Composite 3.57 / 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 458 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Gooden signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives, which asked the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral votes of four states. This is legal-on-its-face power used to defeat the constitutional purpose of a certified election, process subversion under Criterion 8. It hits M01 and M04, drives M01 to the floor, and forecloses author support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (SCOTUS docket 22O155)
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 or uniformed-service record on file. Gooden's pre-congressional background is in business and Texas state-legislative service (Texas House, 2011-2015). Service to country is honored as context where it exists; none is scored here.
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?Driven to the criterion-8 floor. Gooden signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, a
legal-on-its-face instrument used to ask the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral votes of four
states, a documented use of process to defeat the constitutional purpose of the certified election. This is
process subversion, not the ordinary functioning of the constitutional process; it caps M01 at the floor.
Held at 3 rather than 2 because the conduct is a single documented instrument rather than a sustained
multi-front campaign to overturn results.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 3 | why?The Lugar Center Bipartisan Index scored Gooden roughly -1.07 for the 118th Congress, ranking him near 347th
in the House, the "very poor" band (below -1.0). Cross-aisle institution-building is largely absent from the
record. Scored on the measured bipartisanship metric only, not on party or ideology.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 3 | why?Persons-of-equal-worth drag. In February 2023 Gooden publicly questioned Rep. Judy Chu's "loyalty" to the
United States and said she should be "called out" and "looked into," doubling down when challenged. Questioning
a colleague's national loyalty is an anti-belonging frame directed at a fellow member. Reinforced by the March
2025 floor incident in which he physically ripped a protest sign from Rep. Melanie Stansbury's hands. Low.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?Hit by criterion-8 alongside M01: signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus is an attempt to deploy a court
to nullify other states' certified votes. Compounded by rhetoric urging that a named appointee (Dominic Ng)
and a colleague (Chu) be "investigated" or "looked into" on loyalty grounds, directing scrutiny at perceived
adversaries. Low.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 3 | why?Rhetorical-restraint drag. The dual-loyalty framing of Rep. Chu was repeated and defended rather than walked
back ("It's not xenophobic to question where her loyalty lies"). The "No one will disrespect President Trump
in front of me" sign-snatch follow-up is confrontation-amplifying rather than de-escalating. Low; this is a
pattern of heat aimed at persons, not policy disagreement.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?A 2021 Campaign Legal Center complaint alleged STOCK Act disclosure failures on roughly a dozen 2020 stock
purchases. This is an unresolved/uncharged allegation weighed as an appearance-concern, never a finding, Gooden contested it on the reporting-threshold rule. The drag is the dismissive posture and absence of any
affirmative accountability, not a proven breach. Below-middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. There is no documented instance of Gooden
breaking with his own coalition on a matter of principle at personal expense; the record runs the other way
(sign-snatch in defense of the President, loyalty attacks on the opposing side). Low.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?No public service record to test discretion against. The available discretion datapoint is negative: during
the March 2025 joint session he chose to physically grab a colleague's sign on the floor, an impulsive, escalatory exercise of the moment rather than restraint. Below-middle, evidence-thin.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented gap between a private posture and a public one; his combative on-camera conduct appears
consistent with his off-camera statements. Neutral middle on thin evidence, neither a documented two-faced
pattern nor an affirmative consistency credit.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?No documented systematic divergence between constituent service and donor capture, and no affirmative
evidence of standout constituent fidelity either. Neutral middle on the available record.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The 2020 stock-trade disclosure allegation
could implicate office-information trading, but it is uncharged/unresolved and contested, weighed as an
appearance-concern, not a finding. No documented self-dealing, family payments, or foreign-government revenue.
Neutral middle, with the appearance-concern noted rather than scored as a breach.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 3 | why?Institutional-decorum drag. Physically reaching across the aisle to rip a sign from another member's hands
and throwing it during a joint session of Congress is a documented breach of the chamber's decorum, the
spectacle placed above the dignity of the institution and a colleague. Low.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Truthfulness drag from the 2020 election-overturn posture (amicus + non-certification) and amplification of
contested claims (e.g., the 2024 "Google manipulation" framing). Not a documented systematic-falsehood pattern
at the level that would floor the measure, but the willingness to advance unproven, adversary-targeting claims
pulls it below the middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 5 | why?Seats on the Judiciary and Armed Services committees with a regular flow of introduced legislation indicates
ordinary working substance, but the public profile leans heavily on confrontational messaging rather than
demonstrated deep command of policy detail. Neutral middle.
