Composite 4.68 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Foreclosed by a confirmed Criterion-8 capping flag, independent of composite. The Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and the affirmative votes to nullify Arizona's and Pennsylvania's certified electors are the use of legitimate office to defeat the constitutional purpose of a certified election. The genuine bipartisan legislation and clean decorum record are weighed and credited, but a capping flag cannot be outrun by an otherwise ordinary record.
Verified signatory of the December 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (one of 126 Representatives), which asked the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral results of four states Kustoff does not represent. He then voted to sustain objections to both the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral counts on January 6, 2021, after the Capitol was breached. Legal-on-its-face power used to defeat the constitutional purpose of a certified election: capping process-subversion conduct that hits M01 and M04 and forecloses author support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), Supreme Court docket · Counting of electoral votes (January 6-7, 2021), Ballotpedia
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 U.S. military service. Kustoff served as United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee (2006–2008) before elective office; that is civil public service, contextual only and not scored as a measure.
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. Kustoff is a verified signatory of the December 2020 Texas v.
Pennsylvania amicus brief, which asked the Supreme Court to throw out the certified electoral results of
four states he does not represent, a legal-on-its-face act aimed at defeating a constitutional purpose
(the peaceful transfer following a certified election). He then voted to sustain objections to both the
Arizona and Pennsylvania electors on January 6, 2021, after the Capitol was breached, and publicly
asserted unresolved "voter fraud" and "illegal ballots." Capping conduct: oath-fidelity floor, not a
curve. Held at 3 rather than 2 because the act was channeled through formal legal/legislative process
rather than extra-legal pressure.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?A genuine but modest cross-aisle record: the Save Struggling Hospitals Act with Terri Sewell (D-AL) and
the DO NOT Call Act with Deborah Ross (D-NC) are real bipartisan products on non-ideological subject
matter. Offset by an otherwise party-line voting posture. Honest middle, some bridge-building, no
sustained pattern of placing institution over party at cost.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as enemies who do not belong, and no
documented high-mark defense of an opponent's personhood either. A low-profile rhetorical record. Neutral
middle by absence of evidence in either direction.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Drawn down by the same criterion-8 process-subversion conduct that caps M01: lending the formal power of
his office to an effort to nullify another state's certified electors is a misuse of legitimate authority
against its constitutional purpose. No documented weaponization of state power against named individual
rivals, which keeps it from the floor; the abuse here is directed at the electoral process itself.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Generally measured public tone with no documented incitement or sustained inflammatory pattern. The 2020
election-fraud assertions are weighed under the capping criterion at M01/M04, not double-counted here.
Net middle, restraint without a notable high mark.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No adjudicated ethics violation, no House Ethics referral on record, and no STOCK Act enforcement action
tied to him in the sources reviewed. As a sitting member who actively trades equities, the structural
conflict-of-interest concern that attaches to any member portfolio is a mild appearance-drag, but there
is no documented breach. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard here is calling out one's own side at cost. The record shows the opposite at the
decisive moment: rather than hold his own party's president accountable for January 6, Kustoff framed
accountability as something that "would only further divide us." No documented instance of calling out
his own side at personal cost. Below middle.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented test of private discretion against personal advantage in the record, neither a notable
pass nor a documented failure. Neutral middle by absence of evidence.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented gap between a private posture and a public one; no reporting of a contempt-behind-doors
pattern. Neutral middle, low public profile, nothing on record either way.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Ordinary district-service record: appropriations secured for West Tennessee, rural-hospital legislation
relevant to the district. No documented donor-capture scandal, but no standout constituent-first stand
against donor interest either. Middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. None of these is documented. Raw personal wealth and ordinary disclosed
equity trading are explicitly excluded from this measure. No documented office-driven enrichment; neutral
middle.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?No documented breach of floor decorum, no censure, no disorderly-conduct incident. Routine institutional
comportment. Held below a high mark because the December 2020 amicus is itself a use of institutional
standing against an institutional purpose, tempering an otherwise clean decorum record.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Drawn below middle by documented public assertions of unresolved "voter fraud," "violation of election
laws," and "casting of illegal ballots" deployed to justify the objection, claims that ran ahead of any
adjudicated finding. Not a sustained career-long falsehood pattern, but a material truthfulness lapse at a
consequential moment.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?A former U.S. Attorney with substantive committee work on tax, financial-services, and rural-hospital
payment policy; the legislation he authors reflects working command of his subject matter rather than
talking points. Upper-middle on competence and substance.
[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) seeking to discard four states' certified electors, and voted to sustain objections to Arizona and Pennsylvania electors on Jan 6 2021 ↳ Process subversion (criterion 8), power used to defeat a constitutional purpose | Channeled through formal legal/legislative process rather than extra-legal pressure, floor set at 3 not 2 |
| M04 | Lent the formal authority of his office to nullifying another state's certified electoral result ↳ Misuse of legitimate power against its constitutional purpose | No documented weaponization against named individual rivals |
| M07 | Declined to hold his own party's president accountable for Jan 6, framing accountability as needless division ↳ Failure of the active call-out duty toward one's own side | none |
| M13 | Publicly asserted unresolved 'voter fraud' and 'illegal ballots' to justify the objection, ahead of any adjudicated finding ↳ Truthfulness lapse at a consequential moment | Not a sustained career-long falsehood pattern |
| Pillar I | The amicus + objection conduct is a direct break of the oath-fidelity the seat owes the constitutional order ↳ Trust & Loyalty drag, loyalty to outcome over institution | Process-channeled, not violent or extra-legal |
| Pillar IV | The election-nullification posture is the defining mark on the legacy ↳ Legacy/Virtue drag, Integrity and Love of Truth | Genuine bipartisan legislation and clean decorum temper but do not erase it |
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?Attributes: Loyalty, Courage, Steadiness, the load-bearing fact is the December 2020 amicus and the Jan 6 objection votes, which subordinate institutional loyalty to a desired electoral outcome. The drag toward Self-Interest/outcome-loyalty dominates this pillar; process-channeling keeps it off the floor. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, consistent positions and a real legislative work ethic, but no documented self-correction on the 2020 conduct. Middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, ordinary district stewardship (appropriations, rural hospitals) with no documented exploitation, offset by lending office-standing to election nullification. Middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Love of Truth, the election-fraud assertions and amicus are the defining mark; genuine bipartisan bills temper without erasing. Below middle. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 18/40 |
Total 18/40. The pillars track the conduct composite down because the capping conduct is a Trust & Loyalty and Legacy/Virtue event, not a peripheral blemish.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Numerous sworn affidavits with election irregularities remain unsolved, including reports of voter fraud, violation of election laws, and the casting of illegal ballots.”
Statement announcing his objection to certifying the 2020 electoral results · Ballotpedia / contemporaneous reporting · CONTESTED · cite
“Impeaching President Trump during his last seven days in office would only further divide us as Americans.”
Explaining his vote against the second impeachment of President Trump for Jan 6 · Ballotpedia / contemporaneous reporting · CONTESTED · cite
“Bipartisan Save Struggling Hospitals Act to fix Medicare payment formulas for rural and lower-wage areas.”
Legislation introduced with Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) · House.gov press release · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
David Brian Kustoff (born October 6, 1966). U.S. Representative for Tennessee's 8th Congressional District since January 3, 2017 (R). Attorney; United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee 2006–2008. Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Running for re-election in the 2026 cycle.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Center-right voting record largely aligned with the House Republican Conference. Authored genuinely bipartisan measures on narrow, non-ideological subjects, the Save Struggling Hospitals Act with Terri Sewell (D-AL) and the DO NOT Call Act with Deborah Ross (D-NC). District-focused appropriations work for West Tennessee. The defining constitutional-conduct events are the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and the January 6, 2021 objections, recorded as conduct, NOT graded on policy or party.
3. Constitutional Moments
The decisive moment is adverse. Kustoff is a verified signatory of the December 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to discard four states' certified electors, and he voted to sustain objections to both the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral counts on January 6, 2021 after the Capitol breach. He then voted against the second impeachment. The impeachment vote itself is treated as a constitutional-process vote and is NOT scored; the amicus and the affirmative objection votes are the process-subversion conduct that caps the record.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally measured public tone with no documented incitement or sustained enemy-making pattern. The notable rhetorical drag is the 2020–2021 assertion of unresolved "voter fraud" and "illegal ballots" advanced to justify the electoral objection, weighed at M01/M13.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No adjudicated ethics finding, no House Ethics referral, and no STOCK Act enforcement action tied to Kustoff in the sources reviewed. He trades equities while in office, which carries the generic structural conflict-of-interest concern that attaches to any member portfolio, but no office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, family payment, or foreign-government revenue is documented. Raw wealth and ordinary disclosed trading are excluded from the enrichment measure by rule.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class concern: Criterion 8 (process subversion), confirmed. Kustoff signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief and voted to sustain the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral objections, legal-on-its-face conduct aimed at defeating the constitutional purpose of a certified election. This is a CAPPING flag: it sets the M01 floor (3) and forecloses author support regardless of composite. No Criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement pattern is documented. Flag count: one (criterion 8).
7. What The Framework Says
Kustoff presents an otherwise unremarkable institutional record, modest genuine bipartisanship, clean floor decorum, ordinary district service, no documented enrichment or ethics finding, that is decisively marked by a single capping event. Signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and voting to nullify two states' certified electors is the use of legitimate office against the constitutional order it is sworn to defend. Under a fixed oath standard that is not a partisan judgment and not a policy judgment; it is the conduct the framework treats as foreclosing. The bipartisan bills and competent committee work are weighed honestly and temper the pillars, but they do not lift the capping flag.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Representatives) · Congress.gov member profile
Tier 2: Ballotpedia · GovTrack
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.