Composite 5.63 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Support is foreclosed by a confirmed Criterion-8 capping flag: the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature is a process-subversion act that no later conduct erases. This is recorded honestly alongside genuine moral courage, the impeachment vote against his own party's president at sustained career cost, which earns real M07 credit and keeps M01 off the absolute floor. A record can hold both a capping subversion and a genuine act of courage; under this standard the cap controls the verdict.
Newhouse is a confirmed signatory of the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (126 House Republicans), a legal-on-its-face filing that sought to defeat the constitutional purpose of the electoral process by discarding the certified votes of four states. Verified against the Supreme Court docket signatory list ("Dan Newhouse, WA-04"). This is the Criterion-8 capping conduct: it drives M01 to the 2-3 floor, hits M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support. The self-correction weeks later (declining the Jan 6 objection, voting to certify, voting to impeach) is weighed as mitigation that holds M01 at the top of the floor but does not erase the signature.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (corrected)
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. Prior public service as Director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture (2009-2013) and member of the Washington State House of Representatives (2003-2009) before election to the U.S. House in 2014. Background as a hop and tree-fruit farmer in the Yakima Valley.
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 | 3 | why?CAPPED by Criterion 8 (process subversion): Newhouse is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020), a legal-on-its-face filing aimed at defeating the certified result of a presidential election, the constitutional-purpose breach the standard floors at 2-3. Held at the top of that floor (not 2) because the SAME officeholder then declined the Jan 6 floor objection, voted to certify the electoral count, and voted to impeach Trump 'for failing to fulfill his oath of office' at sustained career cost (Trump-endorsed primary opponents, near-total cohort attrition). The impeachment/certification votes are not scored AS oath-credit per the contamination rule (the constitutional process working is not graded), but they are weighed as the documented self-correction that keeps the cap off the floor. The amicus signature is the controlling conduct; it cannot be erased by the later reversal. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 7 | why?Above-average-to-upper-quartile bipartisan cosponsorship across his House tenure (Lugar BPI ~0.308, rank ~77 of 435). Demonstrated willingness to work across the aisle on agriculture, water, and public-lands legislation for his district. Solid institutional cooperation, not exceptional; held at upper-middle. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as enemies who do not belong. The 2021 impeachment statement framed the failure as a breach of oath, not as personal demonization. No criterion-10 conduct on record; restrained public posture toward political adversaries. Upper-middle for ordinary decorum, not a documented high-mark anchor. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Criterion 8 also touches M04: lending his name to a filing that sought to discard the lawful votes of four states is a use of legal-on-its-face standing against the constitutional order. No other documented weaponization of state power against rivals. Capped down for the amicus, not floored, because the subversion was a single Dec 2020 act he then walked back, with no pattern of retaliatory or coercive use of office elsewhere. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Generally measured rhetorical record; no documented sustained incendiary or dehumanizing pattern. Middle-to-upper: conventional partisan framing without a documented high-mark of rhetorical courage beyond the 2021 impeachment statement, and without a documented enemy-making drag. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?A genuine fiduciary appearance-concern: identified among lawmakers who violated the STOCK Act by reporting up to ~$765,000 in stock transactions late, some roughly 18 months past the 45-day deadline. This is a disclosure-compliance failure (process/transparency), not an adjudicated self-dealing finding. No sanction or charge on record. The late-reporting is weighed as a real drag; the 2025 tariff-timing trade allegation is a weighed appearance-concern only (office says trades were an adviser-driven annual plan, not directed). Middle. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 7 | why?M07's higher bar is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Newhouse publicly stated the sitting president of his own party 'failed to fulfill his oath of office,' one of only ten House Republicans to do so, and absorbed the cost, a Trump-endorsed primary challenge in 2024 and being one of the last two such members standing. The act of self-criticism toward his own side at documented personal cost is the conduct M07 rewards. Held at 7, not higher, because it is a single defining episode rather than a sustained career pattern of in-group accountability. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?Mixed discretion record. The decision to certify and decline the Jan 6 objection, reversing earlier support after the Raffensperger call surfaced, shows discretion exercised toward the constitutional outcome under pressure. But the prior amicus signature shows discretion exercised poorly in Dec 2020. Net middle: one documented good exercise of discretion offset by one documented bad one. