Composite 4.31 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Not supported. The confirmed Criterion-8 capping flag, Fleischmann's signature on the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to overturn four states' certified electoral results, forecloses support regardless of composite. His real competence as an appropriator (M14) and ordinary institutional decorum cannot offset a documented strike at the peaceful transfer of power. The 2021 STOCK Act lapse and lower-tier bipartisan score are additional, lesser drags.
Fleischmann signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral results of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. That is a legal-on-its-face power (an amicus filing) deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose, the peaceful transfer of power following a certified election. Under Criterion 8 this is capping conduct: it drives M01 to the 2-3 floor and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of the composite. Every signatory of that brief receives this flag; Fleischmann is on the verified 126-Representative signatory list.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania, Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (Supreme Court docket)
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 on record. Fleischmann is an attorney by profession (University of Tennessee College of Law) who practiced in Chattanooga before entering Congress in 2011.
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?Fleischmann is a confirmed signatory of the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, which asked
the Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral results of four states and hand the presidency to
the loser of those states' votes. That is a legal-on-its-face power (filing an amicus) used to defeat a
constitutional purpose, the peaceful transfer following a certified election. Under Criterion 8 (Process
Subversion / capping) this drives M01 to the 2-3 floor regardless of an otherwise unremarkable
separation-of-powers record. Held at 3 rather than 2 because the conduct was a brief signature within a
larger bloc, not authorship or organizing of the scheme. NOTE: his separate January 6 floor objection
vote is NOT independently scored here (the objection mechanism itself is a constitutional process); the
amicus signature is the capping conduct.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?Low-tier bipartisan cooperation: ranked roughly 386th in the House on the 118th-Congress Bipartisan Index
with a negative score (~ -1.30), well below the zero threshold the Index treats as a passing mark. He
does the institutional work of an Appropriations subcommittee chair (which requires some cross-aisle
dealmaking on must-pass spending bills), which keeps this off the floor, but the willingness to let the
other side share a win is weak. Below-middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of casting whole categories of constituents as not belonging, and no Criterion-10
incitement pattern on record. He participates in routine partisan framing (e.g., characterizing the
opposing party as a "radical left wing mob" in a 2026 cable hit), which is ordinary political heat rather
than a sustained anti-belonging pattern and is not scored as criterion-class conduct. Honest middle:
neither a documented high-mark defense of an opponent's personhood nor a documented enemy-making pattern.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Criterion 8 hits M04 as well as M01: lending an official signature to an effort to use the courts to
nullify other states' lawful, certified votes is a misuse of legal process aimed at a political outcome.
No separate documented weaponization of investigatory or prosecutorial power against rivals, so this sits
above the M01 floor, but the amicus is a genuine abuse-of-process drag that keeps it below middle.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Generally restrained, conventional political rhetoric over a long House tenure, with periodic sharp
partisan lines ("radical left wing mob") that read as standard outrage-cycle framing rather than a
documented dehumanization pattern. No high-mark moment of public restraint toward an opponent on record
either. Middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?The fiduciary appearance-concern here is the 2021 STOCK Act late-disclosure (see M11), a reporting-rule
lapse, not a finding of self-dealing. No sanction or formal ethics finding on record. There is no
affirmative public ownership/correction documented to offset it. A modest drag below middle is warranted
for the appearance concern plus the absence of demonstrated self-accountability.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at real cost. The record shows the opposite at the
decisive moment: Fleischmann signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and objected to certification rather
than breaking with his side to defend the certified result. No documented instance of paying a political
price to check his own party. Low.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented discretion-test event in either direction, neither a refusal of preferential treatment at
personal cost nor a documented exploitation of position for personal advantage of the gross kind. Default
middle absent evidence.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; no evidence that his off-camera conduct diverges
sharply from his public posture. Absent such evidence, a neutral middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Mixed constituent-versus-donor alignment. As an Energy and Water Appropriations chair he delivers
tangible district benefits (Oak Ridge / TVA region), which serves constituents, but his voting pattern
tracks party and donor priorities closely. No documented sale of a vote. Honest middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 4 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment risk, not raw wealth. Documented concern: a 2021 STOCK Act
violation, failure to timely disclose a DraftKings purchase and a Zimmer Biomet sale (each up to $15,000).
That is a transparency-rule breach that creates an office-information / conflict appearance, and active
individual-stock trading by a sitting appropriator is itself a self-dealing-appearance concern. It is a
reporting lapse, not a proven trade on nonpublic information, so it is weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding. Below middle. Growth in household net worth during tenure, absent evidence of office-driven
cause, is NOT penalized here.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Routine institutional decorum in floor and committee work as a long-serving appropriator; no sustained
record of spectacle-over-institution conduct. But the December 2020 amicus is a serious institutional
drag, lending the office to an effort to override a certified election cuts against honoring the
institution. Net middle: ordinary decorum offset by one grave institutional-fidelity failure.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Endorsing the Texas v. Pennsylvania theory, that four states' certified results should be thrown out, meant lending his name to claims of decisive fraud that courts across the country, including the Supreme
Court, rejected for lack of evidence and standing. Adopting a demonstrably unsupported factual premise on
the most consequential question of the term is a truth-fidelity drag. Below middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Genuine substantive command in his lane: chairs the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee, demonstrating working mastery of the federal energy/water budget, Oak Ridge/DOE programs, and the appropriations process. This is detailed policy substance over talking points. Upper-middle, the strongest dimension of his record.
