Composite 4.41 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Foreclosed by a confirmed Criterion-8 capping flag (the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus), independent of composite. The record shows genuine legal competence and an otherwise conventional early Senate tenure, but the public use of statewide legal authority to support setting aside other states' certified electoral votes, compounded by the post-Jan-6 scrubbing of Rule of Law Defense Fund references from her official biography, places the conduct below the oath standard. Support: no.
As Florida Attorney General, Moody joined the 17-state amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec 9, 2020), which asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral votes of four states Biden won, and issued a personal supporting statement. Lending the legal authority of a statewide office to a post-certification effort to overturn other states' results is legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose. Hits M01 and M04 and drives M01 to the floor band.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania, multistate amicus (17 states incl. Florida) · Florida Politics, Moody files brief supporting Texas suit
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. Career is legal and prosecutorial: assistant U.S. attorney (Middle District of Florida), elected Hillsborough County circuit judge 2006-2017, Florida Attorney General 2019-2025, U.S. Senator since Jan 2025.
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?Criterion-8 process-subversion flag drives this to the floor band. As Florida Attorney General, Moody
joined the 17-state amicus brief (Dec 9, 2020) supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania, a suit asking the
Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral votes of four states Biden won, and issued a
personal supporting statement. Using a legal-on-its-face power (state-AG amicus) to defeat a
constitutional purpose (certified-election finality) is the textbook capping conduct. Held at 3 rather
than 2 because she was not a principal/architect of the suit and her own office's lawyers internally
ridiculed it; that does not erase the public act of lending state authority to it.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Short Senate tenure (appointed Jan 2025) with no documented record of placing institution or
cross-aisle good over partisan advantage, but also no documented refusal to cooperate where the
country's interest required it. Insufficient evidence either direction; held at the honest middle.
Caucus alignment and party-line votes are NOT scored here per the contamination rule.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of anti-belonging rhetoric casting opponents or citizens as people who do not
belong; also no high-mark instance of defending an opponent's personhood at cost. Standard political
adversarial framing is not scored. Honest middle on available evidence.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?The same criterion-8 conduct hits the abuse-of-power measure. Lending the formal legal power of a
statewide office to a post-certification effort to set aside other states' certified results is the use
of state authority to defeat a constitutional outcome. Held at 3, not 2: an amicus is the weaker, more
attenuated form of the conduct versus originating the suit or fabricating evidence.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?No documented sustained pattern of enemy-making or incitement rhetoric in her own voice, and no
documented high-restraint counter-example. Her "stop the steal"-adjacent 2020 statement endorsing the
Texas suit is scored as process conduct under M01/M04, not double-counted as incitement here. Middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?Below-middle on transparency/accountability. Moody served on the board of the Rule of Law Defense
Fund, whose Jan 5 2021 robocall urged supporters to march on the Capitol "to stop the steal." She
states she had no prior knowledge and had already left the board, a weighed appearance-concern, not a
finding. The documented accountability drag is the post-riot scrubbing of RLDF references from her
official biography (with her office unable to provide a departure date), which reads as concealment
rather than candor. The appearance-concern itself is not penalized; the scrubbing is.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. There is no documented instance of
Moody publicly breaking with her party or administration on a matter of principle at political cost;
the 2020 amicus and RLDF association run the other direction (aligning with, not constraining, an
effort within her own coalition). Below middle for absence of the affirmative duty, not for any
separate finding.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?The discretion test, what one does with unobserved power. No documented instance of using private
discretion either selflessly at cost or for self-benefit. Long prosecutorial and judicial career with
no recorded discretion-abuse finding. Honest middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap or hypocrisy finding. Internal office emails mocking
the Texas suit she publicly backed suggest a possible candor gap, but those are staff voices, not
hers, and not a documented personal duplicity finding. Middle on available evidence.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Constituent-versus-donor fidelity. Short tenure; sponsored bills focused on immigration and
technology with no documented donor-capture or constituent-betrayal finding. Insufficient record to
move off the middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?Scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, foreign
revenue). No documented instance of any of these. Raw wealth is not scored. No public allegation of
office-driven enrichment on record; honest middle absent affirmative clean-conduct evidence.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Institutional decorum. Low missed-vote rate (8 of 781, better than median) shows baseline diligence,
but no documented record of either institution-honoring restraint at cost or institution-degrading
spectacle. Middle, leaning to the diligence note.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Truthfulness. Her Dec 2020 public statements lent the credibility of a state law-enforcement office to
a no-evidence claim that the 2020 results required Supreme Court invalidation, at a time her own
office's lawyers privately called the suit baseless. That is a documented instance of advancing a claim
her office did not internally credit. Held at 4 (single documented episode, not a sustained career
pattern of falsehood), below the middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive competence. Genuine legal depth, assistant U.S. attorney, elected circuit judge
2006-2017, statewide AG 2019-2025, DEA commendation for prosecutorial work. Command of legal substance
is real and above middle; not higher because Senate legislative substance is still thin and early.
