and infrastructure, and strategic competition with China. No signature national-scope authored statute on record; the profile is steady district representation and committee participation rather than landmark lawmaking.
3. Constitutional Moments
No process-subversion conduct: as a Democrat seated in 2008, Carson did not and could not sign the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and there is no fake-elector or election-overturn conduct attributable to him. The countervailing note is the absence of a documented affirmative oath-defense stand taken against his own side at personal cost, the record is clean of subversion but light on signature constitutional courage.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Plain-spoken and at times sharply partisan. The documented drag is the August 2011 framing of Tea Party colleagues in lynching imagery ("hanging on a tree") and "Jim Crow," which he conceded was a "distraction" while standing by the substance rather than retracting. His broader "white-supremacist domestic terror is the larger threat" framing is contested policy characterization rather than enemy-making of fellow citizens. The 2011 episode is a real measure-level drag (M05/M03) but does not establish the sustained documented pattern required for a capping enemy-making flag.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, STOCK Act penalty, family-payment scheme, or foreign-government revenue on record. Career path is public service rather than a wealth pipeline. Standard periodic financial and sponsored-travel disclosures are filed. M11 reflects only office-driven enrichment and finds none; raw wealth is not penalized.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented criterion-class conduct. Criterion 8 (process subversion): none, seated 2008, Democrat, no amicus, no fake-elector activity. Criterion 10 (sustained enemy-making / incitement): NOT met, the 2011 lynching-imagery remark is a single documented episode handled as an M05/M03/M13 measure-level drag, not a sustained pattern of casting citizens as enemies who don't belong or directing confrontation. Flag count: zero. No capping or terminal flag.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest Adequate. Carson's record is clean of the gravest civic failures, no corruption finding, no self-dealing, no process-subversion conduct, and nearly two decades of steady district and committee service. What holds him to the middle is conduct, not ideology: a bottom-tier bipartisan-cooperation record, a 2011 episode of dehumanizing lynching imagery aimed at opponents that he stood by, a defensive posture rather than own-side accountability over the Farrakhan association, and a 2010 unsubstantiated racial-slur accusation left unretracted. These are weighed as documented conduct and appearance concerns, never as policy or party penalties. The result is a representative who clears the floor comfortably but lacks the extraordinary oath-defense anchor that would lift the mark, with real rhetorical and bridge-building drags counted honestly.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House Clerk financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · CBS News (2011 Tea Party remarks coverage)
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House Clerk financial disclosures · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.