Composite 5.76 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 603, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service on record. Career background in law and business prior to elected office; long tenure in the Wisconsin Legislature (Assembly 1993-2004, State Senate 2004-2014) before the U.S. House. Listed for completeness; not scored.
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 | 7 | why?On the defining oath test of this cohort he acted with the Constitution and against his own party at cost.
He voted AGAINST both the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral objections on January 6, 2021, called the
effort "irresponsible" and "theatrical," wrote "the notion that Congress can undo an election is a dangerous
one," and published an op-ed warning that his colleagues' ploy "threatens the future of the electoral
college." He did NOT sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (verified against the 126-signatory list). No
criterion-8 process-subversion conduct on record; the certification votes themselves are the constitutional
process working and are not scored. Held at 7 rather than higher because the affirmative defense, while real
and at intra-party cost, is a single-episode stand rather than a sustained career pattern of institutional
risk-taking.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?Among the least bipartisan members measured: ranked second-most-partisan in the 114th Congress and 426th of
427 in the 115th, sponsoring qualifying bills with zero Democratic co-sponsors. This is NOT scored as
ideology or party, it is scored as a documented disinclination toward cross-aisle institution-building, the
conduct this measure tracks. Scores improved modestly by the 118th (215th, still below median). Compounding
the drag is a recurring habit of crude, group-derogating cultural rhetoric (e.g., calling for Kwanzaa to be
"slapped down") that cuts against the dignity-in-disagreement standard. Low-middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting political opponents as illegitimate or as enemies who do not belong, and no
incitement; on the central enemy-making test he was on the dignifying side in 2021, treating the objectors'
cause as wrong-but-legitimate-process rather than treason. The drag is rhetorical: cultural commentary that
derogated groups (Kwanzaa, repeated remarks blaming Black women for social problems) reads as anti-belonging
toward those groups even where aimed as policy argument. Middle: no opponent-as-enemy pattern, but a real
civility deficit.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals and no criterion-8 process-subversion conduct. He
declined to sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and voted against overturning certified results, the
inverse of abusing power to defeat a constitutional purpose. Upper-middle; not higher only because the record
is a backbencher's, with limited opportunity to either abuse or affirmatively constrain executive power.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 4 | why?A documented, repeated pattern of inflammatory and demeaning rhetoric toward cultural and demographic groups
across his state-legislative and congressional career, the Kwanzaa "slapped down" press release, the
"polled 20 black people at random" defense, and renewed 2021 comments blaming Black women for societal
problems. These are weighed as conduct/temperament, not policy positions. They are crude and divisive but do
not rise to sustained incitement or directed enemy-making, so no criterion-10 flag. Low: a real and recurring
rhetorical-restraint failure.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?One genuine fiduciary appearance-concern: multiple late STOCK Act disclosures of U.S. savings-bond purchases,
some filed up to roughly 14 months late. The amounts are small and the instruments (Treasury savings bonds)
carry near-zero self-dealing or information-advantage risk, so this is a compliance-discipline lapse rather
than enrichment. Notably, he has also sponsored member-financial-transparency legislation, a point toward
ownership of the issue. Middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 7 | why?Met the higher active-duty bar, calling out his OWN side at cost. In January 2021, amid overwhelming
intra-party pressure to object, he publicly labeled fellow Republicans' effort "irresponsible" and
"theatrical," voted against it, and put his criticism in print. That is the demanding form of this measure.
Held at 7 rather than the apex because the documented record is concentrated in this episode; outside it, cross-party accountability is thin.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented instance of preferential treatment sought for himself or improper use of discretionary access.
Equally, no standout affirmative demonstration of refusing an advantage. Default-middle on a thin record for
this measure.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; his blunt public rhetoric appears congruent with his
reputation rather than a mask, which cuts both ways here. Middle, on absence of evidence either direction.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Routine constituent-facing legislative activity (e.g., 2026 tax-loophole and transparency bills) and regular
district service, with no documented pattern of donor-capture overriding constituent interest. Upper-middle
on a conventional, unremarkable representational record.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue. The only blemish is procedural, late savings-bond
disclosures, which is a compliance issue, not enrichment. Held at 6 rather than higher solely because the
repeated late filings show weak disclosure discipline around personal finances.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?A mixed institutional-decorum picture. On the institution's most important test, the 2021 certification, he
defended regular order and the electoral process against spectacle, which weighs positive. Against that, his
habitual provocative public commentary trades on attention in a way that sits in tension with sober
office-keeping. Net middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern around election integrity, to the contrary, he publicly affirmed
the legitimacy of the certified 2020 result and warned against the false premise of congressional reversal.
