Composite 5.77 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 604, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service record. Civilian background scored only as professional substance (M14), not as a badge: Iron County, Utah deputy/chief deputy county attorney; chief legal counsel to U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart (UT-2) before resigning to run in the 2023 special election. J.D., Brigham Young University.
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 | 6 | why?First-term member seated Nov 28, 2023, could NOT have signed the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and is not on the 126-signatory list; no fake-elector or run-out-the-clock conduct on record. Participated in the orderly Jan 6, 2025 certification of the 2024 election, which proceeded without disruption. No documented process-subversion conduct. Held at upper-middle rather than higher only for the thin tenure and the absence of an affirmative oath-defense moment at cost; no criterion-8 flag applies. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Defended bipartisan appropriations/spending-package votes in a GOP primary debate, taking heat from a same-party challenger who accused her of 'ceding' to Democrats, i.e., she accepted across-the-aisle negotiated deals at intra-party cost rather than reflexive obstruction. That is genuine institution-over-team conduct. Held at middle, not higher, because the record is short and the bipartisan posture is appropriations-driven rather than a documented pattern of cross-party authorship. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented anti-belonging rhetoric casting opponents or constituents as outsiders who do not belong. Called her primary challenger 'naive' in debate, ordinary political sharpness, not enemy-making. Net middle: clean of documented contempt, but a short record without a high-mark affirmative defense-of-an-opponent moment. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; no criterion-class conduct. Serves on Appropriations and Natural Resources without a record of using office to target adversaries. Middle reflects absence of both abuse and a documented power-constraining stand. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetorical record is measured for a first-term member; no documented pattern of incendiary or dehumanizing language. The 'naive' jab at a primary opponent is within normal range. No criterion-10 pattern. Middle for a clean but short rhetorical record. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?The 2023 residency/voter-registration challenge (Denning v. Maloy, alleging her inactive registration made her ineligible) was filed by a defeated convention opponent and DENIED by a 3rd District judge, a resolved/dismissed allegation weighed only as a minor appearance-of-process concern, never a finding. No ethics sanction, no rule violation found. Middle reflects the cleanly-resolved appearance note, not wrongdoing. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?The higher bar is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Maloy did defend bipartisan votes against same-party attack, a partial own-side stand, but there is no documented instance of her publicly naming wrongdoing or excess on her own side as a matter of principle. Middle-minus: some intra-party independence shown, no full accountability-against-allies moment on record. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented discretion-test event, no occasion where she declined a personal advantage offered by virtue of office. Note-only: a short tenure with no such moment either way. Middle reflects absence of evidence in either direction. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented gap between private conduct and public posture; no reporting of a contempt-behind-closed-doors pattern. Equally, no affirmative evidence of tested private integrity. Middle for an unremarkable, short public record. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Appropriations seat and bipartisan spending votes suggest constituent-service orientation; no documented donor-capture pattern. Held at middle for a short record and ordinary committee-driven fundraising, neither a documented constituent-over-donor stand nor a documented breach. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. Former county attorney and congressional counsel of modest means; no enrichment pattern on disclosure. Middle reflects a clean-but-unremarkable disclosure record, not raw wealth (which is not penalized). [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Regular-order, committee-focused posture on Appropriations and Natural Resources; no documented decorum breaches, no spectacle-seeking conduct. Defended institutional negotiated deals over performative obstruction. Upper-middle for a low-drama, institution-respecting first-term record. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. Consistently described her own bipartisan votes accurately rather than misrepresenting them to a hostile primary audience, and acknowledged the legitimacy of negotiated outcomes. Middle-plus for a short record clean of documented serial misrepresentation. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Trained attorney (former Iron County deputy attorney; chief legal counsel to Rep. Stewart) with substantive command of natural-resources/public-lands and appropriations subject matter relevant to her Utah district. Substance over talking points on her committee portfolio. Middle-plus, capped by short tenure and a not-yet-broad legislative footprint. [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 |
|---|---|---|
| M07 | No documented instance of publicly naming wrongdoing on her own side as a matter of principle, beyond defending her own bipartisan votes ↳ active-duty own-side call-out not met | Did defend across-the-aisle votes against same-party attack, a partial intra-party independence |
| M01 | Short tenure with no affirmative oath-defense-at-cost moment on record ↳ absence of high-mark constitutional stand | Clean of any process-subversion conduct; seated after Dec 2020 so no Texas v. PA exposure; certified 2024 election in orderly process |