[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 10-11, 2020) asking SCOTUS to discard four states' certified electoral votes ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, capping | Single documented instrument rather than a sustained multi-front overturn campaign; held at 3 not 2 |
| M03 | Publicly questioned Rep. Judy Chu's loyalty to the United States (Feb 2023) and doubled down; ripped Rep. Stansbury's protest sign on the House floor (Mar 2025) ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, anti-belonging frame at a colleague | Directed at sitting members in political combat, not at constituents broadly |
| M04 | Amicus to nullify other states' votes; urged that a colleague and a named appointee be investigated on loyalty grounds ↳ Weaponization / criterion-8 reach | Rhetorical urging, not actual deployment of state investigative power |
| M02 | Lugar Bipartisan Index ~ -1.07, ~347th in the House (118th Congress), 'very poor' band ↳ Bipartisanship metric, institution-building absent | none |
| M12 | Physically ripped a colleague's sign during a joint session of Congress (Mar 2025) ↳ Institutional-decorum breach | none |
| M06 | 2021 STOCK Act disclosure complaint (Campaign Legal Center) over ~a dozen 2020 stock purchases ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety | Uncharged/unresolved and contested on the reporting-threshold rule, appearance-concern, not a finding |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out his own side at personal cost ↳ Active call-out duty unmet | none |
| Pillar I | Amicus to overturn certified results + non-certification posture ↳ Loyalty-to-Constitution drag (Trust) | none documented |
| Pillar II | Doubled-down loyalty attacks (Temperance) and confrontational messaging brand (Consistency without self-correction) ↳ Temperance/Self-Reflection drag | none documented |
| Pillar III | Sign-snatch + investigate-the-adversary rhetoric (power used to confront rather than protect) ↳ Protection/Accountability drag | none documented |
| Pillar IV | Election-overturn posture + dual-loyalty influence one would not want propagated ↳ Integrity/Justice/Love-of-Truth drag | none documented |
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?Drag toward the opposites of Courage-for-the-oath and Selfless Service: signing an instrument to overturn certified results and a posture of personal loyalty to a leader over institutional fidelity. Little affirmative evidence of steadiness placed above coalition. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 3 | why?Conviction is present but paired with the opposites of Temperance and Self-Reflection, the loyalty attacks were doubled down rather than reconsidered, and the STOCK Act complaint drew a dismissive rather than accountable response. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Power and platform used to confront perceived adversaries (sign-snatch, calls to investigate a colleague) rather than to protect institutions or constituents' dignity. Drag toward Exploitation-of-conflict over Stewardship. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?The durable marks on the record, the 2020 overturn posture and the dual-loyalty framing of a colleague, are influences a careful citizen would not want propagated. Drag toward Favoritism and away from Love of Truth. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 12/40 |
Total 12/40, Weak. The pillars track the conduct composite: a criterion-8 instrument plus a pattern of person-directed confrontation, with little affirmative character evidence to offset.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I question her either loyalty or competence.”
Fox News, referring to Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA); doubled down when accused of xenophobia · NBC News · CONTESTED · cite
“No one will disrespect President Trump in front of me.”
After physically ripping Rep. Melanie Stansbury's 'This is not normal' sign on the House floor during Trump's joint-session address · The Hill · CONTESTED · cite
“It's not 'xenophobic' to question where her loyalty lies.”
Defending his remarks about Rep. Judy Chu · Axios · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Lance Carter Gooden (born November 1, 1982). U.S. Representative for Texas's 5th congressional district since 2019 (TX-05). A Republican, he previously served in the Texas House of Representatives (District 4) from 2011 to 2015. Raised in Terrell, Kaufman County, in the eastern Dallas suburbs. In the 119th Congress he sits on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. Running for re-election in 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index in the "very poor" band (~ -1.07, ~347th in the House for the 118th Congress), among the least bipartisan members measured. DW-NOMINATE places him on the right of the House Republican conference. Committee assignments: Judiciary and Armed Services. Legislative focus on immigration and sanctuary-city measures and Judiciary matters. Bipartisanship is scored as a measured metric only, not as party or ideology.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional moment on the record is adverse: Gooden signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and then voted against certifying electors from Arizona and Pennsylvania on January 6, 2021. Per the framework, the certification VOTES themselves are the constitutional process functioning and are NOT scored against M01/M07/M11; the amicus signature is the criterion-8 process-subversion instrument that caps M01 and hits M04.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
A confrontational rhetorical posture aimed at persons rather than policy. The clearest documented marks are the February 2023 dual-loyalty framing of Rep. Judy Chu, "I question her either loyalty or competence," defended rather than retracted, and the March 2025 floor sign-snatch from Rep. Melanie Stansbury with the follow-up "No one will disrespect President Trump in front of me." These are weighed as person-directed heat and anti-belonging framing, distinct from ordinary policy combat.
5. Fiduciary Profile
In September 2021 the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics alleging Gooden failed to timely disclose roughly a dozen 2020 stock purchases under the STOCK Act. Gooden disputed it, citing the periodic-transaction-report reporting threshold. The matter is uncharged and unresolved and is weighed here as an appearance-concern, not a finding; the drag is the dismissive posture rather than any proven breach. No documented office-attributable self-dealing, family payments, or foreign-government revenue.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One capping flag under Criterion 8 (process subversion): Gooden is a verified signatory of the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives, a legal instrument used to seek nullification of four states' certified electoral votes. This caps M01 at the floor and forecloses author support regardless of composite. A pattern of person-directed enemy-framing (the dual-loyalty attack on Rep. Chu, the floor sign-snatch, calls to "investigate" a colleague and an appointee on loyalty grounds) is documented; it is weighed heavily across M03/M05/M12 and noted toward Criterion 10, though it is held as serious conduct drag rather than a second capping flag absent a more sustained, explicit incitement record. Flag count: one capping.
7. What The Framework Says
Gooden's record is held below the bar by conduct, not by party or policy. The criterion-8 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, an instrument to discard certified electoral votes, caps the constitutional-fidelity measure at the floor and forecloses support on its own. Around it sits a consistent pattern of person-directed confrontation: questioning a colleague's loyalty to her own country and doubling down, physically seizing another member's sign on the House floor, and a "very poor" bipartisanship score. The STOCK Act complaint is weighed honestly as an unresolved appearance-concern, not a finding. With little affirmative character evidence to offset, the record lands in the Failing band. Not supported.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Reps)
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · NBC News, Chu loyalty remarks · The Hill, Stansbury sign incident · NPR, STOCK Act complaint
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Reps) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.