The drag is his occasional reliance on anecdote-as-evidence ("polled 20 black people at random") in cultural
arguments, a loose-with-rigor habit. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 8 | why?Long, substantive engagement with detailed policy, welfare/work-requirement design, tax-loophole closure
(OPT Fair Tax Act 2026), member-financial-transparency legislation, reflecting genuine command of the
mechanics he legislates on rather than talking-point posturing. A real strength on this measure.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Among the least bipartisan members measured (2nd-most-partisan 114th; 426th of 427 in 115th); recurring group-derogating cultural rhetoric ↳ cross-aisle institution-building disinclination + dignity-in-disagreement deficit | Scored as conduct, not ideology; BPI improved modestly by 118th |
| M05 | Repeated inflammatory/demeaning rhetoric toward cultural and demographic groups (Kwanzaa 'slapped down'; 2021 remarks blaming Black women) ↳ rhetorical-restraint / temperament failure | Crude and divisive but not sustained incitement or directed enemy-making, no criterion-10 flag |
| M03 | Group-derogating cultural commentary reads as anti-belonging toward those groups ↳ Persons of Equal Worth drag | No opponent-as-enemy pattern; on the 2021 certification he was on the dignifying side |
| M06 | Multiple late STOCK Act disclosures of savings-bond purchases, some ~14 months late ↳ Fiduciary disclosure-discipline lapse | Small amounts, near-zero self-dealing risk; sponsored member-transparency legislation |
| M11 | Repeated late personal-finance disclosures ↳ process-compliance, NOT enrichment | No self-dealing/family payments/info-trades/foreign revenue, savings bonds only |
| M12 | Habitual attention-trading provocative public commentary in tension with sober office-keeping ↳ institutional-decorum drag | Defended regular order on the 2021 certification |
| Pillar II | Rhetorical temperament lapses cut against Temperance and Authenticity-as-dignity ↳ Temperance drag | Conviction and consistency of stated views are genuine |
| Pillar IV | Group-derogating rhetoric is influence one would not want propagated (Justice/Love of Truth) ↳ Legacy/Justice drag | The 2021 electoral-college defense is a legacy-positive Moral Courage moment |
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
| 7 | why?Attributes: Courage, Steadiness Under Pressure, the strongest evidence is the January 2021 refusal to join his own party's objection effort under heavy pressure, publicly and in print. Held at 7 by the absence of a broader pattern of costly institutional risk-taking. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, consistent, openly-stated views and willingness to break with party when he judged it wrong. Dragged toward Temperance's opposite by recurring crude rhetoric; the conviction keeps it at a solid middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Courage in Conflict, no documented exploitation of power; defended an opponent's process-legitimacy in 2021. A backbencher's limited footprint and the rhetorical lapses hold it at the middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Moral Courage, Integrity, the electoral-college defense is a durable legacy-positive. Dragged by group-derogating rhetoric that is influence one would not want propagated. Net middle. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 25/40 |
Total 25/40, a middling-but-honest record. The single clear high mark (the 2021 certification stand) lifts Trust & Loyalty; recurring rhetorical-temperament lapses cap the other three pillars at the middle.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“The notion that Congress can undo an election is a dangerous one.”
Explaining his vote against the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral objections · WTMJ Milwaukee · PRINCIPLED · cite
“My Republican colleagues' ploy threatens the future of the electoral college.”
Op-ed opposing the effort to object to certified 2020 electoral votes · Office of Rep. Glenn Grothman · CIVIC · cite
“Of course, almost no black people today care about Kwanzaa, just white left-wingers who try to shove this down black people's throats.”
Press release as a Wisconsin state senator calling for the holiday to be 'slapped down' · HuffPost / FOX6 Milwaukee · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Glenn Sanford Grothman (born July 3, 1955). U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 6th congressional district since January 2015; running for re-election in 2026. Previously served in the Wisconsin State Assembly (1993-2004) and Wisconsin State Senate (2004-2014, including as assistant majority leader). Attorney and small-business background; University of Wisconsin-Madison (B.A., J.D.). A conservative Republican known for blunt, frequently controversial public commentary.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index consistently below median and historically near the bottom (2nd-most-partisan in the 114th Congress; 426th of 427 in the 115th), improving modestly to 215th by the 118th. DW-NOMINATE places him on the right of his caucus. Substantive legislative focus on welfare/work requirements, tax policy (OPT Fair Tax Act 2026), and member-financial-transparency. The bipartisanship figures are recorded as conduct (cross-aisle institution-building) and the policy positions are NOT graded in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining moment is January 6, 2021: Grothman voted against both the Arizona and Pennsylvania objections, declined to sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, called the objection effort "irresponsible" and "theatrical," and published an op-ed warning that the "ploy threatens the future of the electoral college." He affirmed the legitimacy of the certified result and the danger of Congress purporting to undo an election, a backbencher acting with the Constitution against his own party's prevailing current.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
The clearest liability in the record. A recurring pattern of crude, group-derogating cultural commentary spanning his state-legislative and congressional careers, the 2012 Kwanzaa "slapped down" press release, the "polled 20 black people at random" defense, and renewed 2021 remarks blaming Black women for social problems. These are weighed as temperament and dignity conduct, not as policy. They are inflammatory and demeaning but do not rise to sustained incitement or directed enemy-making, so no criterion-10 flag attaches. The counterweight is his disciplined, process-respecting rhetoric on the 2020 election.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-driven enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. The lone fiduciary concern is procedural: multiple late STOCK Act disclosures of U.S. savings-bond purchases (some roughly 14 months late), small amounts in instruments with near-zero self-dealing risk. A disclosure-discipline lapse, not enrichment; partially offset by his sponsorship of member-financial-transparency legislation.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. He is NOT a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory (verified against the 126-name list) and cast no votes to overturn the certified 2020 result, so no criterion-8 process-subversion flag. His controversial rhetoric is crude and group-derogating but is not a sustained incitement or enemy-making pattern, so no criterion-10 flag. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest middle with one genuine high mark. On the cohort's central oath test, the 2021 certification, Grothman did the harder thing, breaking publicly with his party to defend the electoral process at intra-party cost, and that lifts the record. The standard counts the drags just as plainly: a long record of low cross-aisle institution-building, a recurring habit of crude and group-derogating public rhetoric that fails the dignity-in-disagreement standard, and a pattern of late personal-finance disclosures. Substantive on policy mechanics; uneven on temperament. A creditable-but-flawed record, neither a standout nor a failure.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile / record · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Representatives), signatory list · House financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · WTMJ Milwaukee (Jan 7 2021)
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · House financial disclosures · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.