Composite 3.78 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Foreclosed by a confirmed Criterion-8 process-subversion flag: Harris signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020), legal-on-its-face power deployed to defeat a certified presidential election, a constitutional purpose. That capping flag drives M01 to its floor and forecloses support regardless of composite. Independent of the flag, the conduct record carries genuine drags (a near-physical floor confrontation during the Jan-6 certification debate; carrying a firearm into the Capitol setting off the House magnetometer) alongside a near-bottom bipartisanship rank. No office-driven enrichment is on record. The constitutional-process votes themselves are NOT scored, only the amicus signature, which the framework names as crit-8.
Andy Harris is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives, filed Dec 11 2020, which asked the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This is legal-on-its-face power (an amicus filing) deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose, a completed, certified presidential election. The framework names signing this specific amicus as crit-8, distinct from a bare Jan-6 floor objection. It drives M01 to its floor and forecloses author_verdict.support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), Supreme Court docket 22O155 · Star Democrat, Harris explains support for the Texas suit to block the certified result
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. Andy Harris is a practicing anesthesiologist (M.D., Johns Hopkins) and a former Maryland state senator; medical and civilian-legislative background only. This field carries no score, service is contextual, not a credit.
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 | 2 | why?CAPPING, Criterion 8 (process subversion). Harris is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania
amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in four states won by the
opposing candidate. Signing the amicus is legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose
(a completed, certified election) and is named by the framework as crit-8 conduct, distinct from a bare
floor objection. This drives M01 to the 2-3 floor. The Jan-6 certification VOTES themselves are not scored
(the constitutional process working); the amicus signature is.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 2 | why?Near the bottom of the Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index across multiple Congresses (ranked among the ten
worst, ~407th-426th of the House). As Freedom Caucus chairman his posture is consistently maximalist.
This is a conduct/process measure of working-across-the-aisle behavior, not a policy or party penalty, scored low on the documented pattern of placing factional position over institutional cooperation, with
the amicus and floor-confrontation conduct reinforcing the direction.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 4 | why?A documented instance of casting opponents as illegitimate: Harris appeared close to a physical
confrontation with Democratic colleagues during the 2 a.m. Jan-6 certification debate. Combined with the
election-overturning amicus posture, this is a real anti-belonging drag, though it does not rise to a
sustained crit-10 incitement pattern. Lower-middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Criterion-8 conduct hits M04 as well as M01: the amicus sought to use judicial power to nullify another
state's lawful electoral choice, an attempt to weaponize process against the electorate's verdict.
Outside the amicus there is no documented weaponization of state power against named rivals, which keeps
this in the lower-middle rather than the floor.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Rhetoric is generally measured and physician-framed rather than incendiary; no sustained enemy-making
pattern on record. The drag is the near-confrontation at the Jan-6 debate and combative caucus posture.
Middle: restraint dominates day-to-day, with documented heated exceptions.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?No adjudicated ethics finding, sanction, or STOCK Act citation on record. Harris co-sponsored a
congressional stock-trading ban, which weighs modestly positive on fiduciary self-restraint. No
affirmative pattern of voluntary accountability for the contested 2020-21 conduct, which keeps this at
the middle rather than higher.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instances of Harris
breaking with his faction or co-partisans on a matter of principle at personal cost; as Freedom Caucus
chairman his record is one of enforcing alignment rather than challenging it. The 2020-21 election
conduct ran with his side, not against it. Low.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?The discretion test asks how power and access are used when unobserved or unconstrained. On Jan 21 2021
Harris set off the new House-chamber magnetometer with a concealed firearm and was reported attempting to
hand the gun to another member to enter and vote, a documented circumvention attempt of a security
control under the appearance of using office access improperly. Stated as personal self-defense amid
family threats (mitigation noted). A real lapse in restraint, not an enrichment scheme. Lower-middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented gap between a private contempt and a public face; the combative posture is consistent on
and off camera rather than two-faced. Neutral middle absent affirmative evidence either direction.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Documented district appropriations and constituent-service activity (e.g., announced HHS funding for a
district health system, 2026). Balanced against a near-bottom cooperation rank that can limit
deliverables. Middle: real constituent attention, factional posture as a counterweight.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, foreign-government revenue). None is documented, modest publicly-traded holdings (~$62.5K) with no
adjudicated STOCK Act violation, and he co-sponsored a trading ban. Raw wealth is NOT penalized. Held
below a top mark only for the absence of an unusually strong proactive disclosure posture; no breach.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 3 | why?Institutional-decorum measure. Two documented breaches of the deliberative/security norms of the chamber:
the near-physical confrontation during the certification debate and the magnetometer firearm incident.
