Composite 3.38 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Support is foreclosed by a confirmed capping severity flag (process subversion), independent of the composite. At credit 449 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Biggs is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (corrected brief of 126 Representatives, filed December 11, 2020), which urged the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and thereby reverse the presidential election outcome. This is a legal-on-its-face power deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose, the certified count, squarely within the criterion-8 process-subversion standard. It caps M01 at the 2-3 floor and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), Supreme Court 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 documented military service. Biggs's pre-congressional background is in law and Arizona state politics (Arizona House and Senate, including Senate President). Service to country is honored as context elsewhere; there is no military record to score or contextualize here.
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?Capped at the process-subversion floor. Biggs is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania
amicus brief (December 2020) asking the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral results in four
states and thereby reverse a national election outcome, a legal-on-its-face power deployed to defeat
the constitutional purpose of the count. That conduct sits at the core of the oath to support the
Constitution. Compounding the floor (not setting it): refusal to comply with a lawful House subpoena
and the resulting J6-committee ethics referral. Criterion-8 capping holds M01 at the 2-3 floor.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 2 | why?Among the lowest-scoring House members on the Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index (roughly -1.955 in the
117th Congress), reflecting near-absence of cross-party bill sponsorship or co-sponsorship. As former
Freedom Caucus chair his legislative posture is confrontational by design. This measures collaboration
conduct, not policy or ideology, the documented pattern is consistently low.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 4 | why?No single documented anti-belonging slur of the kind that would floor this measure, but the persistent
framing of political opponents and federal institutions as illegitimate actors ("the cure is worse than
the disease," sustained delegitimization of the 2020 result) erodes the equal-worth premise. Lower-middle:
no confirmed identity-based exclusion, but a corrosive adversarial baseline.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?Hit by the same criterion-8 conduct. Lending an officeholder's name to a brief aimed at nullifying
lawfully certified votes in states he does not represent is the use of legitimate standing to subvert
a constitutional process. Distinct from a bare floor objection (which is the process mechanism); the
amicus is affirmative legal action to overturn an outcome. Low.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 4 | why?Rhetoric is combative and frequently delegitimizing toward institutions and opponents, but it largely
stays within policy-heat and constitutional-argument framing rather than crossing into documented
incitement or sustained enemy-making of the criterion-10 kind. No crit-10 flag warranted on the record
reviewed. Lower-middle for the corrosive baseline tone.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 3 | why?Defied a duly issued House subpoena and was referred to the House Ethics Committee for that refusal, a
direct accountability-to-process drag scored as conduct (not as a finding of any underlying wrongdoing).
The Hutchinson pardon-seeking allegation is a contested, uncharged appearance-concern weighed lightly, never treated as established. Low for the documented non-compliance.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 2 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Biggs
breaking with his coalition or leadership when it would cost him; the record is the opposite, he led
the resistance to certifying the 2020 result and to cooperating with the investigation. Near floor.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?No documented gross abuse of discretionary power for personal benefit, but the discretion he held
around December 2020–January 2021 was used to press maximum pressure on the count rather than to
protect the process. Lower-middle: no self-dealing discretion abuse, but discretion exercised against
the institutional interest.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-vs-public contempt gap; his public posture and private positions appear broadly
consistent (his combativeness is on-the-record, not a backstage/frontstage split). Neutral middle on
the evidence available.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?No documented pattern of constituent-versus-donor betrayal or office-info self-dealing. Represents a
safe district and tracks its preferences; the conduct concerns here are institutional, not
constituent-fiduciary. Neutral middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades,
foreign-government revenue). No documented instance of any of these for Biggs on the record reviewed.
