Composite 4.46 / 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 497 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
DesJarlais is a verified signatory of the corrected 126-Representative Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief filed December 11, 2020, which urged the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in four states. He was added to the signatory list after the initial 106-signatory version. Lending a member's name to a suit aimed at overturning a completed, certified election is legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose, the defining criterion-8 conduct. This caps M01 to the floor band and forecloses author-verdict support regardless of composite.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), SCOTUS docket 22O155 · Chattanooga Times Free Press, Chattanooga-area reps signed failed Texas effort (lists DesJarlais)
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. DesJarlais is a physician (general practice) by profession prior to elected office. No service badge is scored; professional conduct in his medical career is weighed only where it bears on character and trust (M06, M08).
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. DesJarlais is a verified signatory of the corrected
Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (the 126-Representative version; he was added after the initial
106-signatory filing), which asked the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in four
states won by the other candidate. Using a legal-on-its-face filing to defeat a constitutional purpose, a completed, certified election, is the core capping conduct and drives M01 to the floor band. He
additionally objected to the Arizona and Pennsylvania certifications on Jan 6-7, 2021; the floor objection
vote itself is the constitutional process working and is NOT separately penalized, but the amicus signature
is.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Below-median bipartisan engagement across a long House tenure (Lugar BPI sits in the lower tier of the
chamber). This measures cross-aisle work product, not party label or ideology; the score reflects a
thin documented record of bipartisan co-sponsorship and coalition-building, held at a middling mark
rather than penalized for caucus alignment.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No sustained documented pattern of casting constituents or opponents as enemies who do not belong; floor
and district rhetoric runs partisan but largely within ordinary political heat, which is not scored. Held
at the middle rather than higher because there is no affirmative high-mark record of defending an
opponent's standing at cost.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Criterion-8 process subversion also lands here. Lending a member's name to a suit seeking to throw out
another state's certified votes is an attempt to use state power to defeat the lawful outcome of an
election, the inverse of restraining power against an opponent. No separate documented weaponization of
investigative or prosecutorial machinery against rivals, which keeps this above the M01 floor, but the
amicus conduct depresses the measure.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Ordinary-partisan rhetorical posture without a documented sustained incitement or enemy-making pattern.
Policy heat and combative framing are not scored in either direction. Middle mark: neither a restraint
high-mark nor a documented violation.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 3 | why?Substantial integrity drag from documented professional misconduct. The Tennessee Board of Medical
Examiners formally reprimanded DesJarlais in May 2013 and fined him for sexual relationships with two
patients while practicing medicine; he did not contest the charges (an uncontested administrative finding, not a mere allegation). The 2001 divorce transcript, obtained and reported in 2012, recorded sworn
admissions to multiple workplace sexual relationships, a recorded phone call, and a firearm "attention-
seeking" incident he acknowledged. These predate his office, so they are weighed as a character/integrity
drag rather than as an office-fiduciary breach, but the abuse of a physician-patient trust relationship is
directly oath-relevant to candor and fitness.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard here is calling out one's own side at cost. No documented instance of DesJarlais
breaking from his own coalition on a matter of principle at political risk; the record is consistent
alignment. Scored below the middle for absence of demonstrated independent accountability, not for the
direction of any vote.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?Discretion test, use of latitude when no one is watching. The pre-office record (patient relationships
while a practicing physician, divorce-transcript conduct) shows discretion exercised poorly in positions
of trust. No comparable office-era discretion scandal is documented, which keeps this from the floor, but
the established pattern of misusing a trusted role weighs down the measure.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?Some documented gap between public posture and private conduct historically (a maximalist public-morality
brand against a private record of contested personal conduct), but the on/off-camera consistency in the
legislative role itself is not separately documented as two-faced. Held at the middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Constituent-versus-donor alignment is ordinary for a safe-district member; no documented pattern of
selling out district interests to donors, and no high-mark record of independent constituent service at
cost. Middle mark.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored only on office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades,
foreign-government revenue). No substantiated finding of office-driven enrichment is documented for
DesJarlais; routine personal securities activity appears in disclosures without an established STOCK Act
sanction attributable to him specifically. Above the middle, with a modest reservation pending cleaner
disclosure-timeliness confirmation. Raw wealth is not penalized.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Ordinary institutional decorum in the chamber without a documented pattern of contempt for House process
or norms beyond the amicus matter scored under M01/M04. The election-subversion conduct is the institutional
drag and is captured there; this measure reflects routine in-chamber conduct, held at the middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Truthfulness drag. DesJarlais publicly minimized or denied aspects of the patient-relationship and
personal-conduct story before the 2012 release of the sworn divorce transcript contradicted those
characterizations. The mismatch between sworn admissions and public denials is a documented candor
problem. These are pre-office personal matters, so the score is a drag rather than the floor, but the
pattern is directly on point for honesty.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?A physician by training with a long tenure on substantive committees; demonstrates working command of
health and rural-district policy areas in committee work. Competence is real and above the middle; not
higher because there is no signature authored legislative achievement of broad note.