[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 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (filed 2020-12-11) seeking to have the Supreme Court invalidate four states' certified electoral results ↳ Criterion 8, Process Subversion (capping); legal power used to defeat the peaceful transfer | Brief signature within a 126-member bloc, not authorship or organizing, keeps M01 at the 3 floor rather than 2 |
| M04 | Same amicus, official signature lent to a court effort to nullify other states' lawful certified votes ↳ Abuse of legal process for a political outcome | No separate documented weaponization of investigatory/prosecutorial power against named rivals |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out his own side at cost; sided with the certification challenge at the decisive moment ↳ Active-duty standard unmet | None on record |
| M11 | 2021 STOCK Act violation, failure to timely disclose a DraftKings purchase and Zimmer Biomet sale (each up to $15,000); active individual-stock trading as a sitting appropriator ↳ Office-information / self-dealing appearance-concern | Reporting lapse, not a proven trade on nonpublic information, weighed as appearance, not finding |
| M13 | Endorsed the Texas v. Pennsylvania fraud theory that courts uniformly rejected for lack of evidence ↳ Truth-fidelity drag | Adopted a bloc legal position rather than personally fabricating specific claims |
| M02 | Lugar Bipartisan Index ~386th in the House, negative score (~ -1.30) in the 118th Congress ↳ Weak cross-aisle cooperation | Appropriations chairmanship requires some bipartisan dealmaking on must-pass bills |
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?Loyalty ran to party and to the effort to overturn a certified election rather than to the constitutional duty, the Texas v. Pennsylvania signature is the controlling fact. Steadiness in routine institutional work is real but does not redeem the decisive failure of fidelity. Drag toward Self-Interest/Faction dominates. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?No documented self-reflection or correction on the 2020 conduct or the STOCK Act lapse; conviction is present but channeled into a faction-first posture. Authenticity without accountability holds this at the lower-middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Power was used to attempt to defeat a constitutional outcome (amicus) rather than to protect it; the appropriations work delivers district benefits but does not offset a Criterion-8 misuse of official standing. Drag toward Exploitation of process. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?The legacy fact a child would inherit is the signature on a brief to nullify other Americans' certified votes, plus a transparency-rule breach, Integrity and Love of Truth take real damage. Competent appropriator work tempers but does not erase it. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 15/40 |
Total 15/40, Failing-to-Unfit range. The Four Pillars track the conduct composite downward; the single grave institutional-fidelity failure (the 2020 amicus) is load-bearing across all four.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Democrats have devolved into a radical left wing mob.”
Cable-news reaction to a presidential address · NewsChannel 9 (WTVC) · CONTESTED · cite
“Chairman Fleischmann's Fiscal Year 2026 Energy and Water Bill Passes House.”
Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee chairmanship, substantive legislative work · Office of Rep. Fleischmann · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Charles Joseph "Chuck" Fleischmann (born October 11, 1962). U.S. Representative for Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District since January 2011. Republican. Attorney (University of Tennessee College of Law); practiced law in Chattanooga before election. Chair of the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. Running for re-election in the 2026 cycle.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Long-serving House appropriator; chairs the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, a consequential post for DOE, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Oak Ridge complex in his district. Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index places him in the lower tier of the House (~386th, negative score in the 118th Congress). Voting record is reliably with the Republican conference. The most consequential single act on record is the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature, scored as conduct (Criterion 8), not as policy.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional moment is a failure of fidelity: Fleischmann signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief seeking Supreme Court invalidation of four states' certified electoral votes, and joined the January 6, 2021 objection to certification. The amicus signature is the capping conduct under Criterion 8; the floor objection mechanism itself is not independently scored (it is a constitutional process), but the combination shows where his fidelity ran at the decisive test.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Conventional, generally restrained political rhetoric across his tenure, punctuated by routine sharp partisan framing of the opposing party ("radical left wing mob") that reads as standard outrage-cycle heat rather than a documented dehumanization or incitement pattern. No Criterion-10 pattern on record. No documented high-mark defense of an opponent's personhood either.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Documented fiduciary appearance-concern: a 2021 STOCK Act violation for failing to timely disclose a DraftKings purchase and a Zimmer Biomet sale (each up to $15,000). Active individual-stock trading by a sitting appropriations chair is itself a conflict-appearance concern. These are reporting/appearance issues, not proven self-dealing findings, and carry no sanction on record. Raw household wealth and its growth during tenure are not penalized absent evidence of office-driven cause.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One confirmed Severity-class (capping) flag under Criterion 8, Process Subversion: the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature. This forecloses the author verdict regardless of composite. No Criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement pattern is documented. The STOCK Act lapse is weighed as an appearance-concern, not a severity flag. Flag count: one (criterion 8, capping).
7. What The Framework Says
Fleischmann's record contains genuine competence, he is a substantive appropriator who has mastered the energy-and-water budget and delivers for his district. But the Civic Leader Scorecard measures conduct against the oath, and the controlling fact is the December 2020 signature on a brief asking the Supreme Court to nullify four states' certified electoral votes. That is exactly the conduct Criterion 8 was written to catch: a legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose. It caps the oath-fidelity measures at the floor and forecloses support, no matter how the rest of the record reads. The STOCK Act lapse and weak bipartisan cooperation are honest secondary drags. Competence does not cure a strike at the peaceful transfer of power.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus of 126 Representatives · Congress.gov member profile · House financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · OpenSecrets summary · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · OpenSecrets · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Reps) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.