Composite 4.78 / 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 522 (Unfit band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
LaHood is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief filed December 11, 2020 (the corrected brief of 126 Representatives), which asked the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and effectively reassign the outcome to state legislatures. Lending the standing of the office to a court filing aimed at defeating a certified election is the core of the process-subversion criterion. This floors M01 and drives down M04, and forecloses support. His later vote to certify is noted as mitigation that keeps M01 off the absolute floor, but does not lift the flag.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), Supreme Court docket 22O155 · WCBU Peoria, LaHood among House Republicans backing Texas effort to overturn election results
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. LaHood served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and as a state and federal prosecutor before elected office; that is public-service context, not a military service record, and is not scored as such.
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?Floored by a confirmed Criterion-8 process-subversion flag: LaHood is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020), a legal-on-its-face filing that asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral votes of four states and hand the outcome to state legislatures. Using a court filing to defeat the constitutional purpose of a certified election is the core of the capping criterion. Partially offset by his subsequent Jan-6 vote TO certify (not itself scored either way per the contamination rule), which keeps this at the 2-3 floor rather than 1, but the amicus is the controlling conduct. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Genuine, documented cross-aisle work: the No DeepSeek on Government Devices Act with Rep. Gottheimer (D) and a Joint Committee on congressional reform with Rep. Lipinski (D). Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index mid-pack-positive (~0.32, ranked roughly 46th-64th among House members). Solid but not top-tier institutional cooperation. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as people who do not belong. Public posture is conventionally partisan but not eliminationist. Held at the middle, not higher, because the amicus conduct treated the votes of citizens in four states as discardable, an instrumental disregard for their standing that tempers the belonging measure even absent inflammatory rhetoric. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Lowered by the same Criterion-8 flag that hits M01: lending a member's name to a brief seeking to overturn a certified national election is a misuse of the office's standing to defeat a constitutional process. No documented weaponization of investigative or prosecutorial state power against named rivals, which keeps this above the floor; the amicus is an abuse of process-adjacent standing rather than direct targeting. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetorical register is measured rather than incendiary; his stated framing favors institutional reform ('it can't just be rhetoric') and his impeachment statement cited a wish not to 'inflame and further divide.' No documented sustained enemy-making pattern. Upper-middle for tone, not higher because the temperate rhetoric coexisted with the substantively anti-process amicus act. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?A documented STOCK Act timeliness lapse: a ~$15,000 West Suburban Bancorp divestment (Nov 2022) was not disclosed until Sept 2024, roughly two years late versus the 45-day requirement. A real disclosure-discipline appearance-concern, modest in dollar terms and part of a broad bipartisan pattern of late filings; weighed as a drag, not a finding of self-dealing. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The higher bar here is calling out one's OWN side at cost. The record shows little of that: on the central in-party test of his tenure he joined the Texas amicus rather than break with the overturn effort, and declined to publicly hold his own party's leadership accountable for Jan-6 (his impeachment-vote choice is NOT scored, but the absence of any documented own-side call-out is). Below-middle for a thin record of independent accountability. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented instance of declining a personal benefit at cost for the public good, and no documented abuse of discretion for personal advantage. Middle by absence of evidence either direction on the discretion test. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; off-camera reputation appears consistent with the public posture. Held at the middle for lack of strong evidence either way. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Constituent-service posture is conventional; he drew documented criticism for declining an open town hall during the Feb 2017 recess, a modest accessibility note. No documented donor-capture beyond the ordinary. Middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. The single concern is a late STOCK Act disclosure of a small (~$15k) personal stock divestment, a transparency lapse, not enrichment from the office. Held just below high for that disclosure-discipline drag. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Generally observes institutional decorum and regular committee process (Ways and Means; subcommittee chair). His congressional-reform legislation signals stated respect for the institution. Tempered below high because lending his name to a brief that asked the Court to discard a certified election cut against institutional fidelity at the decisive moment. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No documented sustained falsehood pattern; his certification statement correctly stated that elections are entrusted to the states and Congress's role is limited to counting certified votes. That accurate framing is in tension with his prior amicus signature, which advanced the opposite premise. Middle for a mixed truth record on the central question. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Demonstrated substantive command in his committee lane, Ways and Means (tax, trade, healthcare, Social Security), chairing the Work and Welfare subcommittee, plus specific bill work (dietary-supplement HSA expansion, DeepSeek device security). Competent policy substance over pure talking points; 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 | Verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020) asking the Supreme Court to invalidate four states' certified electoral votes ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, capping | Subsequently voted TO certify on Jan 6 (not itself scored); keeps M01 at the 2-3 floor rather than 1 |
| M04 | Same amicus signature, office standing lent to an effort to defeat a certified election ↳ Abuse of office standing against a constitutional process | No documented direct targeting of named rivals with state investigative/prosecutorial power |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out his own party at cost on the central Jan-6-era test; joined the amicus rather than break ranks ↳ Active-duty own-side accountability not demonstrated | Impeachment vote itself NOT scored per contamination rule |
