DOCUMENT: CLS-REBUILD · CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC METHODOLOGY: SYMMETRIC · STATUS: ACTIVE

← Roster

561
Unfit
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
20/40
Weak
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 5.27 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.

Lands in the Unfit band at credit 561, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)

★ Service to Country
U.S. Army / Colorado Army National Guard · Major (company commander) · 2009–2019

Service to country and community is honored here as context, not as a score. No discretion-test or discipline event from that service appears in the record to be scored as conduct; the background contextualizes the dossier but does not move the composite.

The 14 measures

Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.

#MeasureScoreWhy
M01 Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law 6
why?
Freshman seated January 2025, cannot have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and is absent from that signatory list; no process-subversion conduct attaches. No documented attempt to defeat a constitutional purpose through legal-on-its-face power. Held at the honest middle for a thin record: nothing affirmatively defends institutional structure at cost, but nothing subverts it either. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 5
why?
Some genuine cross-aisle work, the bipartisan Medicare and Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act and the Combatting Fentanyl Poisoning Act, plus a six-member bipartisan letter questioning ICE on non-criminal arrests. Against this, a partisan press posture ("condemns Colorado Democrats for voting to shut down government") that frames the other side rather than the issue. Net middle: real bipartisan output on narrow law-enforcement items, ordinary partisan framing elsewhere. No Lugar Index yet (first term). [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 5
why?
Hardline immigration rhetoric (echoing mass-deportation framing, "sanctuary"-policy attacks) reads largely as policy position, which the standard does not score. No documented pattern of casting constituents or opponents as enemies who do not belong. The middle reflects a combative posture without a crossed anti-belonging line; the contested element here is truthfulness, scored at M13, not personhood-denial. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 6
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics; no criterion-class conduct. As a freshman with no committee gavel and no investigatory authority deployed against opponents, the record is clean on abuse-of-power but thin on affirmative restraint. Honest middle. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 5
why?
Rhetoric is partisan but mostly within policy bounds; one notable restraint-marker is publicly questioning ICE's targeting of non-criminal immigrant workers, a measured break from maximalist enforcement framing. Offsetting is a documented pattern of overstated crime claims tied to immigration. Net middle: combative register, no documented slur or dehumanization, occasional moderation. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 5
why?
No ethics findings, sanctions, or open investigations of record for a first-term member. The fiduciary drag is the misrepresentation episode (handled at M13) plus a thin accountability posture, not a financial breach. Middle pending a longer disclosure history. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 6
why?
The active-duty standard is calling out one's own side at cost. Evans joined a Republican letter pressing the administration's ICE director to deprioritize arresting immigrants not suspected of crimes, a modest but real instance of questioning his own party's executive at some political risk in a hardline-immigration district. Above the middle for that, short of high marks because it was cautious and issue-narrow. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 5
why?
No documented discretion-test event, no situation on record where private advantage was available and refused, nor one where it was taken. Prior Army National Guard command and police service show a duty-discipline background but do not supply a scored discretion moment. Neutral middle for absence of evidence either way. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 5
why?
A modest private/public consistency concern: when pressed on the documented gap between his grandfather's actual immigration record and his stump retelling, his office stopped responding and ignored more than a dozen follow-ups. Avoidance of accountable engagement rather than a documented contempt gap. Middle, with a transparency drag noted. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 5
why?
Constituent-service posture is the soft spot: through 2025 he held only a single, technically troubled telephone town hall and declined repeated in-person town-hall invitations in a swing district, drawing organized accountability pressure. Counterweight is responsiveness on narrow law-enforcement and anti-fraud constituent issues. Middle, limited direct accessibility, some substantive service. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 6
why?
Scores office-attributable enrichment only. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue on record for a first-term member. Raw wealth and campaign war chest are expressly not penalized. Clean on the narrow enrichment standard; held just above middle, not higher, for want of a long disclosure track record. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 5
why?
Institutional decorum is ordinary, no documented breaches of floor or committee conduct, no spectacle incidents. The drag is a thin commitment to the deliberative-access side of the office (avoided in-person town halls) and combative official messaging. Net middle: decorous in chamber, distant from constituents. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 3
why?
The sharpest conduct drag. Evans repeatedly told audiences his grandfather immigrated "the legal way" and "stood in line," but a 1941 INS form documents the grandfather's unlawful 1929 entry and a later arrest for an immigration violation. The claim was repeated after the contradicting record was public, and his office went silent when confronted, a documented, repeated, self-serving factual misstatement, not a one-off slip. Low, with mitigation that it concerns family biography rather than official duties. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 6
why?
Real substantive command in his lane, homeland security, public-safety and anti-fraud legislation advanced through subcommittee, drawing on 12 years in the Guard and 11 as a police lieutenant. Substance over talking points within a narrow domain; held at modest-positive because depth outside law-enforcement and immigration is not yet demonstrated. [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.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M13 Repeatedly claimed his grandfather immigrated 'the legal way' and 'stood in line'; a 1941 INS form documents the grandfather's unlawful 1929 entry and a later immigration-violation arrest. Claim repeated after the record was public.
↳ Love of Truth, repeated self-serving factual misstatement
Concerns family biography, not official duties or a vote; no finding that it altered any legislative outcome
M09 Office stopped responding and ignored more than a dozen follow-up press inquiries when confronted with the immigration-history discrepancy
↳ Transparency / accountable engagement
Press avoidance, not a documented private/public contempt gap
M10 Through 2025 held only one technically troubled telephone town hall and declined repeated in-person town-hall invitations in a swing district
↳ Constituent access / direct accountability
Responsive on narrow anti-fraud and law-enforcement constituent matters
M02 Partisan official messaging framing the other party as the problem alongside genuine bipartisan bills
↳ Institution-over-win posture
Bipartisan Medicaid-fraud and fentanyl bills are real cross-aisle output
Pillar II The repeated immigration-history misstatement is a break from Authenticity and an Integrity drag he did not own when confronted
↳ Authenticity/Self-Reflection drag
Bounded to personal biography; no documented official falsehood
Pillar IV Truthfulness asterisk plus thin constituent-accountability posture early in tenure
↳ Integrity/Justice drag
Short record; service background and bipartisan public-safety work weigh positive

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.

