Composite 4.46 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Foreclosed. Arrington signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020), legal-on-its-face power deployed to ask the Supreme Court to discard another state's certified electors and overturn a decided presidential election. That is a criterion-8 process-subversion event, which caps the record and forecloses support regardless of the rest. The remainder of the record is unremarkable on conduct grounds: no ethics findings, no documented self-dealing, and no sustained enemy-making pattern, but the oath-breach of the amicus is dispositive here, not curable by the cleaner ledger elsewhere.
Arrington is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 House Republicans, filed Dec 11, 2020, which asked the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral slates from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and overturn the 2020 presidential election. This is legal-on-its- face power (a court filing) used to defeat the constitutional purpose of the electoral count. It hits M01 (driven to the floor) and M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (SCOTUS docket 22O155)
A capping flag forecloses an Author's Verdict of "supported" regardless of the composite; a terminal flag suspends the number entirely. Conduct is weighed on documented evidence, applied symmetrically. How flags work →
No military service record on file. Service to country is honored as context, not scored; its absence is not a penalty. Conduct is graded solely against the oath of office.
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 | 2 | why?Driven to the criterion-8 floor. Arrington is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus
brief, which asked the Court to throw out certified electoral slates from four states and overturn the
decided 2020 election, a legal-on-its-face act aimed at defeating the constitutional purpose of the
electoral count. That is process subversion at the highest level the oath protects. His separate Jan 6
floor objections to Arizona and Pennsylvania are scored as the constitutional process working (not
independently capping), but the amicus alone sets this measure at the floor.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?Below-median cross-aisle work, ranked roughly 298th in the House on the Bipartisan Index (~-0.78),
bottom-tier. Some discount is owed to a deep-red rural district where partisan alignment is expected and
is NOT itself penalized, but the measure captures the genuinely thin record of working across the aisle on
shared institutional ends rather than party advantage. Honest below-middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as people who do not belong. Strident
partisan and policy rhetoric (immigration, spending) is heat, not anti-belonging conduct, and is not
scored either direction. No high-mark defense-of-an-opponent anchor on record either. Neutral middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?The criterion-8 amicus is an attempt to use a legitimate channel (the courts) to nullify lawfully cast
and certified votes, a misuse of process against the electorate of other states. That drags this measure
well below the line. No other documented weaponization of state power against rivals is on record, so the
drag is the amicus alone, not a broader pattern.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Forceful, partisan floor and committee rhetoric, but no documented incitement, no sustained
enemy-making, and no dehumanizing pattern. Intra-party friction over the budget ("forceful," "not
tactful") is temperament, not a character-class rhetoric breach. Plain middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No House Ethics findings, no documented disclosure violations, no self-dealing on record. Clean
fiduciary ledger. Held at upper-middle rather than higher only for absence of an affirmative
accountability record, not for any documented breach.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. The record shows the opposite at the
decisive moment, Arrington aligned with the effort to overturn the 2020 result rather than breaking with
his party to defend the count. No documented instance of costly call-outs of his own side. Below middle.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented test of putting personal cost ahead of preferential treatment, in either direction. No
anchor on the discretion test. Neutral middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?Reporting of an off-stage reputation for forcefulness and a leadership clash ("ignorant and arrogant" per
colleagues; McCarthy "incompetent" remark) describes competence/temperament friction, not a documented
public-vs-private contempt gap toward citizens. Weighed lightly; neutral middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Ordinary constituent-facing service for a rural district; no documented donor-capture pattern and no
documented neglect. Neutral middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 7 | why?Scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-info
trades, or foreign-government revenue. Raw wealth and partisan alignment are excluded by rule. Clean on
the only thing this measure scores.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 4 | why?Institutional respect is undercut at the structural level by the amicus, asking the Court to set aside
another state's certified electors is the opposite of honoring the institution's settled processes.
Day-to-day floor decorum is unremarkable, and the Budget-chair friction is competence not contempt, but
the constitutional-process breach pulls this below middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Advanced the "states clearly violated the Constitution" framing to justify discarding certified electors,
lending official weight to unproven election-fraud claims that courts rejected across the board. That
is a documented departure from candor on a load-bearing factual question, not mere policy disagreement.
Below middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Genuine substantive command of federal budget and fiscal policy as House Budget Committee chairman, detailed engagement on reconciliation and spending, even where colleagues found the approach abrasive.