Together these show a recurring willingness to treat the institution's rules and decorum as obstacles.
Low.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Truthfulness drag: as a physician, Harris promoted off-label COVID treatments (ivermectin,
hydroxychloroquine framing) outside the prevailing evidence base, and advanced doubt about a certified
election ("the outcome is probably in doubt"). These are documented departures from established fact in
a position carrying medical and civic authority. Lower-middle; not a sustained fabrication pattern across
all domains.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Genuine substantive command in his lane: a practicing physician who leads Agriculture-FDA appropriations
work (introduced the FY2027 Agriculture-Rural Development-FDA appropriations bill, 2026). Substance over
pure talking points within his subject areas. Held off a higher mark by the evidence-departures noted at
M13. Upper-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 11 2020) asking the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in four states ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, oath/separation-of-powers breach | Framed as a constitutional concern about state-legislature authority; framework treats the amicus signature itself as crit-8 regardless of framing |
| M12 | Near-physical confrontation with colleagues during the 2 a.m. Jan-6 certification floor debate ↳ Institutional-decorum breach | Heated overnight debate context; no physical contact occurred |
| M08 | Set off the House-chamber magnetometer with a concealed firearm Jan 21 2021 and reportedly sought to hand it to another member to enter and vote ↳ Discretion/security-norm circumvention | Stated as personal self-defense amid documented threats to his family; no charges filed |
| M13 | Promoted off-label COVID treatments outside the evidence base and amplified doubt about a certified election ↳ Departure from established fact in a position of medical/civic authority | Operating as a credentialed physician offering clinical opinion; not adjudicated as fraud |
| M02 | Among the ten least-bipartisan House members on the Lugar/McCourt Index across multiple Congresses ↳ Factional position over institutional cooperation (conduct, not policy/party) | Index reflects coalition behavior, which partly tracks a deliberate ideological role |
| Pillar I | Amicus to overturn a certified election + floor confrontation ↳ Trust/Loyalty-to-oath drag toward Self-Interest/Faction | No documented personal-enrichment motive |
| Pillar IV | Crit-8 amicus + evidence-departures as influence one would not want propagated ↳ Legacy/Justice/Love-of-Truth drag | Substantive command in his policy lane tempers the legacy drag |
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?Attributes weighed: Loyalty-to-oath, Selfless Service, Steadiness. The Criterion-8 amicus to overturn a certified election is a direct drag toward Self-Interest/Faction over oath; the Jan-6 floor confrontation reinforces it. No countervailing documented act of placing oath above faction at cost. Low. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. Conviction and authenticity are real and consistent; the drag is the absence of documented self-correction on the 2020-21 conduct and the evidence-departures at M13. Lower-middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. Genuine district-service and appropriations stewardship, but power was directed at process-subversion (the amicus) rather than protection of the electorate's verdict. Net lower-middle. No documented exploitation for personal gain. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. Substantive command in his lane and a stock-trading-ban co-sponsorship weigh positive; the crit-8 amicus and the fact/evidence departures are durable drags toward Faction/Expedience. Lower-middle. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 15/40 |
Total 15/40. The pillars sit low because the load-bearing fact is a confirmed Criterion-8 capping flag, which the framework treats as foreclosing regardless of the genuine constituent-service and subject-matter competence that would otherwise lift the protection and legacy pillars.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“These states conducted their elections in a manner that I believe was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court should be the arbiter.”