#PillarScoreWhy
I Trust & Loyalty
  • Would I follow them into uncertainty or adversity?
  • Would I trust them with my life or reputation?
  • Would I trust them to lead others honorably when the stakes are high?
6
why?
Attributes: Selfless Service, Steadiness, a credible Guard-command and police-service background and a willingness to question his own administration's ICE priorities. Held at moderate by a thin legislative record and no high-cost loyalty-to-oath moment yet.
II Aspiration & Integrity
  • Do I admire their values and how they live them?
  • Do they reflect the kind of person I hope to become?
  • Do I feel challenged to be better because of their example?
4
why?
Attributes pulled down by the documented, repeated immigration-history misstatement that he did not own when confronted, a drag toward Authenticity's and Self-Reflection's opposites. The lowest pillar; the self-correction that would lift it is absent.
III Protection & Influence
  • Would I trust this person to protect what I love most?
  • Would I trust them to influence someone I care deeply about?
  • Would those under their authority be safer and better for it?
5
why?
Attributes: Stewardship, Courage in Conflict, substantive public-safety and anti-fraud work, and a modest stand pressing ICE on non-criminal arrests. No documented Exploitation; offset by limited constituent access.
IV Legacy & Virtue
  • Would I be proud if my child grew up to be like them?
  • Do they embody the virtues I want carried into the future?
  • If their influence continued in others, would the world be better or worse?
5
why?
Too early for a durable legacy read. Service and bipartisan public-safety output weigh positive; the truthfulness asterisk and constituent-distance temper it. Moderate.
TOTAL: Weak 20/40

Total 20/40, Adequate-leaning. The pillars sit at the honest middle for a first-term member: a real service background and some bipartisan substance, pulled down by a documented truthfulness drag and a thin accountability posture.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“We need ICE to focus its limited resources on those who are a genuine threat to public safety, not on workers who pose no danger.”

Joining a Republican letter to the acting ICE director questioning arrests of non-criminal immigrants · Colorado Politics · PRINCIPLED · cite

“My grandfather stood in line and did it the right way, the legal way.”

Recurring stump retelling of his family's immigration; contradicted by a 1941 INS record of his grandfather's unlawful 1929 entry · Colorado Newsline · CONTESTED · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Gabe Evans (born 1986). U.S. Representative for Colorado's 8th Congressional District since January 3, 2025. Previously a member of the Colorado House of Representatives (2023-2024). UH-60 Black Hawk pilot and company commander in the Colorado Army National Guard (2009-2019); Arvada Police Department officer 2011-2022, retiring as Lieutenant. Freshman Republican in the state's most competitive district; rated among the most vulnerable House incumbents heading into 2026.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

First-term Republican; no Lugar Bipartisan Index score yet. Documented bipartisan items: the Medicare and Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act and the Combatting Fentanyl Poisoning Act. Committee work centers on Homeland Security, where he advanced public-safety and counterterrorism measures through subcommittee. Reported zero missed roll-call votes across his first 16 months (better than the chamber median). Policy positions, immigration enforcement, sanctuary-policy opposition, are noted but not scored; the framework refuses to grade contested policy in either direction.

3. Constitutional Moments

Seated January 2025, Evans could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and is absent from its 126-signatory list; no process-subversion conduct attaches. The notable institutional-conduct marker to date is a cautious cross-pressure on his own administration, joining a Republican letter urging ICE to deprioritize arrests of non-criminal immigrants. No high-cost defense of constitutional structure, and no subversion, on record.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Combative but largely policy-bound on immigration and public safety; the standard does not score policy heat. No documented slur, dehumanization, or sustained enemy-making pattern toward constituents. The genuine rhetorical drag is truthfulness, not personhood-denial: the repeated, documented misstatement of his grandfather's immigration history, retold after the contradicting INS record was public.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No ethics findings, sanctions, or open investigations of record for a first-term member; no documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. Raw wealth and a $3.4M campaign war chest are expressly not penalized. The fiduciary concern is conduct-of-candor and constituent-accountability, not financial enrichment.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Evans was seated after December 2020, so the Texas v. Pennsylvania process-subversion flag (Criterion 8) cannot attach, and he is absent from the signatory list. Combative immigration rhetoric stays within policy bounds and does not rise to a documented enemy-making or incitement pattern (Criterion 10). Flag count: zero. The repeated immigration-history misstatement is weighed as a truthfulness drag at M13, not as a severity flag.

7. What The Framework Says

A thin first-term record at the honest middle, pulled below the bar by one sharp drag. The credible service background, Guard command, a decade as a police officer, and some genuine bipartisan public-safety output are real positives, as is the modest willingness to press his own administration on ICE priorities. But the documented, repeated, self-serving misstatement of his grandfather's immigration history (retold after the contradicting record was public, then met with silence) is a real Love-of-Truth failure, and a first-year pattern of avoiding in-person constituent accountability compounds it. No severity-class conduct, no process subversion. Adequate-leaning, short of Sound, and short of support, on the truthfulness and accountability drags.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House Clerk financial disclosures

Tier 2: Colorado Newsline, immigration-history reporting · Colorado Politics, ICE-priorities letter · CPR, town-hall and constituent-access coverage

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures · GovTrack · Wikipedia

Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: