DOCUMENT: CLS-REBUILD · CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC METHODOLOGY: SYMMETRIC · STATUS: ACTIVE

← Roster

588
Adequate
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
22/40
Weak
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 5.59 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.

Lands in the Adequate band at credit 588, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)

★ Service to Country
None · None · N/A

No military service on record. Mann's pre-congressional background is commercial real estate (Salina, KS) and Kansas state office (50th Lieutenant Governor, 2018–2019). Recorded for completeness; not scored.

The 14 measures

Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.

#MeasureScoreWhy
M01 Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law 5
why?
On January 6, 2021, Mann joined a joint statement (with LaTurner and Estes) announcing he would object, then voted to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors. Per the framework's contamination rule, the certification VOTE itself is the constitutional objection process working and is NOT scored against M01 as a finding. Mann was seated January 3, 2021, he could NOT have signed the December 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and is confirmed absent from that 126-member signatory list; no fake-elector, no post-seating effort to run out a clock or block an appointment. With the contaminated objection-vote driver removed and no documented crit-8 process-subversion, the score sits at an honest middle: he lent rhetorical weight to objections but did not cross into legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a certified result. Held at 5, not lower, because the only oath-stress item is itself a protected process; held at 5, not higher, because the joint announcement signaled willingness to contest a certified count. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 5
why?
Bipartisan Index score -0.65, ranked 194th in the House for 2023, below the historical average for cross-aisle cosponsorship but not at the floor. A middling collaboration record: works the Agriculture and Transportation committees on district-relevant bills with some bipartisan touch, but the overall index is below par. Honest middle. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 6
why?
No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as enemies who don't belong; crit-10 does not apply. He runs a sustained in-person listening tour across 60 counties, engaging constituents who disagree. Upper-middle: routine constituent access and no anti-belonging rhetoric on record, without a standout dignity-defense anchor. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 6
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; no criterion-class conduct. No findings either direction beyond the Jan-6 objection already addressed under M01 (and not double-counted). Clean middle. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 6
why?
Generally measured public rhetoric in town-hall settings, including criticism of figures in his own party (called Trump a 'cult leader' on border policy at the Colby town hall). No documented incitement or sustained enemy-making. Upper-middle. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 6
why?
No House Ethics Committee findings, no STOCK Act violation, no sanction on record. A commercial real-estate background that warrants ordinary appearance scrutiny, but nothing documented rises to a fiduciary finding. Clean middle absent a standout transparency anchor. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 6
why?
The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Mann did exactly this at a Kansas town hall, stating a bipartisan border bill was 'killed' by Trump and that Trump 'has no real interest in border security,' calling him a 'cult leader' on the issue, a documented break with his own party's leader before a home crowd. Real but issue-bounded rather than a sustained pattern of self-side accountability. Upper-middle. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 5
why?
No documented test of the discretion standard, no record of declining a preferential benefit or special treatment at personal cost, and equally no documented abuse of discretion. Neutral middle on an untested measure. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 6
why?
No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; the on-record posture (extensive open town halls, including hostile-questioner formats) matches the public brand. Upper-middle absent contrary evidence. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 5
why?
Represents a rural agriculture district and seats on Agriculture and Transportation committees aligned with constituent economic interests, reasonable institutional fit. No standout evidence of donor-over-constituent capture, and no standout evidence of independent constituent advocacy against party line. Honest middle. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 6
why?
M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue on record. Pre-office commercial real-estate wealth is not penalized as a breach. Absent any enrichment finding, the score reflects only the ordinary appearance scrutiny a real-estate-broker background warrants. Clean-leaning middle. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 6
why?
Ordinary institutional decorum on the floor and in committee; no documented decorum sanctions or spectacle-over-institution incidents. The Jan-6 objection is scored under M01, not double-counted here. Routine-middle. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 5
why?
The January 2021 joint statement lent weight to contesting a certified count, which sits in tension with the factual-accuracy standard. Offsetting it, his later town-hall candor (acknowledging a bipartisan border bill existed and was killed within his own party) shows willingness to state inconvenient facts. No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. Honest middle. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 6
why?
Demonstrated substantive command of agriculture and transportation/infrastructure policy relevant to his district, with committee-level engagement rather than pure talking-points. Upper-middle on substantive seriousness. [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.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M01 January 6, 2021 joint statement announcing objection and votes to sustain objections to AZ and PA electors
↳ oath-stress on a certified count
The certification objection is itself the constitutional process and is NOT scored as a finding per the contamination rule; Mann was seated Jan 3 2021 and did NOT sign the Texas v. PA amicus
M02 Lugar Bipartisan Index -0.65, ranked 194th in the House (2023)
↳ below-average cross-aisle collaboration
-
M13 Joint statement lending weight to contesting a certified 2020 count
↳ factual-accuracy tension
No sustained-falsehood pattern; later town-hall candor on a killed bipartisan bill cuts the other way
M08 No documented test of the discretion standard either direction
↳ untested measure, neutral
No abuse of discretion on record
M10 No standout evidence of constituent advocacy against party line
↳ constituent-vs-donor alignment, untested middle
-

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.

