Composite 4.11 / 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 482 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Rose signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief in December 2020, verified against the 126-Representative corrected signatory brief filed at the Supreme Court and confirmed by his own House office press release. The brief asked the Court to discard the certified electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and reassign elector selection to legislatures, a legal-on-its-face power deployed to defeat the certified outcome of a presidential election. This is Criterion-8 process subversion; it drives M01 to its floor and forecloses author support regardless of composite.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected), U.S. Supreme Court docket 22O155 · Rep. John Rose House office press release announcing the amicus signature
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
No record of U.S. military service. Rose is a businessman and former Tennessee Commissioner of Agriculture (2002-2003) before his 2019 election to the House. Service record is note-only; no fields scored.
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 | 2 | why?Rose signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief in December 2020, his own House office issued a press
release confirming it, and his name appears on the 126-Representative corrected brief. That brief asked the
Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral votes of four states and throw the choice of electors to
legislatures, a legal-on-its-face act aimed at defeating a constitutional purpose (the peaceful transfer of
a certified election). That is Criterion-8 process subversion and drives this measure to its floor. NOTE:
his separate Jan-6 floor objection vote is the constitutional certification process operating and is NOT
scored here per the contamination rule; the amicus signature is the conduct that caps the measure.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?No signature record of placing institution or country above partisan advantage. Service on Agriculture and
Financial Services has produced district-focused legislating but no documented cross-aisle architecture or
willingness to hand the other side a win on principle. Below-middle: not obstructionist as a documented
pattern, but no affirmative bipartisan high-mark either.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of denying opponents' or citizens' personhood, and no documented high-mark defense of
an opponent's dignity at cost either. The "LEGAL votes" framing in 2020 leaned into delegitimizing certain
ballots but stops short of a sustained anti-belonging pattern. Honest middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?The amicus signature is an attempt to use a court process to nullify lawfully cast and certified votes in
states he does not represent, power deployed against the constitutional order rather than to constrain it.
That is the same Criterion-8 conduct that caps M01 and it weighs heavily here. No other documented
weaponization of state power against rivals, which keeps this off the floor but well below the middle.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Generally measured public register; no documented pattern of incendiary or dehumanizing rhetoric. The 2020
election-integrity messaging is contested framing rather than personal incitement. Net middle, neither a
restraint high-mark nor a documented rhetorical-abuse drag.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?A 2022 review flagged Rose's trades in Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Pinnacle while he served on the
House Financial Services Committee, including a Wells Fargo exit ahead of committee action. No formal ethics
finding, no STOCK Act charge; weighed as an appearance-of-impropriety concern, not a finding. No documented
voluntary accountability for it. Middle, with the appearance-concern holding it from rising.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's own side at cost. No documented instance of Rose breaking with
his party or its leadership when it would have cost him politically; the 2020-21 record runs the other way
(alignment with the election-contest effort). Below-middle for the absence of a documented own-side call-out.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented discretion-test moment, neither a recorded instance of foregoing a personal benefit for the
institution's good, nor a documented abuse of discretionary position. Insufficient evidence either way;
honest middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap, and no documented high-mark of consistent off-camera
character either. Absent evidence in either direction, neutral middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Routine district representation on Agriculture and Financial Services with no documented donor-over-
constituent capture and no standout constituent-fidelity high-mark. Honest middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 4 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The committee-overlap trades (Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Pinnacle while seated on Financial Services) are a genuine office-information appearance-
concern, exactly the category this measure exists to weigh, and the 2026 use of congressionally-funded
franking for a name-recognition radio ad ahead of a governor primary is a lesser office-resource concern.
Both are uncharged appearance-concerns, not findings, which keeps this below-middle rather than at floor.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 4 | why?Lending his office to a brief seeking to void another state's certified electors is a failure to honor the
institution over partisan outcome, the office placed in service of the spectacle rather than the order it
exists to uphold. No other documented decorum breach, but the amicus is a real institutional-fidelity drag.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?The 2020-21 election-integrity messaging, amplifying doubt about a certified, adjudicated result and the
"LEGAL votes" framing, leaned on claims that did not survive scrutiny. Not a sustained career-long
falsehood pattern, but a documented episode of advancing a contested-and-rejected narrative. Below-middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive command of his committee lanes, agriculture/rural policy and financial services, drawing on a
business and former-state-agriculture-commissioner background. Genuine subject-matter depth, the strongest
conduct dimension on this record. Upper-middle.
