Composite 4.56 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Support is foreclosed by a confirmed capping severity flag (process subversion), independent of the composite. At credit 505 (Unfit band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
McMorris Rodgers is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief filed December 11, 2020, which asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the certified electoral results of four other states. This is a legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose, the certified outcome of a presidential election, and meets the criterion-8 process-subversion standard. It drives M01 to the floor and forecloses author_verdict.support. The post-Jan-6 reversal (condemning the attack, voting to certify) is weighed as genuine mitigation but does not undo the signing.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (Supreme Court docket 22O155) · Seattle Times, McMorris Rodgers to join GOP effort to block Biden electoral votes
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 →
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?Held at the criterion-8 floor. She signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020), a legal-on-its-face act asking the Supreme Court to invalidate other states' certified electoral results, a constitutional power deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose. This is process subversion (capping) and drives M01 to the 2-3 floor regardless of other conduct. Partially mitigated, not erased: after Jan 6 she reversed her planned certification objection, called the Capitol attack 'unlawful and unacceptable,' and voted to uphold the Electoral College result. The reversal counts as accountability; the amicus signature is the floor-setting act. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Mixed. Her Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index rank sat near the middle-to-lower band and declined across Congresses (≈269 in the 116th, ≈272 in the 117th). Offsetting that is genuine cross-aisle authorship as Energy & Commerce chair, the ADPPA data-privacy bill cleared committee 53-2 with Ranking Member Pallone, and the 2024 American Privacy Rights Act draft was negotiated with Sen. Cantwell (D). Real bipartisan product at the chair level pulls an otherwise middling cosponsorship record to the center. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of anti-belonging rhetoric casting opponents or constituents as people who do not belong. Held at the center rather than higher because the 2020 election-challenge posture (amicus + planned objection) implicitly questioned the legitimacy of other states' voters, a belonging-adjacent concern, even though it was framed in legislative-authority terms and walked back after Jan 6. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Lowered by the criterion-8 finding. Joining the Texas v. PA amicus sought to use the judiciary to override the certified self-government of other states, a use of legal process aimed at a constitutional purpose's defeat. No separate weaponization of state power against a named rival is documented, which keeps this from the floor, but the amicus is an abuse-of-process concern that the standard records here as well as at M01. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Generally measured, institution-toned rhetoric across a long career, including a notably restrained farewell. No sustained incitement or enemy-making pattern on record. Held at center, not higher, because the December 2020 statements amplifying unsubstantiated election-fraud framing are a real rhetorical drag weighed honestly against the otherwise temperate record. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?A documented finding, not a mere appearance-concern. The House Ethics Committee (Dec 2019) found she violated House rules by mixing official resources with a 2010-2012 leadership-campaign effort; she was reproved and required to reimburse the Treasury $7,575.95. A late STOCK Act disclosure (2022 community-bond purchases) is a lesser, separate appearance-concern. The reproval is a real fiduciary drag; partial mitigation for compliance with the reimbursement remedy keeps it off the floor. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's own side at cost. The Jan 6 reversal, condemning the attack and voting to certify against the prevailing posture of her caucus's election-challenge wing, is the strongest instance and earns weight. Held below the midpoint because it followed an initial alignment with that wing (the amicus and the planned objection); the corrective came after the breach, not before it. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented instance of declining a personal benefit at cost, and no documented abuse of discretionary perks. Neutral center: the discretion test has no strong evidence in either direction on the public record. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; off-camera reputation is not reported as diverging from the on-camera institutional posture. Held at center for absence of strong evidence either way. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Long tenure representing eastern Washington's 5th district with substantial committee work touching constituent-relevant policy (energy, health, telecom). Held at center: a solid service record without a standout constituent-over-donor stand, and with the 2020 election posture cutting against pure constituent-interest fidelity. