Composite 4.9 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands below the bar. The 25-year OB/GYN record and substantive medical-policy command are real assets, but the conduct record is dragged by the January 6-7, 2021 votes to sustain objections to BOTH the Arizona and Pennsylvania certifications cast AFTER the Capitol breach, weighed as an in-process objection drag (he voted with the bloc but the documented record does not establish him as an organizer/leader/pressurer, so it is not floored as orchestrated nullification), together with a thin own-side-accountability record. The composite estimates near the Adequate range, beneath the ~6.93 support line.
No military service of record. Marshall served as a U.S. Army Reserve flight surgeon earlier in his medical career per public biography; this is noted as context, not scored, and is recorded note-only pending a deep-linked primary confirmation. The scorecard grades conduct in office, not biography.
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 | 4 | why?Voted to sustain the objections to both the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral certifications on Jan 6-7, 2021, after the Capitol breach. Under the process-subversion discipline rule this is weighed as an in-process objection drag, not floored as orchestrated nullification: the documented record places him among the bloc that voted to object but does not establish that he led, organized, or pressured officials. Raised from the contaminated import (3) which treated the objection as an automatic constitution-fidelity floor; the conduct-grounded read is a real but bounded drag on constitutional fidelity, held to the lower-middle rather than the subversion floor. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?Bipartisan-cooperation record is below median for the chamber; a reliably partisan voting posture with limited documented cross-aisle authorship. Scored on the thinness of bridge-building conduct, not on the direction of any policy position. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of denying opponents or constituents standing as persons of equal worth, and no documented dignity-stripping rhetoric of the dehumanizing class. Passive-clean on the persons-of-equal-worth axis lands at the middle; nothing affirmative pulls it higher. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 5 | why?No documented weaponization of the office's procedural machinery against rivals, no leading/organizing of a nullification gambit, no pressuring of election officials, no abuse of subpoena or hold power on the record. Raised from the contaminated import (3): the J6 objection was a single in-process VOTE on his part, which the discipline rule expressly excludes from M04 subversion absent an organizing/leading finding. Middle, passive-clean. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?No documented record of incitement or threats toward persons; sharp partisan framing on policy (which is not scored) but not the incite-or-threaten conduct M05 grades. Passive-clean middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No documented ethics-committee finding, sanction, or sustained appearance-of-impropriety on the disclosure record. Held at upper-middle rather than higher because the affirmative-disclosure / over-compensation conduct the active-duty doctrine rewards is not documented in either direction. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?Active-duty doctrine grades affirmative call-out of violations including one's own side. No documented instance of Marshall calling out an own-side breach at cost; the record around Jan 6 is participation in the objection bloc rather than restraint or correction. Raised from the contaminated import (3), the old floor appears to have penalized partisan engagement as such (forbidden), but held below middle because the affirmative own-side-accountability conduct is absent where a breach was in view. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented use of discretionary power to harm a vulnerable party, and no documented Lincoln-class restraint either. Passive-clean middle on the discretion-to-harm axis. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap on the record, no established say-one-thing/do-another finding. Absence of evidence in either direction holds it at the middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Documented constituent-aligned service on Kansas agriculture and rural-health matters consistent with his state's expressed interests. Modestly above middle on demonstrated constituency service; lowered from the import (7) for lack of corroborating deep-linked evidence at this pass. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?M11 grades office-attributable enrichment only, never policy positions or raw wealth status. No documented office-driven enrichment, self-dealing, or financial breach on the disclosure record. Raised from the contaminated import (3), which appears to have scored policy/vaccine-mandate stances rather than fiduciary conduct (forbidden); conduct-grounded, this is a clean-but-unremarkable middle. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Generally maintains floor and institutional decorum; no documented sustained breach of the office-versus-officeholder distinction. Upper-middle for ordinary institutional comportment. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No established Tier 1/2 finding of a sustained documented-falsehood pattern of record. Contested partisan framing on election integrity is weighed as a drag against an apex score but does not rise to a proven-fabrication finding; raised from the import (4) toward the middle absent a documented falsehood pattern, held below upper for the contested-intent J6 framing. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Genuine substantive command in medicine, 25-year OB/GYN practice with 5,000+ deliveries, and a substantive working role on Senate health and agriculture policy. Real domain depth, above middle. Note: scored on demonstrated substantive capacity, not on the direction of any health-policy position. [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 | Voted to sustain the objections to both the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral certifications on Jan 6-7, 2021, after the Capitol breach ↳ Constitutional fidelity, in-process objection drag | Documented record is a bloc VOTE, not organizing/leading/pressuring; under the discipline rule it is a weighed drag, not floored as orchestrated nullification |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out an own-side breach at cost, including around Jan 6 ↳ Active-duty own-side accountability, absent | - |
| M02 | Below-median bipartisan-cooperation record; limited documented cross-aisle authorship ↳ Institution-over-faction conduct, thin | - |
| M13 | Contested election-integrity framing around Jan 6 ↳ Honesty, contested-intent drag | No Tier 1/2 finding of a sustained documented-falsehood pattern; weighed as a drag, not a fabrication finding |
| Pillar I | The post-breach objection votes and absence of own-side correction drag Courage and Accountability toward their opposites ↳ Courage/Accountability drag | No organizing/leading finding keeps the drag bounded |
| Pillar IV | The contested J6 conduct is an influence one would not want propagated (Love of Truth) and a legacy asterisk (Integrity) ↳ Love-of-Truth/Integrity drag | Substantive medical legacy and absence of self-dealing temper the drag |
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 in view: Courage, Accountability, Loyalty, Moral Judgment. Drag toward the opposites is real, the post-breach votes to sustain both objections, and the absence of any documented own-side call-out when a breach was before him, pull Courage and Accountability toward Self-Interest and Collapse. The medical-career Responsibility and Discipline are genuine but predate and sit outside the office conduct this pillar weighs. Below middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Consistency, Authenticity, Self-Reflection. Consistency and Conviction are present in a settled, predictable posture, but the record shows little documented Self-Reflection or Teachability on the contested J6 conduct, no documented self-correction. Holds at the middle: neither a documented integrity breach nor demonstrated self-examination. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Reliability, Protection, Accountability. Documented constituent service on Kansas agriculture and rural health shows Stewardship and Reliability; no documented Exploitation or discretion-to-harm. Held at the middle by the absence of affirmative protective conduct at cost rather than by any abuse. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Love of Truth, Wisdom, Moral Courage. The substantive medical legacy is real and the disclosure record is clean of self-dealing, but the contested J6 framing is an influence one would not want propagated, dragging Love of Truth and Moral Courage. A middling legacy: substantive in domain, asterisked in the constitutional moment. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 19/40 |
Total 19/40, Weak. The pillars hold below the midline because the office-conduct record is dragged by the post-breach objection votes and a thin own-side-accountability record, even though the pre-office medical record and the clean disclosure record keep it off the Unfit floor.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I voted to sustain the objections to Pennsylvania and Arizona electoral certifications.”