[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 | Joined the 17-state amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec 9 2020), seeking SCOTUS invalidation of four states' certified electoral votes, with a personal supporting statement ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, capping | Not the suit's architect; own office's lawyers internally ridiculed it |
| M04 | Used the formal legal power of statewide office to back a post-certification effort to set aside other states' results ↳ Criterion-8 abuse of office power to defeat a constitutional outcome | Amicus is the attenuated form versus originating the suit |
| M06 | After the Jan 6 riot, scrubbed Rule of Law Defense Fund references from her official biography; office could not provide a board-departure date ↳ Fiduciary candor, concealment rather than disclosure | Claimed no prior knowledge of the robocall and prior departure from the board |
| M13 | Publicly lent a state law-enforcement office's credibility to a no-evidence 2020-fraud claim her own office privately disbelieved ↳ Truthfulness, advancing an internally-discredited claim | Single documented episode, not a sustained pattern |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out her own side at political cost ↳ Absence of the affirmative active-duty standard | - |
| Pillar III | The amicus and RLDF association show power deployed toward an anti-constitutional purpose rather than protection ↳ Protection/Accountability drag | - |
| Pillar IV | The election-subversion episode and the bio-scrubbing are influences one would not want propagated ↳ Integrity/Love-of-Truth 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 weighed: Loyalty, Steadiness, Selfless Service. The 2020 conduct shows loyalty directed to a coalition's election-overturning effort over fidelity to the constitutional order, a drag toward Self-Interest/factional loyalty. No countervailing documented stand at cost. Below middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. The post-riot bio-scrubbing and the gap between her public 2020 statements and her office's private view weigh against Authenticity and Self-Reflection. No documented later ownership or correction. Below middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Attributes: Protection, Courage in Conflict, Stewardship, Accountability. Power was deployed to defeat a constitutional outcome rather than to protect it; this is the load-bearing drag and the reason this pillar sits lowest. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. Real legal competence and a long clean prosecutorial/judicial record temper the score upward, but the election-subversion episode is a durable mark against the kind of influence one would want propagated. Below middle. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 15/40 |
Total 15/40. The Four Pillars track the conduct composite closely; the criterion-8 capping conduct and the candor concern dominate, while genuine legal competence keeps the pillars off the floor.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“The integrity and resolution of the 2020 election is of paramount importance. The United States Supreme Court should weigh the legal arguments of the Texas motion and all pending matters so that Americans can be assured the election was fairly reviewed and decided.”
Statement on joining the 17-state amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania · Florida Politics · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Ashley Brooke Moody (born March 28, 1975). U.S. Senator from Florida since January 21, 2025, appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis to fill the seat vacated when Marco Rubio became Secretary of State; running in the 2026 special election to keep the seat. Previously the 38th Attorney General of Florida (2019-2025). Earlier: assistant U.S. attorney (Middle District of Florida) and elected Hillsborough County circuit judge (2006-2017). University of Florida and Stetson University. Member of the Republican Party.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
First-term appointed senator; short record in the 119th Congress. Low missed-vote rate (8 of 781 through May 2026, better than the chamber median). Sponsored ~32 bills focused on immigration, technology, and communications. DW-NOMINATE / Lugar Bipartisan Index data not yet meaningful given tenure length. As Florida AG she led and joined numerous multistate amicus efforts; the load-bearing one for conduct is the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional moment on this record is adverse. On December 9, 2020, as Florida Attorney General, Moody joined a 17-state amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania, Ken Paxton's suit asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and issued a personal statement endorsing the request. The Court declined the suit 7-2 for lack of standing. She also served on the board of the Rule of Law Defense Fund, which sent a Jan 5, 2021 robocall urging supporters to march on the Capitol; she states she had no prior knowledge and had left the board, and her office removed RLDF references from her biography after the riot.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
No documented sustained pattern of enemy-making or incitement in Moody's own voice. The contested rhetorical episode is her Dec 2020 framing of the Texas suit as protecting "election integrity," scored as process conduct rather than as incitement. Senate-era public communication has been conventional and policy-focused. No documented high-restraint counter-example either.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-driven enrichment, self-dealing, family-payment, office-info-trade, or foreign-revenue finding. Raw or household wealth is not scored. The fiduciary concern on this record is candor, not money: the post-Jan-6 scrubbing of Rule of Law Defense Fund references from her official biography, with her office unable to state when she left the board, reads as concealment rather than disclosure.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class flag: Criterion 8 (Process Subversion), confirmed. As Florida AG she joined the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to invalidate four states' certified electoral votes, legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose. This is a capping flag: it drives M01 to the floor band and forecloses author support regardless of composite. The Rule of Law Defense Fund board association and the Jan 6 robocall are weighed as an appearance-concern (no prior-knowledge finding), not as a separate confirmed flag. No Criterion-10 sustained-incitement pattern in her own voice on record.
7. What The Framework Says
Moody's record carries one decisive mark. The Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, lending the legal authority of a statewide law-enforcement office to an effort to set aside other states' certified electoral votes, is exactly the kind of legal-on-its-face conduct the process-subversion criterion exists to capture, and it caps the record regardless of an otherwise unremarkable, competent legal career. The honest mitigations are recorded: she did not originate the suit, her own lawyers privately disbelieved it, and the Jan 6 robocall connection runs through a board she says she had left without her prior knowledge. But the public act, plus the post-riot bio-scrubbing, place this below the bar on conduct measured against the oath. Genuine legal competence is acknowledged and does not rescue the verdict.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Texas v. Pennsylvania (SCOTUS docket / Wikipedia summary of the multistate amicus) · Congress.gov member record
Tier 2: Florida Politics, Moody joins Texas amicus · Florida Bulldog, RLDF / Capitol connection · AJC, AG linked to group that urged Capitol uprising
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Senate financial disclosures (eFD) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.