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth or party. The 2019 Ethics finding, using official (taxpayer) staff and resources to advance a personal leadership-campaign goal, is a genuine office-attributable misuse and is the primary drag here. The 2022 late STOCK Act filing is a disclosure-timeliness lapse rather than office-info trading and weighs lightly. No documented self-dealing, family payments, or foreign-government revenue, which keeps the score above the floor. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Sustained institutional decorum across two decades and a regular-order committee posture as E&C chair weigh positive. Held at center because the 2019 reproval for misuse of official resources is an institutional-integrity drag, and the 2020 election-challenge participation cut against the office-over-spectacle standard at a critical moment. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Lowered by the December 2020 statements lending official voice to unsubstantiated claims of fraud and illegitimacy in other states' results, a documented departure from the truth-telling standard at a high-stakes moment. Partially offset by the Jan 6 reversal acknowledging the certified result as valid. Below center: a real falsehood-adjacent episode, mitigated but on record. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Demonstrated substantive command of complex policy as Energy & Commerce chair, data privacy (ADPPA, American Privacy Rights Act), health, and energy, driving detailed legislative drafting over talking-points performance. A genuine substance-over-spectacle strength, held in the upper-middle by the broader conduct concerns elsewhere in the record. [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 | Signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020) asking the Supreme Court to invalidate other states' certified electoral results ↳ Criterion 8, process subversion (capping); oath-fidelity floor | Reversed her planned certification objection after Jan 6, condemned the attack as 'unlawful and unacceptable,' and voted to certify |
| M04 | Same amicus sought to use the judiciary to override other states' self-government ↳ abuse-of-process concern | No separate weaponization against a named rival documented |
| M06 | House Ethics Committee (Dec 2019, H. Rept. 116-359) found she violated House rules by mixing official resources with a 2010-2012 leadership campaign; reproved and ordered to reimburse $7,575.95 ↳ Fiduciary finding (not mere appearance) | Complied with the reimbursement remedy |
| M11 | 2019 finding of using taxpayer staff/resources for a personal leadership-campaign goal; plus a 2022 late STOCK Act disclosure of community-bond purchases ↳ office-attributable misuse + disclosure lapse | No self-dealing/family-payment/foreign-revenue pattern; STOCK lapse is timeliness, not info-trading |
| M13 | December 2020 statements lending official voice to unsubstantiated fraud/illegitimacy claims about other states' results ↳ truth-telling departure at high stakes | Jan 6 reversal acknowledged the certified result as valid |
| M07 | Own-side call-out (Jan 6 reversal) came after the breach, following initial alignment with the election-challenge wing (amicus + planned objection) ↳ active call-out duty met late, not preemptively | The reversal was still a real cross-current stand against her caucus wing |
| M02 | Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index rank near middle-to-lower band and declining (~269 116th, ~272 117th) ↳ below-median cosponsorship bipartisanship | Genuine chair-level bipartisan product (ADPPA 53-2 with Pallone; APRA draft with Cantwell) |
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 to the constitutional order took a documented hit when she signed the Texas v. PA amicus seeking to overturn other states' certified results. Partial recovery in the Jan 6 reversal (Courage/Accountability under pressure) keeps this from the bottom, but the order-of-events, challenge first, correction after the breach, caps the pillar in the lower band. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Authenticity and policy conviction are real (the privacy-law drafting reflects sustained substantive commitment), and the Jan 6 reversal showed Self-Reflection. Held at center by the 2019 Ethics reproval and the 2020 election posture, both drags toward Consistency's opposite. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Used the chair to advance constituent-protective policy (data privacy), a genuine Protection mark, but the amicus was a use of influence aimed at defeating a constitutional purpose, and the 2019 finding showed misuse of official resources. The exploitation-adjacent drags hold the pillar in the lower-middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?A long, substantive institutional career and a measured farewell weigh toward Integrity and a durable record; the criterion-8 episode and the Ethics reproval are real Justice/Integrity drags that temper the legacy to the center. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 18/40 |
Total 18/40, the criterion-8 capping flag and the 2019 Ethics finding hold the pillars in the lower-middle band, with the Jan 6 reversal and the substantive privacy-law work the main counterweights.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“What we have seen today is unlawful and unacceptable. I have decided I will vote to uphold the Electoral College results.”