[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 2020) asking the Supreme Court to discard four states' certified electoral votes ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, legal-on-its-face power aimed at defeating a constitutional purpose | None; the conduct is the capping flag |
| M04 | Same amicus signature, a court process used to nullify lawfully certified out-of-state votes ↳ Power deployed against the constitutional order rather than to constrain it | No other documented weaponization of state power |
| M11 | Wells Fargo / Bank of America / Pinnacle trades while seated on House Financial Services Committee; 2026 congressionally-funded franking radio ad ahead of governor primary ↳ Office-information / office-resource appearance-concern | Uncharged; no formal ethics finding, weighed as appearance, not finding |
| M13 | Amplified doubt about the certified 2020 result and the 'LEGAL votes' framing after adjudication had closed ↳ Advancing a contested-and-rejected narrative | Episodic, not a career-long falsehood pattern |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out his own side at political cost; 2020-21 record runs toward party alignment ↳ Absent own-side accountability duty | Absence of evidence, not a documented affirmative betrayal |
| M12 | Lent his office to the Texas v. PA amicus ↳ Institution placed below partisan outcome | No other documented decorum breach |
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
| 3 | why?Attributes weighed: Courage, Selfless Service, Loyalty to the oath. The defining datum is the Texas v. PA amicus, loyalty to a partisan outcome placed above loyalty to the certified constitutional order. Heavy drag toward Self-Interest over the oath; little countervailing evidence of cost-bearing courage. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. Consistent conviction and an authentic district register, but no documented self-correction on the 2020-21 conduct or the trading appearance-concern. Held to below-middle by the absence of accountability. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. Real subject-matter stewardship in committee, but the amicus used influence against rather than for the constitutional order, and the committee-overlap trades are an exploitation-appearance drag. Net low. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. The amicus signature is the kind of influence one would not want propagated, and the rejected election narrative drags Love of Truth. A legacy presently defined more by the 2020 episode than by countervailing high-marks. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 13/40 |
Total 13/40, Failing tier on the pillars. The Criterion-8 amicus conduct dominates the trust, protection, and legacy pillars; committee competence (the one genuine strength) cannot offset a documented act against the certified constitutional order.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I want all LEGAL votes counted.”
Public statement amplifying doubt about the certified 2020 presidential result, foreshadowing his certification objection · Ballotpedia / contemporaneous reporting · CONTESTED · cite
“Rep. Rose, colleagues submit amicus brief to Supreme Court in Texas v. PA.”
His own House office press release announcing the signature on the brief seeking to discard four states' certified electors · johnrose.house.gov press release · CONTESTED · cite
“It's clear that confidence in the presidential election is extremely low.”
Statement after the Capitol attack explaining his vote to object to certification · Republican Accountability profile / contemporaneous reporting · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
John Williams Rose (born February 23, 1965). U.S. Representative for Tennessee's 6th congressional district since January 3, 2019; Republican. Businessman and farmer; 33rd Tennessee Commissioner of Agriculture (2002-2003). Serves on the House Agriculture Committee and House Financial Services Committee. Announced a candidacy for Governor of Tennessee in March 2025 (August 2026 GOP primary); as of this dossier he remains a sitting member of the House, in scope as a current member of Congress.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Committee work centered on House Agriculture and House Financial Services, reflecting a rural-district and business/finance background. No signature cross-aisle architecture on the Lugar Center Bipartisan Index record. Policy positions are NOT scored here in either direction; only conduct against the oath is graded. The defining conduct datum on the record is the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature.
3. Constitutional Moments
The decisive constitutional moment is negative: Rose signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020), which asked the Supreme Court to set aside the certified electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and reassign elector selection to legislatures. The Court rejected the suit for lack of standing. He also voted on Jan 6, 2021 to object to certification, recorded as the constitutional process operating and NOT independently scored, per the framework's contamination rule. The amicus, not the floor vote, is the conduct that drives the dossier.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally measured public register without a documented pattern of incendiary or dehumanizing rhetoric. The notable drag is the 2020-21 election-integrity messaging, the "LEGAL votes" framing and amplification of doubt about a certified, adjudicated result. Contested framing rather than personal incitement; weighed as an honest drag, not escalated to a Criterion-10 enemy-making pattern, which the record does not support.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The fiduciary concern is office-attributable, not raw wealth. While seated on the House Financial Services Committee, Rose traded Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Pinnacle, including a Wells Fargo exit ahead of committee action, flagged in a 2022 STOCK Act review. No formal ethics finding or charge; weighed as an appearance-of-impropriety concern. The 2026 use of congressionally-funded franking for a name-recognition radio ad ahead of his governor primary is a lesser office-resource concern. Both are appearance-concerns, not findings.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Criterion-class flag. Criterion 8 (Process Subversion) is CONFIRMED: Rose signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020), verified against the 126-Representative corrected signatory brief and his own House press release, a legal-on-its-face act aimed at defeating the certified outcome of a presidential election. This caps the dossier and forecloses author support regardless of composite. No Criterion-10 sustained enemy-making/incitement pattern is documented. Flag count: one (capping).
7. What The Framework Says
John Rose's record carries one genuine strength, substantive command of his agriculture and financial-services committee lanes, but it is defined by a Criterion-8 process-subversion flag: the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signature, confirmed by his own office, seeking to discard four states' certified electoral votes. The standard treats his Jan-6 floor objection as the constitutional process operating and does not score it; it is the amicus, an affirmative legal act against the certified order, that caps the record. Layered on top are office-information trading and franking appearance-concerns weighed honestly as appearances, not findings. The capping flag forecloses support irrespective of any composite. Failing.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (126 Representatives, corrected) · Congress.gov member profile · House office press release (amicus confirmation)
Tier 2: Ballotpedia · Nashville Scene, stock-trading review · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House office press release (Texas v. PA amicus) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.