Explaining his support for the Texas v. Pennsylvania suit seeking to overturn certified results in four states · Star Democrat (Eastern Shore) coverage · CONTESTED · cite
“We held legitimate Constitutional concerns about how the November election was conducted in certain states and felt compelled to highlight those concerns during the formal vote count.”
Statement after the Capitol attack, explaining his certification objections · Maryland Matters · CONTESTED · cite
“I have prescribed ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.”
Defending off-label COVID prescribing as a practicing physician-legislator · Washington Post · CONTESTED · cite
“I am carrying the firearm for self-defense due to threats against my family, and I always comply with security procedures.”
Office statement after he set off the House-chamber magnetometer with a concealed gun · Washington Post · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Andrew Peter Harris (born January 25, 1957). U.S. Representative for Maryland's 1st Congressional District since 2011; chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. A practicing anesthesiologist (M.D., Johns Hopkins; B.S., Johns Hopkins) who served in the Maryland State Senate before election to Congress. Represents the Eastern Shore; running for re-election in 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index near the bottom of the House across multiple Congresses (among the ten worst in some rankings). Leads Agriculture-Rural Development-FDA appropriations work and introduced the FY2027 appropriations bill (2026). Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. The Jan-6 2021 objection votes to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors are recorded as constitutional-process conduct and are NOT scored on the merits; only the separately-filed Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature is scored, as a Criterion-8 flag.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional-conduct fact is negative: Harris signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020) urging the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in four states, a Criterion-8 process-subversion act. He then objected to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors on Jan 6 (objection votes themselves not scored). The near-physical floor confrontation during the overnight debate and the Jan 21 2021 Capitol firearm/magnetometer incident are documented decorum and discretion breaches.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Day-to-day rhetoric is comparatively measured and often physician-framed rather than overtly incendiary; no sustained crit-10 enemy-making pattern is on record. The documented drags are the near-confrontation during the Jan-6 certification debate and the amplification of doubt about a certified election. Net middle on tone, with the conduct (not the words) carrying the heavier weight elsewhere.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No adjudicated ethics finding, sanction, or STOCK Act citation on record. Modest publicly-traded holdings (~$62.5K, per third-party tracking 2026); raw wealth is not penalized. Harris co-sponsored a congressional stock-trading ban, a positive fiduciary-restraint signal. No documented office-attributable enrichment, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. M11 reflects the clean enrichment record, not the broader conduct flags.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One confirmed Severity-class flag. CRITERION 8 (process subversion), tier capping, status confirmed: Harris is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (filed Dec 11 2020), seeking to invalidate certified electoral results in four states. Under the framework this is legal-on-its- face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose; it drives M01 to its floor, hits M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. No Criterion-10 sustained-incitement pattern is documented, the Jan-6 floor confrontation is a single heated instance, not a sustained pattern. Flag count: one (crit-8).
7. What The Framework Says
Harris is foreclosed by a confirmed Criterion-8 capping flag, the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature, before the rest of the record is even weighed. The standard scores conduct only: the certification VOTES and his party alignment are not penalized, and his real strengths (subject-matter command in appropriations and medicine, genuine constituent service, a clean enrichment record, a stock-ban co-sponsorship) are recorded honestly. But the amicus is an attempt to use judicial process to undo a completed, certified election, and the framework treats that as foreclosing. The Jan-6 floor confrontation and the Capitol firearm incident are additional documented decorum/discretion drags. Not supported.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (Supreme Court docket) · Congress.gov member profile · House Clerk financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Maryland Matters, Jan 7 2021 certification coverage · Washington Post, Jan 21 2021 Capitol firearm incident
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House financial disclosures · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.