Composite 7.1 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
✓ Clears the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: supported.
Clears the 700 support line at credit 711 (Sound band) with no severity flag, Author's Verdict: supported on the documented conduct.
- No record of U.S. military service
Curtis has no military service record. Prior public service includes Mayor of Provo, Utah (2010-2017) before election to the U.S. House (2017-2025) and the U.S. Senate (2025-present). Civilian public service is context, not a score; conduct in office is what the measures grade.
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 | 8 | why?Strong oath fidelity at the defining 2020-21 stress test. Curtis publicly opposed the GOP effort to
challenge the electoral count, did NOT sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and voted to certify
Arizona and Pennsylvania, standing apart from two of Utah's own House Republicans who objected. His
stated reasoning was constitutional ("Congress counts electoral votes, it does not federalize state
election law"). No process-subversion conduct. Held below the apex tier reserved for sacrificing
political life purely for the oath, but this is upper-tier constitutional conduct.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 8 | why?Ranked 5th most effective Republican in the 118th Congress (LES 4.293, above average for either party,
without a chair); bills passed with broad bipartisan support. Founder of the Conservative Climate
Caucus, member of the centrist Republican Governance Group, co-sponsor of cross-aisle wildfire and
permitting measures. Institution and result placed over denying the other side a win.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented anti-belonging pattern toward opponents or citizens. A self-described "extreme
introvert" with a long reputation for bipartisan consensus-building who applauds calls for civility.
Treats opponents as legitimate participants. Solid upper-middle; no defining high-mark anchor that
would push to the apex.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals. The inverse appears: he declined to lend
office power to overturning a certified election. No criterion-class conduct.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Measured rhetorical posture; describes disagreeing with the President through direct private
communication rather than public spectacle. No documented incitement or sustained inflammatory
pattern. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?A genuine fiduciary appearance-concern: as a member of the Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee he
held individual stocks (UnitedHealth, Zoetis) in sectors his subcommittee oversaw, and made
COVID-boosted trades in early 2020 (Zoom, a rapid-test lab, a Fed bond-buyer). A watchdog filed an OCE
complaint in April 2020; OCE declined to open an investigation, a weighed appearance-concern, not a
finding. He divested nearly all individual corporate stock on Dec 12 2023, which counts as corrective
action. Middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 8 | why?Met the higher active-duty bar: called out his OWN side at cost. Spoke out against the GOP attempt to
challenge the electoral count while two Utah Republican colleagues objected, and has repeatedly broken
with the sitting President of his own party on conduct and approach. The own-side call-out, met under
pressure.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented event placing personal advantage against duty in a sharp discretion test (the McCain
POW-refusal archetype). Absence of evidence, not evidence of failure, scored at a neutral middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 7 | why?No documented public/private contempt gap; the quiet bipartisan-consensus reputation is consistent on
and off camera across seven years in Congress.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 7 | why?Strong institutional and constituent service; held town halls (including unruly ones) and worked
Utah-specific land, wildfire, and permitting issues. No documented donor-over-constituent capture.
Solid.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable concern, not raw wealth. The documented concern is overlap between
individual stock holdings and the jurisdiction of a subcommittee he sat on, plus pandemic-timed trades, an appearance-of-self-dealing concern flagged by the NYT and a declined OCE complaint, never a
charge or finding. Mitigated by full divestiture of individual corporate stock in Dec 2023. No foreign
revenue, family-payment, or proven office-info trading. Middle, reflecting a real but resolved
appearance-concern.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 8 | why?Sustained institutional decorum and regular-order posture; built durable cross-aisle caucuses rather
than spectacle. Honors the institution over the show.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 7 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern. Affirmed faith in the election system, stated he saw no
evidence of wrongdoing in Utah, and declined to amplify fraud claims. Weighs positive.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 8 | why?Substantive command of energy, climate, public-lands, and permitting policy; advanced eight
substantive bills (five enacted) in the 118th Congress. Substance over talking points.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M06 | As an Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee member, held individual stocks (UnitedHealth, Zoetis) in his oversight sector and made COVID-boosted trades (Zoom, a rapid-test lab) in early 2020; an April 2020 OCE complaint was declined ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety | OCE declined to investigate; he divested nearly all individual corporate stock on Dec 12 2023, corrective action |
| M11 | NYT Sept 2022 flagged 12 of 73 trades as potential conflicts of interest given his committee jurisdiction ↳ Office-overlap appearance-of-self-dealing | An appearance-concern, never a charge/finding; resolved by full divestiture Dec 2023 |
| M08 | No documented sharp discretion-test event placing personal advantage against duty ↳ Absence of a defining discretion anchor | Absence of evidence, not a documented failure, scored neutral, not penalized as a breach |