Substance over talking points on his core domain. Upper-middle.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M01 | Signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020) asking SCOTUS to discard certified electors from four states and overturn the decided 2020 election ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, defeating the constitutional purpose of the electoral count | None applicable; capping conduct |
| M04 | Same amicus used a legitimate channel (the courts) to attempt to nullify lawfully certified votes of other states' electorates ↳ Misuse of process against the electorate | No broader pattern of weaponizing state power on record |
| M13 | Asserted states 'clearly violated the Constitution' to justify rejecting certified electors, lending weight to fraud claims courts uniformly rejected ↳ Departure from candor on a load-bearing factual question | Framed as constitutional argument, not a fabricated factual claim of his own |
| M07 | Aligned with his own party's effort to overturn the result at the decisive moment rather than breaking with it to defend the count ↳ Failure of the active call-out duty at cost | None documented |
| M02 | Bottom-tier Bipartisan Index (~298th, -0.78), thin cross-aisle institutional work ↳ Low bipartisan / shared-ends record | Deep-red rural district where alignment is expected; not penalized as partisanship per se |
| M12 | The amicus is structural disrespect for settled institutional processes ↳ Institutional-fidelity drag from constitutional-process breach | Routine floor decorum otherwise unremarkable |
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
| 3 | why?The decisive loyalty test, fidelity to the constitutional order over party at the count of 2020, went
the wrong way. Signing the amicus to overturn certified electors is the controlling drag toward
Self-Interest over the oath. Low.
|
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?No documented fabrications of his own and a clean ethics ledger keep this off the floor, but the
"states clearly violated the Constitution" framing lent official weight to rejected claims, and there is
no affirmative self-correction on record. Below middle.
|
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Power was deployed to attempt to defeat, not protect, the electoral count, the amicus is the inverse of
using authority to safeguard the constitutional process. Substantive budget command is real but does not
offset the structural breach. Low.
|
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?A record defined at its highest-stakes moment by the attempt to overturn a decided election. Clean
fiduciary conduct and genuine policy substance temper but cannot lift a legacy anchored to a criterion-8
event. Low.
|
| TOTAL: Unfit | 13/40 |
Total 13/40. The pillars sit low because the controlling conduct is a constitutional-process subversion; the cleaner fiduciary and substantive record cannot offset an oath-breach of that class.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I will object to certifying votes from states I believe clearly violated the Constitution.”
Statement ahead of the Jan 6 electoral count, announcing his objection · Ballotpedia / contemporaneous reporting · CONTESTED · cite
“Election integrity is the very lifeblood of our unrivaled system of self-government.”
House floor, objecting to certification of Pennsylvania's electoral votes · Arrington House floor transcript · CONTESTED · cite
“To criminalize political speech by blaming lawless acts on the President's rhetoric is wrong.”
Explaining his vote against the second impeachment · KFYO / contemporaneous reporting · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Jodey Cook Arrington (born March 9, 1972). U.S. Representative for Texas's 19th congressional district (rural West Texas, Lubbock/Abilene) since January 2017. Chairman, House Budget Committee (118th-119th Congress). Texas Tech University; former Texas Tech University System official and FDIC official. Announced in November 2025 he will not seek re-election in 2026; serves through January 3, 2027.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Center-right to right voting record; bottom-tier on the Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index (~298th in the 117th Congress House, ~-0.78). As House Budget Committee chairman he led fiscal-policy and reconciliation work, drawing both praise as a fiscal "work horse" and intra-party criticism for an abrasive, cuts-first posture. The impeachment and certification VOTES are recorded as constitutional-process conduct and are NOT scored on policy or partisan grounds; the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus is scored as conduct because it is an out-of-process attempt to overturn a certified result.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining moment is adverse. Arrington signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020) seeking to have the Supreme Court discard certified electoral slates from four states and overturn the 2020 presidential election, a criterion-8 process-subversion event. He separately objected on the House floor to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors on Jan 6-7, 2021 (the objection vote is the constitutional process, weighed but not independently capping), and voted against the second impeachment (a constitutional-process vote, not scored).
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Forceful and partisan, but without a documented pattern of dehumanizing opponents or inciting confrontation. The contested rhetoric of record is the election-integrity framing used to justify rejecting certified electors, scored under candor and process, not under enemy-making. No criterion-10 pattern found.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No House Ethics findings, no documented disclosure violations, and no documented office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, foreign-government revenue). Raw wealth and partisan alignment are excluded by rule. The fiduciary ledger is clean; it does not offset the constitutional-process breach.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One Severity-class flag. Criterion 8 (process subversion, capping): Arrington is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of Dec 11, 2020, which asked the Court to set aside certified electors and overturn the decided 2020 election. This is legal-on-its-face power aimed at defeating the constitutional purpose of the electoral count. It drives M01 to the floor, drags M04/M12/M13, and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. No criterion-10 (enemy-making/incitement) pattern is documented. Flag count: one (capping).
7. What The Framework Says
Arrington's conduct ledger is, in most respects, unremarkable: no ethics findings, no documented self-dealing, genuine substantive command of budget policy, and no sustained enemy-making. But the standard is fixed against the oath, and at the one moment the oath was most directly tested he signed his name to a brief asking the Supreme Court to throw out other states' certified votes and overturn a decided presidential election. That is a criterion-8 process-subversion event. It caps the record and forecloses support, not because the rest of the ledger is bad, but because an attempt to defeat the constitutional count is the kind of breach a high mark cannot survive. Foreclosed.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): U.S. Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania (22O155), amicus of 126 Representatives · Congress.gov member profile · House Clerk financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House financial disclosures · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.