Composite 5.1 / 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 547 (Unfit band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Graves signed the December 11, 2020 amicus brief of 126 House Republicans in Texas v. Pennsylvania, which asked the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral results of four states and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. Verified against the Supreme Court docket signatory list. This is legal-on-its-face power (an amicus filing) deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose, the textbook Criterion 8 case, and it caps M01 at the process-subversion floor and forecloses support. The Jan 6 certification objection vote is separate and not counted here.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (Supreme Court 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 record of military service. Samuel Bruce Graves Jr. is a sixth-generation Missouri farmer who farmed the family operation near Tarkio before and during public office. Service to country is honored as context where present; here there is none to score, and the absence is neutral, character is scored on conduct, not biography.
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 at the process-subversion floor. Graves is a confirmed signatory of the December 11, 2020
Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, which asked the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral
results of four states and throw the choice of President to a contingent process. That is a legal-on-its-
face power deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose, the peaceful transfer of power on certified
results, and it triggers Criterion 8. The Jan 6 certification objection VOTE itself is the constitutional
process and is NOT scored here; the amicus signature is the separate affirmative act that subverts. Floor
2-3; set at 3 because the conduct was a one-time litigation join rather than a sustained organizing role.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?A genuine, documented bipartisan-legislator reputation pulls against an only-middling formal index.
As Transportation & Infrastructure chair he is described across the trade and political press as running
"a work committee, not a show committee," and his Democratic ranking member Rick Larsen publicly credited
his bipartisan approach to infrastructure and safety. The Lugar BPI places him only near the House median
(roughly 156th, slightly below center), so the score is upper-middle, real cross-aisle governing on his
committee, not a chamber-leading bridge-builder by the index.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of anti-belonging rhetoric casting opponents or constituents as people who do not
belong; his public posture is transactional-legislative rather than enemy-making. Held at the honest
middle rather than higher because the 2020 amicus join, asking that millions of certified votes in four
states be discarded, is itself an act that treats those voters' participation as nullifiable, a structural
belonging concern even absent inflammatory language.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Criterion 8 hits Power Restraint as well as M01. Signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus was the use of
institutional standing to attempt to overturn another state's certified election through the courts, the
opposite of self-restraint in the exercise of power. No documented weaponization of state machinery against
named rivals (investigation, prosecution, targeting), which keeps this off the floor; but the affirmative
attempt to void certified results is a real restraint failure.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Generally measured, low-theater public rhetoric over a long career, the "old school," work-not-show
committee reputation supports rhetorical restraint. Upper-middle rather than high because the 2009 attack
on the Office of Congressional Ethics as a "political smear" (while himself under its review) is a
self-interested rhetorical move against an accountability institution, weighed but not dispositive.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?A real but resolved appearance-concern. In 2009 the independent Office of Congressional Ethics found
"substantial reason to believe" Graves created an appearance of conflict of interest by inviting a family
business associate (his wife's ethanol-cooperative co-investor) to testify at a Small Business Committee
hearing on renewable-fuel subsidies without disclosing the tie on the record. The House Ethics Committee
found no rule violation and closed it. Under the evidentiary rule this is a weighed appearance-concern,
never a finding; honest middle. No affirmative public ownership documented, which keeps it from rising.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost, and there is no documented instance of
Graves doing so on a matter of principle. He joined the 2020 amicus with his party rather than breaking
from it. (Per the contamination rule, this measure is NOT scored on the certification vote or caucus
alignment as such, only on the absence of any documented own-side accountability.) Below middle for the
missing affirmative duty, not floored because there is no documented active complicity-by-silence in
sustained wrongdoing beyond the one capped event.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?The discretion test asks what one does with unobserved power. The 2009 hearing-invitation episode is the
one documented instance bearing on it: a discretionary committee act (choosing a witness) used in a way the
OCE found created an appearance of personal benefit. Resolved without sanction, so weighed not penalized as
a finding; the absence of any other documented quiet self-dealing keeps this at the honest middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; cross-aisle colleagues describe a consistent, low-drama
operator on and off camera. Upper-middle on the strength of a consistent reputation rather than a
