Composite 4.17 / 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 484 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Lamborn was one of 126 House Republicans who signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief on Dec 11, 2020, urging the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Using a legitimate legal instrument to nullify other states' certified results is legal-on-its-face power deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose, the peaceful transfer of power. This hits M01 (driven to the capping floor) and M04, and forecloses author-verdict support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), Supreme Court docket · KRDO, Lamborn among House Republicans backing Texas lawsuit
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 for Doug Lamborn. Service to country, where present, is honored as context and never scored; its absence here is likewise neither credited nor penalized.
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?Signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020) urging the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral results of four states, a legal-on-its-face power deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose. That is Criterion-8 process subversion against the peaceful-transfer core of the oath, driving this measure to the capping floor. A separate floor objection to certification is part of the same posture but not independently scored. Held at 3 rather than 2 because the conduct was a signature/vote within the process, not organizing extra-constitutional means. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 3 | why?Bottom-decile bipartisan cooperation in the 117th Congress (390th, score -1.39) with modest improvement in the 118th (169th, -0.52). Sustained low cross-party legislating is scored as conduct, the disposition to deny the other side a shared win, not as policy or ideology. Low, with a small upward note for the 118th. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented sustained pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong, and no single anchoring anti-belonging slur on record. Election-denial framing harms the institution (scored at M01) more than it targets a class of persons. Middle: neither a documented dignity high-mark nor a documented anti-belonging pattern. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?The Criterion-8 amicus signature also lands here: a legitimate instrument (an amicus brief) turned toward nullifying other states' certified votes is a misuse of legal power against the electoral process. No documented weaponization of investigative or prosecutorial state power against named rivals beyond that, which keeps this above the M01 floor. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Generally restrained public rhetoric for a safe-seat partisan; the election-irregularity statements are the principal drag and are weighed at M01/M13 where they belong. No documented incitement or sustained enemy-making in his own voice. Middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?Two converging fiduciary appearance-concerns: the Pope ex-staffer suit (settled out of court Jan 2023, terms undisclosed, allegations denied) and a 2024 OCE referral finding substantial reason to believe staffers were compelled to perform personal/family chores and that his son was housed in a Capitol storage area. Both are weighed as unresolved/settled appearance-concerns, never as findings, but the volume and overlap pull this below the line. No conviction or sustained ownership to offset. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?Active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Lamborn breaking with his party or leadership on a matter of principle when it would have cost him; the record is consistent in-line partisan alignment, including on the 2020 election posture. Below middle for absence of the harder call-out, not for the alignment itself. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented refusal of preferential treatment at personal cost, but also no documented abuse of discretionary perks beyond the family-favors allegations scored at M06/M11. Middle, the discretion test is largely untested in the public record. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 4 | why?The ex-staffer suit alleges a private-conduct/public-posture gap, instructing staff not to disclose COVID exposure while presenting a different public face. Settled, denied, weighed as an appearance-concern not a finding; it is the only documented signal on the private/public-consistency measure and it points downward. Below middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Long-tenured representative of a safe, strongly partisan district (CO-5); votes broadly tracked district preference, which is consistent with constituent alignment. No documented donor-over-constituent betrayal pattern. Middle, alignment present, no affirmative high-mark. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 4 | why?Office-attributable concern: concentrated, high-frequency trading in NetApp while serving on the Armed Services Committee, where NetApp held 30+ DoD contracts, plus admitted STOCK Act late disclosures (trades worth tens of thousands filed past the 45-day deadline). Raw wealth is NOT penalized; this scores only the office-information/conflict appearance, a seat-adjacent trading pattern and disclosure-law lapses. Weighed as appearance-concern, not a finding of insider trading. Below middle. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Generally maintained conventional institutional decorum and regular-order participation across nine terms; not a spectacle-driven member. The election-certification posture is scored at M01, not double-counted here. Upper-middle for routine institutional conduct absent a decorum-collapse pattern. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Advanced the claim of 'serious irregularities' and unconstitutional changes sufficient to cast doubt on the 2020 outcome, a contested factual posture that propagated electoral-fraud doubt without substantiation that survived in court. Weighed as a documented falsehood-adjacent posture on a high-stakes institutional question. Below middle; no broader sustained-fabrication pattern established. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Long, substantive engagement on defense and national-security policy as a senior Armed Services Committee member; demonstrated working command of his portfolio over multiple terms. Substance present; held at upper-middle rather than higher absent a signature legislative-architecture achievement. [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 the Supreme Court to set aside four states' certified electoral votes ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion against the peaceful transfer of power | A signature/vote within a legal process, not organizing extra-constitutional means, keeps the floor at 3, not 2 |
| M02 | Lugar Bipartisan Index 390th of the House (-1.39) in the 117th Congress; 169th (-0.52) in the 118th ↳ sustained low cross-party cooperation (conduct, not ideology) | Measurable improvement from 117th to 118th, upward note |
| M06 | Pope ex-staffer suit (settled 2023, undisclosed terms) plus 2024 OCE referral finding substantial reason to believe staff were compelled to do family chores and his son was housed in a Capitol storage area ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety (office resources / staff for personal benefit) | Settled/denied and a referral, not adjudicated findings, weighed as appearance-concern, not proof |