#PillarScoreWhy
I Trust & Loyalty
  • Would I follow them into uncertainty or adversity?
  • Would I trust them with my life or reputation?
  • Would I trust them to lead others honorably when the stakes are high?
5
why?
Attributes weighed: Loyalty to the oath versus loyalty to party. The Jan-6 objection signaled party-aligned loyalty under stress, but the objection process is constitutionally protected and not scored as a breach; offset by a documented willingness to break with his own party's leader on border policy at a home town hall. Net middle, neither extraordinary courage nor documented collapse.
II Aspiration & Integrity
  • Do I admire their values and how they live them?
  • Do they reflect the kind of person I hope to become?
  • Do I feel challenged to be better because of their example?
6
why?
Attributes: Authenticity and Self-Reflection, town-hall candor (naming a killed bipartisan bill, criticizing his own side) shows authentic engagement with inconvenient facts. Held at middle by the absence of a standout integrity anchor and the contesting-a-certified-count tension.
III Protection & Influence
  • Would I trust this person to protect what I love most?
  • Would I trust them to influence someone I care deeply about?
  • Would those under their authority be safer and better for it?
6
why?
Attributes: Stewardship and Accountability, substantive committee work on agriculture and infrastructure serving the district; extensive open listening tour. No documented Exploitation. Middle-positive.
IV Legacy & Virtue
  • Would I be proud if my child grew up to be like them?
  • Do they embody the virtues I want carried into the future?
  • If their influence continued in others, would the world be better or worse?
5
why?
Attributes: Integrity and Love of Truth, a developing record with the 2021 objection as the principal drag and the later self-side candor as the principal credit. Too early and too mixed for a high mark; honest middle.
TOTAL: Weak 22/40

Total 22/40, Adequate. A short, mixed record: the Jan-6 objection is the central oath-stress item but is procedurally protected and not a finding; the cross-party town-hall candor is the strongest affirmative signal. No criterion-class conduct in either direction.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“There was a bipartisan bill to secure the border last Congress, and Trump killed it. He has no real interest in border security.”

Colby, KS town hall, criticizing the leader of his own party on border policy before a home crowd · Indivisible MHK town-hall transcript · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

“I will be objecting to the electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania on January 6th.”

Joint statement with Reps. LaTurner and Estes announcing intent to object to the 2020 certification · Ballotpedia summary of certification objections · CONTESTED · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Tracey Lynn Mann (Tracey Robert Mann). U.S. Representative for Kansas's 1st congressional district since January 3, 2021 (117th–119th Congress). Previously the 50th Lieutenant Governor of Kansas (2018–2019). Commercial real-estate broker based in Salina, Kansas. Serves on the House Agriculture and House Transportation and Infrastructure committees. Running for re-election in 2026.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Lugar Center–McCourt Bipartisan Index -0.65, ranked 194th in the House for the 118th Congress (2023), below the historical average. Committee focus on Agriculture and Transportation & Infrastructure, aligned with a rural KS-01 agriculture district. First elected 2020, sworn in January 3, 2021; seeking re-election in the August 4, 2026 Republican primary and November 3, 2026 general election.

3. Constitutional Moments

January 6, 2021: issued a joint statement with Reps. Jake LaTurner and Ron Estes announcing he would object to the 2020 electoral certification, then voted to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors (both rejected by the House). Under the framework, the certification objection is the constitutional process functioning and is NOT scored as a finding. Mann was seated January 3, 2021 and therefore could not have signed, and did not sign, the December 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (verified absent from the 126-signatory list). No fake-elector activity, no documented effort to subvert an appointment or run out a clock. February 2025: publicly broke with his own party's leader on border policy at a Kansas town hall.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Generally measured in public, town-hall-heavy settings, a 60-county listening tour and repeated open forums, including hostile-questioner formats. No documented incitement or sustained enemy-making pattern; crit-10 does not apply. The notable rhetorical moment is a willingness to criticize the leader of his own party on border policy before a home crowd. The principal drag is the 2021 joint statement lending weight to contesting a certified count.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No House Ethics Committee findings, no STOCK Act violation, no sanction on record. Pre-office wealth derives from a commercial real-estate brokerage in Salina, Kansas, not office-driven enrichment, and not penalized as a breach. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. M11 reflects only the ordinary appearance scrutiny a real-estate background warrants.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any criterion. The January 6, 2021 objection is a procedurally protected constitutional process and does NOT meet the Criterion-8 process-subversion bar, a bare floor objection alone is not capping conduct, and Mann was seated after December 11, 2020, so he could not and did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus. No Criterion-10 enemy-making pattern on record. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

A short, honest-middle record. The central oath-stress item, the January 6, 2021 certification objection, is the constitutional process working and is not scored as a finding, and the contaminated raw M01 driver has been removed. The strongest affirmative signal is a documented willingness to break with his own party's leader on border policy before a home crowd. Below-average bipartisan collaboration and a thin discretion record keep the composite in the adequate range. No criterion-class conduct in either direction; no capping flag. Adequate, not exceptional.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House Clerk financial disclosures

Tier 2: Lugar Center–McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · Indivisible MHK town-hall transcript

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.

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: