Composite 4.32 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
A capping Criterion-8 flag (suspending an active election and voiding ~45,000 cast ballots by emergency order) forecloses support regardless of composite. Independent of the flag, the conduct-only composite sits in the lower bands: genuine legislative competence is outweighed by the weaponization pattern, the ethics-board self-restructuring, and the election conduct. Not supported.
In April 2026 Landry declared a state of emergency and issued an executive order suspending Louisiana's ongoing U.S. House primary two days before in-person voting and after roughly 45,000 ballots had already been cast, to allow the Legislature to redraw the congressional map following Louisiana v. Callais. Using legal-on-its-face emergency executive power to halt an election already underway and void cast ballots is process subversion at constitutional scale. A state court declined to issue a TRO, finding statutory authority, so this is weighed as confirmed conduct rather than an adjudicated illegality, but the act of stopping a live election by executive order is the conduct Criterion 8 exists to cap.
Evidence: NOLA.com, order halting elections faces barrage of lawsuits · NPR, U.S. House primaries in Louisiana suspended after Voting Rights Act ruling · Democracy Docket, Louisiana halts an active election
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. Jeff Landry worked in law enforcement (sheriff's deputy / police roles) and as an attorney before elected office; that civilian background is context, not a scored credential.
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?The defining conduct concern. In April 2026, after Louisiana v. Callais, Landry declared a state of
emergency and issued an executive order suspending Louisiana's ongoing U.S. House primary, two days before
in-person voting and after roughly 45,000 absentee ballots had already been cast, to give the Legislature
time to redraw the map. Halting an election already underway and nullifying cast votes by emergency
executive action is process-subversion at constitutional scale, regardless of the policy goal of
redistricting (which is not scored). A state judge denied an emergency TRO, finding the governor had
statutory authority to suspend the contest; that the action survived a TRO mitigates the legality question
but not the conduct of stopping a live election mid-stream. Scored low; capping flag recorded under
Criterion 8.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Cross-aisle governing conduct is mixed-positive. The 2025 tort and insurance reform package and several
measures drew genuine bipartisan support in the Legislature, and Landry worked with members across the
aisle to move them. Offset by a confrontational posture toward Democratic-leaning local governments
(notably New Orleans) and toward institutions he views as adversarial. Middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?The persons-of-equal-worth concern centers on the campaign against the Orleans criminal court clerk
position to obstruct an exoneree (wrongfully imprisoned 28 years) from assuming the office he was elected
to, attorneys alleged coordinated retaliation; a federal judge granted a TRO and found the abolishing bill
unconstitutional. That is a treatment-of-persons concern more than a documented enemy-making rhetorical
pattern, so it is weighed here as an appearance-concern rather than a finding. Middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?A documented pattern of retaliatory use of state and regulatory leverage against critics. Landry publicly
pressured LSU to discipline a law professor (Bryner) for in-class comments, then repeatedly targeted a
second professor (Levy) who criticized him; Levy was removed from teaching and a court ordered reinstatement
on First Amendment grounds via TRO, with Landry publicly musing it was "time to abolish tenure." Separately,
the coordinated effort to abolish the Orleans clerk position to keep an elected exoneree from office was
found unconstitutional by a federal court. Pointing state and institutional power at individual critics and
a local elected official is the weaponization concern this measure exists to capture. Scored low.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Rhetoric runs combative and grievance-framed (casting ethics enforcement as "weaponization," dismissive
remarks about discarded votes), but the record does not show a sustained pattern of casting citizens as
enemies who do not belong, or of inciting confrontation. Heat without a documented anti-belonging
incitement pattern. Middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 3 | why?The fiduciary record is the second major concern. The Ethics Board charged Landry over undisclosed free
private-jet travel; he settled in 2025, paying a fine and disclosing nearly $13,000 in unreported trips. He
was separately admonished for using campaign funds on a personal vehicle. Most significantly, while under
those charges, legislation overhauling the Ethics Board, drafted by Landry's own personal attorney who was
defending him, was passed, making it materially harder to charge officials and altering the very process
used against him. Using the office to reshape the body investigating you is a direct fiduciary breach of the
duty of disinterested stewardship. Scored low.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's own coalition at cost. The record shows alignment with, not
friction against, his own side and the national party leadership, Trump publicly thanked him for moving
quickly on the maps. No documented instance of opposing his own coalition at personal cost. Below middle.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?The discretion test asks whether power is used for self-benefit when no one is watching or constraining.
When the Ethics Board told his PAC to stop covering a gym membership and pushed back on his disclosures, the
response was to change the law rather than the conduct. The pattern of resolving constraints in his own
favor through the levers of office weighs against the discretionary standard. Below middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No strong documented gap between a private and public posture; Landry's combative, grievance-forward style
is consistent on and off camera. No specific private-contempt-versus-public-respect evidence on record
either way. Neutral middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Constituency fidelity is genuinely mixed in conduct terms: the insurance/tort agenda responded to a broadly
felt statewide cost crisis, which cuts toward constituent service. Against it, suspending an active election
disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters mid-ballot, a direct subordination of constituents' voting
access to a map outcome. The two roughly offset. Middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 4 | why?M11 captures only office-attributable enrichment. The documented items are office/campaign-attributable:
using campaign funds for a personal vehicle note (admonished by the Ethics Board), and accepting and failing
to disclose roughly $13,000 in free travel from donors connected to his offices. These are modest in dollar
terms but are the relevant category, value extracted via position. Below middle; not a raw-wealth penalty.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 4 | why?Institutional decorum is strained. Publicly pressuring a university over a professor's speech, floating
abolition of tenure in response to a critic, and restructuring an independent ethics body while it was
charging him reflect a posture of subordinating institutions to the governor's will rather than honoring
their independence. Below middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Truthfulness/candor concern. Characterizing the discarding of roughly 45,000 already-cast ballots as "not a
big deal" and "not my fault," after he had personally issued the order that voided the election, is a
material minimization of his own responsibility for a documented consequence. Framing ethics enforcement
against him as "weaponization" similarly recasts an adjudicated violation. Below middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive competence is a genuine strength. The 2025 session produced the largest tort reform in
Louisiana history and a substantial insurance-reform package aimed at a real statewide cost crisis, moved
with command of the legislative process and bipartisan votes. Competence and legislative effectiveness are
scored here irrespective of whether one agrees with the policy. Above 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 | April 2026 emergency executive order suspended an ongoing U.S. House primary two days before in-person voting and after ~45,000 ballots were cast, to allow map redrawing after Louisiana v. Callais ↳ Duty to rule of law / election integrity, halting a live election | A state court denied a TRO, finding statutory authority to suspend the contest; legality contested but not voided |
| M04 | Pattern of retaliatory pressure: publicly demanded LSU discipline professors who criticized him/Trump (Levy removed, court-reinstated on First Amendment grounds); coordinated effort to abolish the Orleans clerk position to obstruct an elected exoneree (found unconstitutional) ↳ Weaponization of state/regulatory power against critics and a local elected official | Courts intervened in each instance; no criminal adjudication of the governor personally |
| M06 | While under Ethics Board charges, legislation overhauling that board, drafted by his own personal defense attorney, was enacted, weakening the process used against him; settled the underlying charges in 2025 ↳ Fiduciary breach, reshaping the body investigating him | Settlement paid; reforms passed by the full Legislature, not by fiat |
| M11 | Used campaign funds for a personal vehicle note (admonished); accepted and failed to disclose ~$13,000 in free donor travel ↳ Office/campaign-attributable enrichment | Modest dollar value; fine paid and disclosures made under settlement |
| M13 | Called discarding ~45,000 cast ballots 'not a big deal' and 'not my fault' after issuing the order that voided the election ↳ Truthfulness / minimization of own responsibility | Statement of opinion on impact, not a fabricated factual claim |
| M08 | Responded to ethics constraints (gym/PAC ruling, disclosure pushback) by changing the law rather than the conduct ↳ Discretion test, resolving constraints in self-favor | Acted through legislation, not unilaterally |
| M12 | Pressured a university over protected speech, floated abolishing tenure to punish a critic, restructured an independent ethics body mid-charge ↳ Institutional decorum, subordinating independent institutions | Worked through formal legislative/administrative channels |
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?Loyalty runs strongly to his own coalition (Trump praise for the map move) rather than to the broader institutional duties of the office; the election-suspension and ethics-overhaul conduct show fidelity to outcome over fidelity to process. Drag toward Self-Interest is real. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Authenticity is consistent, he governs as he campaigns, but Self-Reflection and Teachability are weak: constraints from the Ethics Board and courts were met with efforts to remove the constraint rather than to correct conduct. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?The clearest pillar drag. Power was repeatedly pointed outward at critics (professors, a local elected official) and used to halt a live election, with courts repeatedly intervening, the inverse of Protection and Stewardship of the constituents' franchise. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Genuine legislative competence (historic tort/insurance reform) sits against an Integrity record marked by an adjudicated ethics violation and a self-protective restructuring of the body that charged him. Mixed legacy with real institutional drags. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 15/40 |
Total 15/40, the pillars track the conduct concerns: real legislative competence is outweighed by election-process and weaponization conduct that cut against the core institutional duties of the seat.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“It's not a big deal... it's not my fault.”
On roughly 45,000 cast ballots discarded after his order suspending the congressional primary · Democracy Docket · CONTESTED · cite
“weaponization of our government institutions”
Characterizing the Ethics Board charges against him while backing an overhaul of that board · Louisiana Illuminator · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Jeffrey Martin Landry. 57th Governor of Louisiana, sworn in January 8, 2024 (term through January 2028); Republican. Previously Attorney General of Louisiana 2016-2024 and U.S. Representative for Louisiana's 3rd district 2011-2013. Background in law enforcement and as a practicing attorney before elected office.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Gubernatorial record (conduct-relevant only; policy positions are not scored). Signature legislative achievement: the 2025 session's tort-reform package, described as the largest in state history, and a parallel insurance-reform effort responding to a statewide cost crisis, both moved with bipartisan votes. In 2025 the Legislature, with legislation drafted by Landry's personal attorney, overhauled the state Ethics Board's charging process while Landry was under charges from that board. In April 2026, following Louisiana v. Callais, Landry suspended the ongoing U.S. House primary by emergency executive order to permit map redrawing.
3. Constitutional Moments
The central constitutional-scale conduct event is the April 2026 suspension of an active congressional primary election, declared via emergency order after tens of thousands of ballots were already cast. Civil rights groups and candidates filed immediate challenges; a state court declined to issue a TRO, finding statutory suspension authority, while voting-rights plaintiffs argued the order exceeded constitutional authority and disenfranchised voters. Related court interventions include a federal TRO restoring an LSU professor removed after criticizing the governor, and a federal ruling that the bill abolishing the Orleans clerk position (used to obstruct an elected exoneree) was unconstitutional.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Combative and grievance-framed. Landry casts ethics enforcement against him as "weaponization," publicly pressures institutions (a university, the Ethics Board) over speech and oversight, and minimized the discarding of ~45,000 ballots as "not a big deal." The tone is confrontational but the record does not establish a sustained pattern of casting citizens as enemies who do not belong; the rhetorical concern is candor and institutional respect more than incitement.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Documented, office-attributable concerns. The Ethics Board charged Landry over undisclosed free private-jet travel from donors; he settled in 2025, paying a fine and disclosing nearly $13,000 in unreported trips, and was separately admonished for using campaign funds on a personal vehicle. Most significant for the duty of disinterested stewardship: while under those charges, an overhaul of the Ethics Board, drafted by his own defense attorney, was enacted, weakening the process used against him. This is reshaping the oversight body that was investigating you, the core fiduciary breach M06/M11 exist to capture.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One capping Severity flag under Criterion 8 (Process Subversion): using legal-on-its-face emergency executive power to suspend an election already underway, voiding ~45,000 cast ballots, to achieve a map outcome. A state court declined to enjoin it, so the conduct is recorded as confirmed process-subversion rather than an adjudicated illegality, but halting a live election by executive order reaches constitutional scale. The weaponization pattern (M04) and the ethics-board restructuring (M06) are serious but are scored within their measures rather than as additional capping flags. A capping flag forecloses author_verdict.support.
7. What The Framework Says
Landry presents a real split: genuine legislative competence (historic tort and insurance reform, moved with bipartisan support) against a cluster of conduct concerns that strike at the core duties of the seat, suspending an active election and voiding tens of thousands of ballots, pointing state and institutional power at critics, and restructuring the very ethics body that had charged him. Policy is not graded here; the competence is credited and the policy goals (redistricting, tort reform) are set aside. What remains, on conduct alone, is an executive who has repeatedly resolved constraints on his own power by removing or overriding the constraint. The election-suspension carries a capping Criterion-8 flag.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Office of Governor Jeff Landry, official news/orders · ACLU, emergency challenge to election suspension
Tier 2: NOLA.com / The Advocate · Louisiana Illuminator · NPR, Louisiana primary suspension · Democracy Docket
Research links: Office of the Governor · Ballotpedia · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.