| M11 | Concentrated NetApp trading while on Armed Services (NetApp held 30+ DoD contracts); admitted STOCK Act late disclosures of trades worth tens of thousands ↳ office-information/conflict appearance + disclosure-law lapses | Raw wealth not penalized; no finding of insider trading, appearance-concern only |
| M13 | Publicly asserted 'serious irregularities' sufficient to doubt the 2020 outcome, a posture not substantiated in court ↳ documented falsehood-adjacent posture on an institutional question | No broader sustained-fabrication pattern established across the career |
| M07 | No documented instance of breaking with his own side at personal cost ↳ absence of the active call-out duty | Scored as absence, not as an affirmative breach |
| M09 | Ex-staffer suit alleged instructing staff not to disclose COVID exposure (private posture diverging from public face) ↳ private/public-consistency appearance-concern | Settled and denied, weighed as appearance-concern, not a finding |
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 defining evidence is loyalty to a party posture over the institution: the Texas v. PA amicus signature put a partisan electoral outcome above the constitutional duty to honor certified results. Drag toward Self-Interest and away from the oath dominates this pillar. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Routine in-line conviction without documented Self-Reflection or Teachability on the contested moments, no ownership of the election-posture or the trading/staff-conduct concerns. Held off the floor by the absence of a documented dishonesty pattern beyond the 2020 statements. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Power used to challenge other states' votes (Exploitation of legal process) rather than to protect the franchise; the staff-favors and stock-conflict appearance-concerns drag Stewardship. No documented affirmative Protection high-mark. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?A legacy marked by the Criterion-8 election conduct plus converging fiduciary appearance-concerns (staff favors, STOCK Act lapses). The substantive defense-policy work is real but does not offset the Integrity/Justice drags. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 14/40 |
Total 14/40, Failing band. The pillars track the conduct composite: the Criterion-8 election conduct caps the character ceiling, and the fiduciary appearance-concerns prevent recovery in the lower pillars.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I am pleased to join my colleague, Rep. Mike Johnson, on an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in support of the Texas v. Pennsylvania case.”
Statement announcing he joined the amicus brief urging the Court to set aside four states' certified electoral votes · KRDO / Colorado Politics · CONTESTED · cite
“I will object to certifying the Electoral College votes... citing serious irregularities.”
Announcing his intent to object to the Jan 6 electoral certification · Colorado Sun · CONTESTED · cite
“Those are a tissue of lies.”
Responding to the ex-staffer lawsuit alleging COVID and workplace-misuse conduct (later settled out of court) · Washington Post · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Doug Lamborn (born 1954). U.S. Representative for Colorado's 5th congressional district 2007-2025 (110th-118th Congresses); did not seek re-election in 2024 and left office January 2025. Previously a Colorado state legislator (House 1995-1999, Senate 1999-2007). Long-serving member of the House Armed Services Committee since 2008, with focus on defense and strategic-forces issues centered on the military installations in his Colorado Springs district. Recently-departed member of Congress, in scope.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Safe-seat Republican from a strongly conservative district; DW-NOMINATE places him on the right of the House conference. Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index: 390th (-1.39) in the 117th Congress, improving to 169th (-0.52) in the 118th, sustained low cross-party cooperation scored as conduct, not ideology. Committee focus on Armed Services (strategic forces, missile defense, the Colorado Springs installation base). No signature bipartisan legislative-architecture achievement on record; the profile is that of a reliable conference vote with deep defense-portfolio engagement.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining moment is adverse to the oath: Lamborn signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020), one of 126 House Republicans urging the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral results of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a Criterion-8 process-subversion event. He separately announced and cast a floor objection to the Jan 6, 2021 electoral certification. The amicus signature, not the bare floor objection, is the capping conduct; both reflect a posture of subordinating the certified-results duty to a partisan electoral outcome.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally restrained public rhetoric for a safe-seat partisan; no documented sustained enemy-making or incitement in his own voice. The principal rhetorical drag is the 2020 election posture, asserting "serious irregularities" sufficient to doubt the outcome, which is weighed at M01/M13 rather than as a Criterion-10 pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Two converging office-attributable appearance-concerns. First, trading: concentrated, high-frequency NetApp transactions while serving on the Armed Services Committee (NetApp held 30+ DoD contracts), plus admitted STOCK Act late disclosures of trades worth tens of thousands of dollars past the 45-day deadline. Second, staff/resources: the Pope ex-staffer suit (settled out of court Jan 2023, terms undisclosed, allegations denied) and a 2024 OCE referral finding substantial reason to believe staff were compelled to perform personal/family chores and that his son was housed in a Capitol storage area. All are weighed as settled/unadjudicated appearance-concerns, never as findings, but their volume and overlap are a real fiduciary drag. Raw wealth is not penalized; only office-information/conflict and resource-misuse appearances are scored.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class flag. Criterion 8 (process subversion, capping): Lamborn signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020) seeking to set aside four states' certified electoral votes. This drives M01 to the capping floor (3), hits M04, and forecloses author-verdict support regardless of composite. No Criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement pattern is documented. Flag count: one (Criterion 8).
7. What The Framework Says
Lamborn's record is gated by a single decisive act: signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief to discard four states' certified electoral votes, Criterion-8 process subversion against the peaceful transfer of power that caps the character ceiling. Around it sit converging, unadjudicated fiduciary appearance-concerns (NetApp trading from an Armed Services seat plus STOCK Act lapses; the settled ex-staffer suit; the 2024 OCE staff-favors referral) and bottom-tier bipartisan cooperation. The substantive defense-policy engagement is genuine but cannot offset the capping conduct. Failing band; the capping flag forecloses support.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Representatives) · House Ethics Committee statement re: Rep. Lamborn
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Colorado Politics / CPR / Colorado Sun reporting
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · House Ethics Committee statement · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.