documented affirmative high mark.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?A long record of district-focused infrastructure and transportation work that maps to a rural Missouri
constituency's interests, and a "work committee" governing posture. Upper-middle rather than high because
the framework treats representation as fidelity to constituents-as-citizens-in-a-constitutional-order, and
the 2020 amicus stood against the certified will of voters generally, a tension with the representation
ideal that holds this off a higher mark.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The one office-linked concern is the 2009
episode where his wife's small renewable-fuel co-op stakes intersected with a hearing he convened, a
resolved appearance-concern (no violation found), weighed lightly. No documented family payroll, office-
information trades, or foreign-government revenue. Upper-middle: a single resolved appearance-concern, no
pattern of self-dealing.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Strong institutional decorum in his committee role, regular-order, work-over-spectacle, oversight conducted
through process rather than theater, durable bipartisan committee relationships across 13 terms. Held below
the top tier because honoring the institution sits in real tension with the 2020 amicus, which asked a court
to override the institutional result of a national election.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern in his own public statements. Held at the middle because the 2020
amicus he signed advanced legal claims of election irregularity in four states that courts uniformly
rejected for lack of evidence; lending his name to those claims is a truth-fidelity drag even though he was
not their author.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Genuine substantive command of his portfolio, transportation, infrastructure, aviation, and small-business
policy across two decades, culminating in the T&I chairmanship and major surface-transportation and FAA
reauthorization work. Substance over talking points within his lane; held below the apex because the depth
is concentrated in his committee subject-matter rather than broad constitutional stewardship.
[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 discard four states' certified electoral results ↳ Criterion 8 process subversion, defeating a constitutional purpose via legal-on-its-face power | One-time litigation join, not a sustained organizing role; certification vote itself not scored here |
| M04 | Same amicus join used institutional standing to attempt to void another state's certified election ↳ Power-restraint failure (Criterion 8 cross-hit) | No documented weaponization of state machinery against named rivals |
| M06 | 2009 OCE found 'substantial reason to believe' an appearance of conflict of interest re a hearing witness tied to his wife's ethanol-cooperative investment ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety | House Ethics found no rule violation and closed it; weighed as appearance-concern, never a finding |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out his own side at cost on a matter of principle ↳ Active own-side-accountability duty unmet | No documented sustained complicity-by-silence beyond the one capped event; certification vote not counted here |
| M13 | Amicus advanced court-rejected election-irregularity claims in four states ↳ Truth-fidelity drag (lent name to evidence-free claims) | Was a signatory, not the author of the claims |
| M05 | 2009 public attack on the Office of Congressional Ethics as a 'political smear' while himself under its review ↳ Rhetoric weaponized against an accountability institution | Otherwise low-theater, measured career rhetoric |
| Pillar I | The 2020 amicus is a loyalty-to-faction-over-oath act at a constitutional inflection point ↳ Trust/Loyalty drag toward Self-Interest | Long steady institutional service otherwise |
| Pillar III | Power used (via litigation) to attempt to override certified results ↳ Protection/Stewardship drag | No exploitation of office for personal targeting; genuine committee stewardship |
| Pillar IV | The amicus signature is an influence one would not want propagated into the civic order; 2009 appearance-concern asterisk ↳ Legacy/Integrity drag | Bipartisan work-committee legacy tempers but does not erase the Criterion 8 mark |
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
| 5 | why?Attributes: Steadiness, Selfless Service, Loyalty, a long, low-drama institutional career supports Steadiness, but the 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus is a documented choice of faction over the oath at a constitutional inflection point, a real drag toward Self-Interest that holds this at the midpoint despite the durable service. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability, an authentic, consistent public persona, but no documented self-correction on the amicus or the 2009 appearance-concern (which he met by attacking the ethics office rather than owning the optics). The absence of documented Self-Reflection caps this at the middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, genuine committee stewardship and constituent infrastructure work pull up; the use of litigation to attempt to override certified results and the unmet own-side-accountability duty pull down. Net midpoint. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth, a respected bipartisan work-committee legacy is real, but lending his name to evidence-free election claims and the Criterion 8 amicus are durable asterisks on the constitutional-fidelity ledger. Midpoint. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 20/40 |
Total 20/40, Mixed. The pillars sit at the midline: a steady, substantive, bipartisan committee legislator on one side of the ledger, a Criterion 8 process-subversion act and an unowned appearance-concern on the other. The capping flag, not the pillar total, is what forecloses the verdict.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Transportation and Infrastructure is a work committee, not a show committee.”