Statement reversing her planned objection after the Capitol attack · Seattle Times / KXLY · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“The only reason for my objection was to give voice to the concern that governors and courts unilaterally changed election procedures without the will of the people and outside of the legislative process.”
Same statement, explaining her earlier objection posture · KXLY · CONTESTED · cite
“People should be able to trust that their data is being protected.”
Energy & Commerce markup of the American Data Privacy and Protection Act · House Energy & Commerce Committee · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Cathy Anne McMorris Rodgers (born May 22, 1969). U.S. Representative for Washington's 5th congressional district 2005-2025 (eastern Washington, Spokane). Chair, House Republican Conference 2013-2019, the highest-ranking Republican woman in the House at the time. Chair, House Energy & Commerce Committee 2023-2025, the first woman to lead that committee. Announced in February 2024 she would not seek reelection; left office January 3, 2025. Recently-departed member of Congress (in scope).
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Twenty years in the House, rising through GOP leadership (Conference chair) to the gavel of Energy & Commerce. Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index near the middle-to-lower band and declining across Congresses (~269 116th, ~272 117th). Signature chair-level product: the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), which cleared committee 53-2 with Ranking Member Pallone (D), and the 2024 American Privacy Rights Act draft negotiated with Sen. Cantwell (D). The 2020 election-challenge participation and the 2019 House Ethics reproval are recorded as conduct, not scored on policy or party.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining negative moment is the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020), a criterion-8 process-subversion act asking the Supreme Court to invalidate four other states' certified electoral results. She had also announced a planned objection to certification. After the January 6 Capitol attack she reversed, called the attack 'unlawful and unacceptable,' and voted to uphold the Electoral College result, a genuine post-breach correction that mitigates but does not undo the signing.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally measured and institution-toned across a long career, including a restrained farewell. No sustained incitement or enemy-making pattern on record. The real rhetorical drag is the December 2020 statements lending official voice to unsubstantiated election-fraud framing about other states, weighed honestly against an otherwise temperate record and partly offset by the Jan 6 reversal.
5. Fiduciary Profile
House Ethics Committee finding (Dec 2019, H. Rept. 116-359): violated House rules by mixing official resources with a 2010-2012 leadership-campaign effort; reproved and required to reimburse the Treasury $7,575.95 (complied). A separate 2022 late STOCK Act disclosure of community-bond purchases is a timeliness lapse, not office-info trading. No documented self-dealing, family payments, or foreign- government revenue. The 2019 finding is a real office-attributable fiduciary drag scored at M06/M11.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One confirmed Severity-class flag: Criterion 8 (process subversion, capping) for signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief seeking to overturn other states' certified electoral results. This caps M01 at the floor and forecloses author_verdict.support. The post-Jan-6 reversal is weighed as mitigation. No criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement pattern is documented. Flag count: one (criterion 8).
7. What The Framework Says
A long, substantive institutional career, GOP Conference chair, first woman to chair Energy & Commerce, genuine bipartisan privacy-law drafting with Pallone and Cantwell, runs into a hard ceiling. The Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature is a criterion-8 process-subversion act: legal-on-its-face power aimed at defeating the certified outcome of a presidential election. Under the standard that caps the record and forecloses support regardless of composite. The Jan 6 reversal, condemning the attack and voting to certify, is real accountability and is credited, but it came after the breach, not before the signing. The 2019 Ethics reproval for misusing official resources is a separate, documented fiduciary drag. The substantive strengths are recorded honestly; the capping flag is decisive.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): House Committee on Ethics, report H. Rept. 116-359 (2019) · Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief (Supreme Court docket 22O155) · Congress.gov member profile
Tier 2: Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index · Seattle Times, Jan 6 certification reversal · House Energy & Commerce Committee
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House Ethics Committee statement (2019) · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (SCOTUS docket) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.