| M06 | STOCK Act disclosure of a ~$15k West Suburban Bancorp divestment (Nov 2022) filed ~2 years late (Sept 2024) ↳ Fiduciary disclosure-discipline appearance-concern | Small dollar value; part of a broad bipartisan late-filing pattern; no self-dealing alleged |
| M11 | Same late STOCK Act disclosure ↳ Transparency lapse, not office-driven enrichment | Not raw wealth; no family payments, foreign revenue, or office-info trading on record |
| M10 | Declined to hold an open town hall during the Feb 2017 recess, drawing constituent criticism ↳ Accessibility note | Otherwise conventional constituent-service record |
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 weighed: Loyalty to the oath, Courage, Steadiness. The decisive evidence is negative, he lent his name to a brief seeking to overturn a certified national election, a loyalty to a political outcome over the constitutional process. The later certify vote pulls this off the floor but the pillar sits below the midline. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection. His certify statement showed an accurate constitutional understanding, yet it followed an amicus advancing the opposite premise, a consistency gap. Stated commitment to congressional reform is a genuine positive. Net just at the midline. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Courage in Conflict. Real bipartisan legislative work (Gottheimer, Lipinski) and committee competence weigh up; the amicus, using influence to attack rather than protect the franchise of millions of voters, weighs down harder. Below midline. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. A durable mark on the legacy is the overturn-effort signature at the one moment institutional fidelity was most tested. Competent committee service and bipartisan bills temper but do not erase it. Below midline. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 17/40 |
Total 17/40. The Four Pillars track the conduct composite down: the Criterion-8 amicus signature is the controlling fact, and the genuine bipartisan and policy-competence positives are real but cannot lift a record that failed the central oath test.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“The Constitution is clear that the conduct of elections is entrusted to the states, not Congress, and that Congress' power is limited to counting the certified electoral votes the states submit.”
Statement explaining his vote to certify the 2020 Electoral College results · Rep. LaHood statement on Electoral College vote certification · PRINCIPLED · cite
“It can't just be rhetoric or a top-down approach. True change requires reforms in the way Congress operates to maximize accountability to the American people.”
On congressional reform · Peoria Magazines interview · CIVIC · cite
“[Signed the amicus brief arguing four states 'deliberately changed' election rules in a manner that 'usurped' the authority of state legislatures.]”
Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives, effort to invalidate four states' certified electoral votes · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected) · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Darin McKay LaHood (born July 5, 1968). U.S. Representative from Illinois, IL-18 from a 2015 special election, redistricted to IL-16 from 2023. Republican. Member of the House Ways and Means Committee; Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Work and Welfare; member of the Subcommittee on Trade. Former state senator and former federal and state prosecutor (Assistant U.S. Attorney). Son of former U.S. Transportation Secretary and Congressman Ray LaHood.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index mid-pack-positive (~0.32; roughly 46th in the 118th, 64th in the 117th). Documented cross-aisle work includes the No DeepSeek on Government Devices Act (with Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D) and a Joint Committee on congressional reform (with Rep. Dan Lipinski, D). Committee focus on tax, trade, healthcare, and welfare via Ways and Means. Policy substance is competent within lane; the signature institutional fact on the record is the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining moment is adverse: LaHood signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020), a verified signatory among 126 House Republicans, asking the Supreme Court to invalidate four states' certified electoral votes, a Criterion-8 process-subversion act. He then voted TO certify the Electoral College results on Jan 6, 2021 (recorded as the constitutional process working, NOT scored either way), and declined to vote to impeach, citing a wish not to "inflame and further divide" (also not scored). The amicus is the controlling constitutional-conduct fact.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Temperate register overall; stated framing favors institutional reform and de-escalation ("it can't just be rhetoric"; impeachment would "only inflame and further divide"). No documented sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern, Criterion 10 is not triggered. The tension on the record is not rhetorical heat but the gap between measured words and the substantively anti-process amicus signature.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-driven enrichment, family payments, foreign-government revenue, or office-information trading. The one concern is a STOCK Act timeliness lapse: a ~$15,000 West Suburban Bancorp divestment (Nov 2022) disclosed roughly two years late (Sept 2024) versus the 45-day requirement, a transparency appearance-concern, modest in scale and part of a broad bipartisan late-filing pattern.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class flag. Criterion 8, PROCESS SUBVERSION (capping), confirmed: LaHood is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020), a legal-on-its-face filing used to seek the defeat of a certified national election. This hits M01 (driven to the 2-3 floor) and M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. Criterion 10 (enemy-making/incitement) is NOT triggered, no documented sustained pattern. Flag count: one.
7. What The Framework Says
LaHood's record carries genuine positives, mid-pack bipartisan cooperation, real cross-aisle bills, competent Ways and Means committee substance, a measured public register, and an accurate constitutional statement when he voted to certify the 2020 result. But the standard is fixed against the oath, and a single confirmed Criterion-8 act controls: he signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to invalidate four states' certified electoral votes. That is a legal-on-its-face power used to defeat the constitutional purpose of a certified election. It floors M01, weighs on M04, and forecloses support regardless of where the composite lands. The later certify vote is real mitigation and is why this is not the absolute floor, but it does not cure the flag.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Representatives) · Congress.gov member record · Rep. LaHood statement on Electoral College certification
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · WCBU Peoria, Texas lawsuit backing · CapitolTrades, STOCK Act disclosure concerns
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Texas v. PA amicus (126 Reps, corrected) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.