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap or hypocrisy pattern on record. The 2021 vote against his own party's president, taken openly under his own name, is consistent on-record and off-record conduct rather than performative. Upper-middle absent a documented integrity-gap. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Sustained constituent-service focus on Central Washington agriculture, water infrastructure, and public lands, substantive representation of district interests. No documented donor-capture pattern; the household stock-trading volume is a fiduciary note carried under M06/M11, not a constituent-betrayal finding. Solid middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The 2025 allegation that household trades coincided with tariff news raises an office-information appearance-concern, but it is a weighed allegation, not a finding: no charge, no adjudication, and the office's account is an independent adviser's annual plan. The STOCK Act late disclosures are a real transparency failure that obscures the ability to rule the appearance out. Held at middle: a genuine appearance-concern about whether office information touched trades, with no proven self-dealing. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Conventional institutional decorum across his tenure; declining the Jan 6 objection and respecting the certification process honors the institution over the spectacle. Held to middle-upper rather than high because the Dec 2020 amicus is itself a departure from institutional fidelity that the certification reversal only partially offsets. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. The 2021 acknowledgment that the mob was 'inflamed by the language and misinformation of the President' is a public affirmation of factual reality against his own side's narrative. Solid middle; no documented disinformation drag, no exceptional truth-telling anchor beyond the impeachment statement. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Credible substantive command of agriculture, water, and public-lands policy directly tied to his district, a former state agriculture director and farmer legislating in his area of expertise. Substance over talking points within a defined lane; held at middle for competent-but-narrow subject mastery rather than broad legislative architecture. [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 | Confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020), seeking to discard certified electoral votes of four states ↳ Criterion 8 process subversion, capping | Subsequently declined the Jan 6 objection, voted to certify, and voted to impeach Trump for the oath breach, keeps M01 at the top of the 2-3 floor, but the signature is controlling and caps support |
| M04 | Same amicus signature used legal-on-its-face standing against the constitutional order ↳ Criterion 8, power against the constitutional purpose | Single Dec 2020 act, walked back; no pattern of retaliatory or coercive use of office |
| M06 | STOCK Act violation, reported up to ~$765,000 in stock transactions late, some ~18 months past the 45-day deadline ↳ Fiduciary transparency / disclosure-compliance failure | Disclosure failure, not adjudicated self-dealing; no sanction or charge |
| M11 | 2025 allegation that household stock trades coincided with Trump tariff news; STOCK Act late filings obscure the timeline ↳ Office-information appearance-concern | Weighed allegation only, no charge, no adjudication; office attributes trades to an independent adviser's annual plan |
| M08 | Discretion exercised poorly in signing the Dec 2020 amicus before reversing course at certification ↳ Mixed discretion record | Offset by the documented good exercise of declining the Jan 6 objection under pressure |
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
| 5 | why?Attributes: Courage and Loyalty-to-oath are genuinely present, voting to impeach his own party's president at sustained career cost is real political courage. But the Dec 2020 amicus signature is a documented break of loyalty to the constitutional order, pulling against the courage shown weeks later. Net middle: courage and self-correction offset by the prior subversion. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Self-Reflection and Teachability, the certification reversal after the Raffensperger call, and the on-record impeachment statement, show a willingness to change course toward principle and to state uncomfortable facts about his own side. Held to upper-middle by the fact that the principled posture followed a serious lapse rather than preceding it. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Attributes: the amicus signature is a use of influence AGAINST the protective constitutional function (Criterion 8), and the STOCK Act late disclosures plus the unresolved trade-timing appearance-concern weigh on Stewardship. The impeachment courage is the countervailing protective act. Net below-middle: the documented subversion and fiduciary opacity outweigh the later correction here. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Moral Courage and Integrity are visible in the impeachment vote and its cost; Justice and Love of Truth in naming the misinformation. The contested legacy items, the amicus, the disclosure failures, the trade-timing question, are real drags toward Favoritism/opacity. Net middle: a mixed legacy of one genuine high-courage act set against a documented constitutional lapse. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 20/40 |
Total 20/40, Mixed. The pillars reflect a record genuinely split: real moral courage (the impeachment vote at career cost) sitting beside a real Criterion-8 process-subversion act (the amicus signature) and fiduciary-transparency failures. The courage is honored; the subversion caps the verdict.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“President Trump failed to fulfill his oath of office.”