[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 | Signatory of the corrected 126-Representative Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020) seeking to invalidate certified electoral results in four states ↳ criterion-8 process subversion, capping | none; the Jan-6 floor objection vote itself is not separately penalized, but the amicus signature is capping |
| M04 | Same amicus signature, attempt to use state power to defeat a certified election outcome ↳ process subversion bleed into power-restraint measure | no separate documented weaponization of investigative/prosecutorial power against rivals |
| M06 | TN Board of Medical Examiners reprimand and fine (2013) for sexual relationships with two patients, uncontested; 2001 divorce transcript admissions to multiple workplace relationships and a firearm incident ↳ integrity / abuse of trusted physician role | pre-office conduct; weighed as character drag, not office-fiduciary breach |
| M13 | Public minimization/denial of the patient-relationship story contradicted by the 2012-released sworn divorce transcript ↳ candor, public statements vs. sworn record | pre-office personal matters |
| M07 | No documented break from own coalition at political cost ↳ absence of demonstrated independent accountability | - |
| Pillar I | Election-subversion amicus signature undercuts loyalty to the constitutional order over coalition ↳ Trust & Loyalty drag | no role in directing or organizing the effort beyond signing |
| Pillar II | Documented hypocrisy/candor gap between public morality brand and sworn personal record ↳ Authenticity/Integrity drag | conduct is largely pre-office |
| Pillar IV | The amicus signature plus the misconduct findings leave an institutional-fidelity and integrity asterisk on the legacy ↳ Legacy/Justice drag | competence and uncontested re-election in district are real countercurrents |
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
| 4 | why?The Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature is a drag toward placing coalition outcome over loyalty to the constitutional order; no offsetting documented act of fidelity at cost. Held below the middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?A documented gap between a maximalist public-morality brand and a sworn personal record of contested conduct, plus public denials contradicted by the divorce transcript. Authenticity and Integrity drag dominate; some self-acknowledgment of the firearm incident keeps it off the floor. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?No documented exploitation of office for power against rivals beyond the amicus matter; ordinary district stewardship. Middle mark, neither abuse nor a protection high-mark. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Competence and durable district support are real, but the election-subversion signature and the misconduct findings leave a standing integrity and institutional-fidelity asterisk. Below the middle. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 17/40 |
Total 17/40, Below adequate. The pillars track the conduct composite: a capping election-subversion act plus a documented character/candor record, against genuine professional competence and uncontested constituent support. The countercurrents temper but do not lift the record above the bar.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“It was never a loaded gun. It was never a suicide attempt. It was an attention-seeking act and I've testified to that.”
Acknowledging the firearm incident described in his 2001 divorce transcript, after the transcript's release · Chattanooga Times Free Press / divorce transcript reporting · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Scott Eugene DesJarlais (born February 21, 1964). U.S. Representative for Tennessee's 4th Congressional District since January 3, 2011. Republican. Physician (general practice) prior to Congress; practiced in Jasper, Tennessee, including as chief of staff at Grandview Medical Center. Long-serving member with safe- district re-election history; on the ballot in the August 2026 Republican primary.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Long House tenure (2011-present) with a below-median Lugar Center Bipartisan Index score and a reliably conservative voting record (DW-NOMINATE right-of-center). Committee work centered on agriculture and armed services portfolios relevant to a rural Tennessee district. No signature broadly notable authored statute; profile is that of a durable district representative rather than a national legislative author. Policy positions themselves are not scored in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional moment is negative: DesJarlais signed the corrected 126-Representative Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020) seeking to invalidate certified electoral results in four states, and objected to the Arizona and Pennsylvania certifications on Jan 6-7, 2021. The amicus signature is scored as criterion-8 process subversion (capping); the floor objection vote itself is treated as the constitutional process operating and is not separately penalized.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Ordinary-partisan rhetorical posture without a documented sustained incitement or enemy-making pattern. Policy heat is not scored. There is no high-mark record of defending an opponent's standing at cost, and no documented criterion-10 pattern; the rhetoric measures sit at the middle.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No substantiated finding of office-driven enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue) is documented; routine personal securities activity appears in House disclosures. Raw wealth is not penalized. The principal fiduciary-adjacent concern is character-based and pre-office: the 2013 Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners reprimand and fine for uncontested sexual relationships with two patients, and the 2001 divorce transcript admissions, weighed under M06/M08 as abuse of a trusted role rather than as an office-fiduciary breach.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One confirmed Severity-class flag: criterion 8 (process subversion, capping), for signing the corrected 126-Representative Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief seeking to overturn certified electoral results. This caps M01 to the floor band and forecloses author-verdict support. No documented criterion-10 enemy-making/ incitement pattern. Flag count: one (capping).
7. What The Framework Says
DesJarlais's record carries a capping criterion-8 flag: his verified signature on the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief was legal-on-its-face power used to try to defeat a certified election, the single most serious conduct the standard tracks, and disqualifying for support on its own. Layered on top is a documented character and candor record: an uncontested medical-board reprimand for sexual relationships with patients, sworn divorce-transcript admissions, and public denials the transcript contradicted, all weighed as pre-office character drag rather than office breach. Against this sit genuine professional competence and durable constituent support. The standard records the competence honestly, but the capping flag and the integrity drags place this record below the bar.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (SCOTUS docket 22O155) · Congress.gov member record
Tier 2: Chattanooga Times Free Press, reps signed Texas effort · Chattanooga Times Free Press, medical board fine · Snopes fact-check, abortion/affairs · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.