Characterization of his chairmanship approach, widely reported · Roll Call profile · CIVIC · cite
“This is nothing more than a political smear.”
Responding to the Office of Congressional Ethics review of his Small Business Committee hearing-witness invitation · The Hill, 2009 · CONTESTED · cite
“Signatory, Brief of Amici Curiae 126 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Plaintiff, Texas v. Pennsylvania.”
Joined the amicus asking the Supreme Court to discard four states' certified electoral results · Supreme Court docket 22O155 · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Samuel Bruce Graves Jr. (born November 7, 1963). U.S. Representative for Missouri's 6th Congressional District since 2001 (13th term). Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (2023-present); previously ranking member, and prior service on the Small Business and Armed Services committees. A sixth-generation farmer from Tarkio in northwest Missouri; member of the Missouri House and Senate before Congress. Announced March 27, 2026 that he will not seek re-election and will retire in January 2027.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index near the House median (roughly 156th, ~-0.118 in the 118th Congress), a middling formal score that understates a genuine committee-level bipartisan governing reputation. DW-NOMINATE places him solidly center-right within his conference. Signature lane: surface-transportation reauthorization, FAA reauthorization, aviation and infrastructure policy, and small-business regulatory matters. His T&I chairmanship is widely described as regular-order, oversight-driven, and "old school." The 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus is recorded as constitutional conduct (Criterion 8), NOT as a policy or partisan position.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining and capping moment is the December 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, which Graves signed along with 125 other House Republicans, asking the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral results of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He also voted to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral counts on January 6-7, 2021, that VOTE is the constitutional process and is NOT scored as misconduct under the contamination rule; the amicus is the separate affirmative act of process subversion. The 2009 OCE appearance-of-conflict review is the only sustained ethics episode, resolved without a rules finding.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally measured, low-theater public rhetoric across a long career, the "work committee, not a show committee" posture is the through-line, and there is no documented pattern of enemy-making or anti-belonging language. The notable rhetorical drag is the 2009 characterization of the Office of Congressional Ethics review as a "political smear", a self-interested attack on an accountability institution while under its scrutiny.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The one office-linked fiduciary concern is the 2009 episode: the OCE found "substantial reason to believe" an appearance of conflict of interest when Graves invited a witness (a co-investor with his wife in two small renewable-fuel cooperatives) to testify at a Small Business Committee hearing on renewable-fuel subsidies without disclosing the tie on the record. The House Ethics Committee found no rule violation and closed the matter; the wife's stakes were minor (fractions of a percent) and disclosed on his financial filings. Weighed as a resolved appearance-concern, never a finding. No documented family payroll, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Criterion-class concern: Criterion 8 (process subversion), CAPPING. Graves is a confirmed signatory of the December 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, a legal-on-its-face act aimed at defeating the constitutional purpose of certifying a national election. Per the framework this drives M01 to the 2-3 floor, cross-hits M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. No documented Criterion 10 (sustained enemy-making/incitement) pattern. Flag count: one (capping).
7. What The Framework Says
Sam Graves presents a real tension the standard is built to hold honestly: a steady, substantive, genuinely bipartisan committee legislator, the "work committee, not a show committee" chairman whose Democratic ranking member praised his approach, who nonetheless signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus asking the Supreme Court to throw out four states' certified electoral votes. The good governing record is counted, and it is not small. But Criterion 8 is a capping flag: lending institutional standing to an effort to override a certified national election defeats the constitutional purpose the oath exists to protect, and no amount of committee competence buys that back. The certification vote itself is left uncounted as the process working; the amicus is the affirmative subversion. The 2009 appearance-of-conflict episode is weighed as a resolved concern, not a finding. Support is foreclosed by the capping flag, independent of the composite.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Supreme Court docket 22O155, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus of 126 Representatives · House Committee on Ethics report 111-320 (2009) · Congress.gov member profile
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · Roll Call, T&I chairmanship profile
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House Ethics report 111-320 (2009) · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (SCOTUS docket) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.