Statement explaining his vote to impeach following the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol · NBC News · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“The mob was inflamed by the language and misinformation of the President of the United States.”
Same impeachment statement, naming the cause against his own party's president · NBC News · PRINCIPLED · cite
“I signed an amicus brief in support of the Texas lawsuit challenging the presidential election results.”
Joining 126 House Republicans on the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to discard certified electoral votes · Supreme Court docket, amicus of 126 Representatives · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Daniel Milton Newhouse (born July 10, 1955). U.S. Representative for Washington's 4th Congressional District (Central Washington / Yakima Valley) since January 2015; Republican. Former Director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture (2009-2013) and member of the Washington State House (2003-2009). Hop and tree-fruit farmer by background. Announced December 2025 he would not seek reelection in 2026; serving out his term.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index above the historical average through his House tenure (BPI ~0.308, House rank ~77 in the 118th Congress). Legislative focus on Central Washington agriculture, water infrastructure (Yakima Basin), public lands, and the Hanford site. One of ten House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in January 2021, and one of the last two such members remaining in Congress before his 2026 retirement. The impeachment and certification votes are recorded as institutional/process conduct, NOT graded on policy or party merits per the framework's contamination rule.
3. Constitutional Moments
Two opposing constitutional-conduct episodes weeks apart define this record. In December 2020 Newhouse signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief seeking to discard the certified electoral votes of four states, a Criterion-8 process-subversion act that caps this dossier. Then, after the Raffensperger call surfaced, he declined to join the Jan 6 floor objection, voted to certify the electoral count, and on January 13, 2021 voted to impeach the president of his own party for the oath breach, absorbing a Trump-endorsed primary challenge in 2024. The standard records both: the subversion is controlling for the verdict; the courage is honored where it occurred (M07).
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Measured public rhetorical record with no documented enemy-making or dehumanization pattern. The defining rhetorical act is the 2021 impeachment statement naming his own party's president as having failed his oath and identifying the mob as "inflamed by the language and misinformation of the President", truth-telling against his own side at cost. No documented sustained-falsehood drag.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Two fiduciary appearance-concerns, both weighed honestly. (1) STOCK Act violation: identified among lawmakers who reported up to ~$765,000 in stock transactions late, some roughly 18 months past the 45-day deadline, a transparency-compliance failure, not an adjudicated self-dealing finding, with no sanction. (2) A 2025 Democratic allegation that household trades coincided with Trump tariff announcements, a weighed appearance-concern only, with no charge or adjudication and an office account attributing the trades to an independent adviser's annual plan. The late disclosures are the genuine drag; the timing allegation is unresolved and treated as appearance, not finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class item: Criterion 8 (process subversion / capping). Newhouse is a confirmed signatory of the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, a legal-on-its-face filing aimed at defeating the certified result of a presidential election. This drives M01 to the 2-3 floor (held at 3 for the documented self-correction), hits M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. No documented Criterion-10 (enemy-making/incitement) conduct. Flag count: one.
7. What The Framework Says
A genuinely split record the standard refuses to round off in either direction. The courage is real: one of only ten House Republicans to vote to impeach a president of his own party for failing his oath, holding that position through a Trump-endorsed primary and into near-total cohort attrition. But weeks earlier he signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to discard four states' certified votes, a Criterion-8 process-subversion act that the standard treats as controlling. The later self-correction keeps M01 off the absolute floor and earns honest M07 credit, but a capping flag forecloses support. The fiduciary transparency failures (STOCK Act late filings) and the unresolved trade-timing appearance-concern are weighed as real drags, not findings. The verdict: the subversion caps; the courage is honored.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · U.S. Supreme Court docket, Texas v. PA amicus
Tier 2: Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Texas v. PA amicus (126 Reps) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.