Raw wealth and party alignment are excluded by rule. Above-middle for the absence of documented
office-driven enrichment.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 3 | why?Institutional-respect conduct is weak: refusal to honor a House subpoena treats a co-equal
investigative process as optional, and the amicus posture subordinated the institution of the count to
a political objective. The office-over-spectacle norm is not honored on this record. Low.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 3 | why?Sustained promotion of the claim that the 2020 election was illegitimate enough to warrant judicial
reversal, a documented-falsehood pattern around the certified result. This is scored as truthfulness
conduct, not as policy disagreement. Low for the durable false-premise framing.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Demonstrates real substantive command in his lane, constitutional/oversight argument, fiscal and
immigration policy detail, and a working grasp of legislative procedure (Judiciary Committee dissents, detailed impeachment-article briefs). Substance is present even where the ends are contested. Above-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 2020) seeking to overturn certified electoral results in four states ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, defeating the constitutional purpose of the count | Legal-on-its-face filing, not direct force; capped at the 2-3 floor rather than below |
| M06 | Refused to comply with a lawful House J6 Committee subpoena; referred to House Ethics for the refusal ↳ Accountability-to-process, defiance of a co-equal investigative power | Refusal asserted on contested constitutional/separation grounds; no adjudicated finding of underlying wrongdoing |
| M02 | Among lowest House scores on the Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index (~ -1.955) ↳ Cross-party collaboration conduct | Measures sponsorship behavior only; not penalized as ideology |
| M13 | Sustained promotion of the certified 2020 result as illegitimate enough to warrant judicial reversal ↳ Truthfulness, durable false-premise framing | Framed as legal argument; weighed as conduct, not policy |
| M11 | No documented office-attributable enrichment found; score reflects ordinary residual uncertainty, not a breach ↳ Fiduciary, absence of documented self-dealing | Raw wealth and party excluded by rule; nothing office-driven on record |
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?Attributes weighed: Loyalty, Steadiness, Selfless Service. Loyalty ran to a coalition and a contested political objective over the constitutional process of the count; the amicus and subpoena defiance pull hard toward Self-Interest/Faction. Low. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. Conviction and authenticity are genuine, he is consistent and on-the-record, but Self-Reflection and Teachability are thin on the 2020/J6 conduct, with no documented reconsideration. Lower-middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, Courage-in-Conflict. Influence was used to pressure an institutional process rather than protect it; accountability to a lawful subpoena was refused. Low. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. The durable legacy item on this record is participation in an effort to reverse a certified election on a contested premise, a drag on Justice and Love of Truth that dominates the legacy picture. Low. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 13/40 |
Total 13/40, Weak. The pillars track the conduct composite: the criterion-8 conduct and the process-defiance pattern weigh down every pillar, with authenticity/conviction the only partial offset.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“The cure is proving worse than the disease.”
Leading congressional resistance to federal COVID-19 measures, framing emergency action as unconstitutional overreach · Wikipedia summary of public statements · CONTESTED · cite
“The House Democrats can't present a plausible case for removing the duly elected president from office.”
Arguing for dismissal of the first Trump impeachment articles · Fox News op-ed · CONTESTED · cite
“The January 6 Committee's testimony was deceptively edited to make it appear as if I personally asked for a pardon.”
Responding to Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony naming him among lawmakers who allegedly sought pardons · Cronkite News · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Andrew Steven "Andy" Biggs (born November 7, 1958). U.S. Representative for Arizona's 5th Congressional District since January 2017 (AZ-5; previously AZ-5 lines). Former Chair of the House Freedom Caucus. Prior service in the Arizona Legislature, including President of the Arizona Senate. Attorney by training. Announced a 2026 campaign for Governor of Arizona in January 2025 but remains a sitting member of the U.S. House (current term ending January 3, 2027), in scope for the Congress cohort.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Among the most confrontational members of the House majority's right flank; former Freedom Caucus chair. Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index consistently near the bottom (~ -1.955, 117th), reflecting minimal cross-party sponsorship. Signature activity is oversight and impeachment-vehicle work (first to introduce articles against DHS Secretary Mayorkas, 2021; Judiciary Committee impeachment dissents). Policy positions are explicitly NOT scored here; the profile is recorded for collaboration-conduct context only.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional moment on this record is adverse: signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (December 2020) urging the Supreme Court to set aside certified electoral votes in four states, followed by a floor objection to certification and subsequent refusal to comply with the House J6 Committee subpoena. The amicus is the criterion-8 conduct; the bare floor objection alone would not be, but the affirmative brief to overturn an outcome is. No countervailing documented stand for institutional process at cost.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Combative and institution-skeptical as a baseline, frequently casting federal action and political opponents as illegitimate or unconstitutional. The tone is corrosive to the equal-worth premise but generally remains within policy-argument and constitutional framing rather than crossing into the documented incitement or sustained enemy-making that would trigger a criterion-10 capping flag on the record reviewed. Scored as conduct/tone, never as policy position.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment, no established self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, or foreign-government revenue on the record reviewed. Raw wealth and party alignment are excluded by rule. The fiduciary concerns on this record are institutional-process (subpoena defiance), not financial. M11 reflects the absence of documented enrichment, not a clean affirmative finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class flag: Criterion 8 (process subversion / capping), confirmed via the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory list (corrected brief of 126 Representatives, December 2020). Biggs appears on that list. The flag drives M01 to the 2-3 floor and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. No criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement flag is warranted on the record reviewed, the rhetoric, while corrosive, stays within policy-heat framing. Flag count: one (criterion 8).
7. What The Framework Says
Biggs fails the fixed standard against the oath, primarily on conduct directly tied to the support-the- Constitution duty: a confirmed signature on a brief seeking to reverse a certified national election, and a documented refusal to honor a co-equal investigative subpoena. These are scored as conduct, not as party or policy, a Democrat who signed an equivalent brief to overturn a certified result would draw the same criterion-8 cap. Authenticity and substantive command are real and recorded, but the process-subversion flag caps the record and forecloses support. Failing.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): U.S. Supreme Court docket (Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus) · Congress.gov member profile · House financial disclosures (Clerk)
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Reps, corrected) · Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index (House) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.