January 6-7, 2021, Marshall voted to sustain the objections to certification of both Arizona (rejected 93-6) and Pennsylvania (rejected 92-7) after the Capitol breach · Senate roll-call votes 1 and 2 of the 117th Congress · CONTESTED · cite
“As a physician, I delivered over 5,000 babies in 25 years of practice.”
Marshall's recurring framing drawing on his pre-political 25-year OB/GYN practice in Great Bend, Kansas · Marshall Senate office biography · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Roger Wayne Marshall (born August 9, 1960). U.S. Senator from Kansas since 2021; U.S. Representative for Kansas's 1st congressional district 2017-2021. A physician by profession, he practiced obstetrics and gynecology in Great Bend, Kansas for roughly 25 years, attributing more than 5,000 deliveries to his career before entering politics. Earlier in his medical career he served as a U.S. Army Reserve flight surgeon (note-only, pending deep-link confirmation). Member of the Senate Agriculture, Health (HELP), and Budget committees, frequently serving as a physician voice in health-policy debate.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
A reliably conservative Senate voting record with below-median bipartisan-cooperation scores and limited documented cross-aisle authorship. Committee work centers on agriculture and rural health, areas aligned with Kansas constituent interests. As a physician, he has been an active participant in COVID-era and broader health-policy debate. The direction of his policy positions is NOT scored in either direction per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy; the legislative profile is recorded here as factual context.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining episode on the constitutional axis is January 6-7, 2021: after the Capitol breach, Marshall voted to sustain the objections to certification of both Arizona and Pennsylvania. Under the framework's process-subversion discipline, his documented role is an in-process objection VOTE within the objecting bloc; the public record does not establish that he led, organized, or pressured officials to alter counts. It is therefore weighed as a real but bounded drag on M01 (and reflected at Pillar I), not floored as orchestrated nullification and not scored as M04 procedural subversion absent an organizing/leading finding. No other documented constitutional-fidelity moments of comparable weight are on record in either direction.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Settled, predictable partisan rhetoric on policy, with sharp framing on election-integrity and public-health topics. None of the documented rhetoric rises to the incite-or-threaten conduct M05 grades, and none establishes a sustained documented-falsehood pattern that would constitute a Tier 1/2 honesty finding. The contested election-integrity framing is weighed as a drag on M13 against an apex score, not as a fabrication finding. Policy direction is not scored.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented ethics-committee finding, sanction, or sustained appearance-of-impropriety on the financial disclosure record. No documented office-driven enrichment or self-dealing. M11 grades office-attributable enrichment only, never policy positions, vaccine-mandate stances, or raw wealth status, and on that axis the record is clean but unremarkable. The active-duty affirmative-disclosure conduct (over-compensation, proactive conflict disclosure) is not documented in either direction.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No established Severity-class finding under the eight criteria. The January 6-7, 2021 objection votes are a contested-intent episode weighed as a drag rather than an established floor finding: the documented record is a bloc VOTE, not the organizing/leading/pressuring conduct that would make a criterion-8 process-subversion flag eligible. A claim is not a finding; absent a documented organizing/leading/pressuring role, no flag fires. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Marshall presents a genuine substantive asset, a 25-year OB/GYN career with 5,000+ deliveries and a working command of health and agriculture policy, set against a conduct record dragged by the January 6-7, 2021 votes to sustain objections to both the Arizona and Pennsylvania certifications cast after the Capitol breach. The standard weighs that episode honestly: it is an in-process objection drag on constitutional fidelity, not the organized nullification that would floor M01 and fire a severity flag, because the documented record places him in the objecting bloc as a voter, not as its organizer or a pressurer of officials. Paired with a thin own-side accountability record and below-median bridge-building, the conduct composite lands near the Adequate range, beneath the support line. The pre-office medical record and the clean disclosure record keep the assessment off the floor, but they sit beside, not within, the office conduct the scorecard grades.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile and roll-call votes · Senate financial disclosures (eFD)
Tier 2: Ballotpedia, Roger Marshall · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Senate financial disclosures (eFD) · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.