| M06 | 2023 ballot-eligibility/residency challenge (Denning v. Maloy) over inactive voter registration at filing ↳ process appearance-of-eligibility concern | Filed by a defeated opponent and DENIED by a judge, resolved/dismissed allegation, never a finding; no sanction |
| M08 | No documented discretion-test event in either direction ↳ no evidence of tested discretion | Short tenure; absence of opportunity, not of integrity |
| M10 | Ordinary committee-driven fundraising; no documented constituent-over-donor stand ↳ constituent-vs-donor alignment unproven | No documented donor-capture either; Appropriations constituent-service orientation |
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
| 6 | why?Attributes: Steadiness, Loyalty to institution over team, defended bipartisan negotiated deals against intra-party pressure. Held at middle by a short record and no tested-courage moment; no drag toward Self-Interest or Collapse on record. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Authenticity, Conviction, described her own cross-aisle votes honestly to a hostile primary audience rather than disowning them. Middle: genuine but limited evidence; the 2023 eligibility challenge is a resolved appearance note, not an integrity finding. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, committee-focused, low-abuse record with no documented weaponization of office. Held at middle-minus by the absence of a documented power-constraining or own-side-accountability stand. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, regular-order fidelity, an early, low-drama institution-respecting record. Middle: too short to establish a durable legacy either way; clean of documented vice. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 23/40 |
Total 23/40, Adequate. The pillars sit at honest middles: a clean, institution-respecting, but brief first-term record with no extraordinary stand and no documented breach. The numbers reflect thin evidence, not demonstrated failure.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I'm not naive. Those deals were negotiated by U.S. lawmakers.”
GOP primary debate, defending her bipartisan spending-package votes against challenger Colby Jenkins · KSL.com primary-debate coverage · PRINCIPLED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Celeste Maloy (Republican). U.S. Representative for Utah's 2nd Congressional District since November 28, 2023, first elected in a 2023 special election to succeed Rep. Chris Stewart and re-elected to a full term in 2024 (winning a recount by 176 votes). Attorney by training (J.D., Brigham Young University); former Iron County deputy county attorney and chief legal counsel to Rep. Stewart. Serves on the House Appropriations and Natural Resources Committees; Executive Vice Chair of the Western Caucus. Running in 2026 for Utah's redrawn 3rd District.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
First-term member with a committee-driven, public-lands/appropriations-focused portfolio (Appropriations, Natural Resources). Notable conduct signal: defended bipartisan spending-package votes against a same-party primary challenger, accepting intra-party criticism for working across the aisle rather than reflexive obstruction. Policy positions (immigration, spending levels, public-lands stances) are NOT scored in either direction per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy.
3. Constitutional Moments
Seated November 28, 2023, after the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, so she is not on its 126-signatory list and bears no criterion-8 exposure from it. Participated in the orderly January 6, 2025 certification of the 2024 presidential election, which proceeded without disruption. No fake-elector, run-out-the-clock, or process-subversion conduct on record. No affirmative oath-defense-at-cost moment yet either, the record is short.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Measured rhetorical record for a first-term member; no documented pattern of incendiary or dehumanizing language and no enemy-making pattern. The sharpest documented instance is calling a primary opponent 'naive' in debate, ordinary political sparring, not anti-belonging rhetoric. No criterion-10 concern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment: no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue on House disclosures. Former public-sector attorney of modest means. The only process concern is the 2023 ballot-eligibility/residency challenge (Denning v. Maloy) over an inactive voter registration at filing, filed by a defeated convention opponent and DENIED by a 3rd District judge; a resolved/dismissed appearance note, not a finding, with no sanction.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. She could not have signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (seated after December 2020) and is not on its signatory list; she participated in the orderly 2024 election certification. No incitement or enemy-making pattern. Flag count: zero. No capping flag forecloses the verdict; the record falls short of support on composite, not on a severity gate.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest middle. Celeste Maloy's first-term record is clean of documented process-subversion, enrichment, and enemy-making, and carries one genuine positive conduct signal: defending bipartisan appropriations votes at intra-party cost. What holds the composite down is thinness, not vice, no tested discretion moment, no affirmative oath-defense stand, and a brief tenure that has not yet established the higher marks. The 2023 eligibility challenge is weighed only as a cleanly-dismissed appearance note. Adequate, with room to rise as the record lengthens.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House Clerk financial disclosures
Tier 2: Ballotpedia · Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index · KSL primary-debate coverage
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures · GovTrack profile · Official House site
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.