| Pillar III | The stock-overlap appearance-concern is a Stewardship drag ↳ Stewardship drag | Divestiture + no proven exploitation keep the drag minimal |
| Pillar IV | The trading appearance-concern is a minor Integrity asterisk on an otherwise clean legacy ↳ Integrity drag | Corrective divestiture and a clean election-integrity record dominate |
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
| 8 | why?Attributes: Steadiness, Loyalty to oath over party, Courage in dissent, certified the 2020 election, declined the Texas amicus, and broke with his own side's leadership when the Constitution pointed the other way. Little drag toward Self-Interest or Collapse. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 7 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Teachability, built a consistent bipartisan brand and corrected the stock-trading concern by divesting. Held below 8 by the unresolved-at-the-time appearance of trading in his oversight sector. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, Constructive Use of Power, used office to build durable cross-aisle institutions (Conservative Climate Caucus) rather than to punish rivals. Minor Stewardship drag from the trading-overlap appearance-concern. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 7 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Institutional Fidelity, a record of certifying a contested election against his party's pressure and quiet effectiveness. The trading appearance-concern is a small asterisk tempered by divestiture. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 29/40 |
Total 29/40, Strong-adequate. The pillars hold above the conduct floor because the 2020-21 oath conduct and sustained bipartisan effectiveness are real, with one honestly-counted fiduciary drag.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“The Constitution grants Congress the specific authority to count electoral votes, not debate the merits of each state's election laws or the validity of the electors they choose to send.”
Statement explaining his vote to certify the 2020 electoral count, opposing the GOP challenge · Salt Lake Tribune, Jan 5 2021 · PRINCIPLED · cite
“I have faith in America's election system and I will vote to certify the Electoral College's results.”
Standing apart from two Utah House Republicans who objected · Standard-Examiner, Jan 5 2021 · CIVIC · cite
“I'm not afraid to disagree with the President if I need to.”
As senator-elect succeeding Mitt Romney, on his posture toward Trump · Senator Curtis newsroom / CNN · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
John R. Curtis (born 1960). U.S. Senator from Utah since January 2025, succeeding Mitt Romney; U.S. Representative for Utah's 3rd District 2017-2025; Mayor of Provo, Utah 2010-2017. Founder and chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus. Generally regarded as a moderate, consensus-oriented Republican. Changed chambers from House to Senate, in scope as a current member of Congress.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Ranked 5th most effective House Republican in the 118th Congress by the Center for Effective Lawmaking (LES 4.293), advancing eight substantive bills (five enacted) without a chairmanship. Signature work: founding the Conservative Climate Caucus (2021), the Fix Our Forests / wildfire and permitting reform efforts, and broadly bipartisan bill passage. Center-right voting record with a cross-aisle legislative method. Policy positions are not graded in either direction per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining moment is 2020-21: Curtis publicly opposed the GOP effort to challenge the electoral count, did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and voted to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania while two Utah Republican colleagues objected, grounding his choice in the Constitution's allocation of the counting power. As senator he has continued to distinguish disagreement-on-conduct from his party's line.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Measured and consensus-oriented; a self-described "extreme introvert" with a reputation for bipartisan bonhomie. Describes voicing disagreement with the President through direct communication rather than public spectacle. No documented incitement or anti-belonging pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The one substantive fiduciary concern is stock-trading: as an Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee member he held individual stocks in his oversight sector and made COVID-boosted trades in early 2020. An April 2020 OCE complaint was declined; the NYT (Sept 2022) listed him among members with potential conflicts (12 of 73 trades). He divested nearly all individual corporate stock on Dec 12 2023. Weighed as an appearance-concern with corrective action, not a finding. No raw-wealth penalty applied.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Curtis did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, did not object to certification, and has no documented enemy-making or process-subversion pattern. The stock-trading matter is a fiduciary appearance-concern, not a criterion-class flag. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Curtis presents an upper-adequate-to-sound conduct record. The load-bearing facts are his 2020-21 oath conduct, certifying a contested election and declining the amicus while his own delegation split, and a sustained, measured bipartisan effectiveness that placed institution over spectacle. The honestly-counted drag is the stock-trading appearance-concern, weighed as an appearance issue and partially cured by divestiture, never a charge or finding. No capping flags. Clears the bar.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus of 126 Representatives (signatory list)
Tier 2: Salt Lake Tribune, certification statement Jan 2021 · Center for Effective Lawmaking / KSL · Raw Story, stock conflict reporting
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Senate financial disclosures (eFD) · GovTrack · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.