Composite 4.4 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Capped by a confirmed criterion-8 process-subversion flag (Texas v. PA amicus). Support is foreclosed regardless of composite. Outside that act the record is non-corrupt and unremarkable, but the standard measures fidelity to the oath above all, and the amicus is a direct breach of it.
David Rouzer is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 House Republicans (filed Dec 11, 2020), which asked the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This is a legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose, overturning a certified presidential election, squarely within criterion 8. It caps M01 and M04 and forecloses author_verdict.support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (signatory list) · Rouzer office statement on the Texas v. PA amicus brief
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 in agriculture policy, state legislature (NC Senate 2009-2013), and the U.S. House (NC-7, 2015-present). Service-record section is note-only; nothing here is 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 | 3 | why?Capped at the criterion-8 floor. Rouzer is a verified signatory to the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus
brief (Dec 2020), a legal-on-its-face filing that asked the Supreme Court to discard the certified
electoral votes of four states he does not represent, a power used to defeat a constitutional purpose
(the peaceful transfer following a certified election). This is process subversion, the gravest failure
of the oath measured here, and it pins M01 to the floor regardless of an otherwise ordinary record.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?Conduct-only read of cross-party governance posture. Rouzer's Bipartisan Index score was negative
(~-0.72, ranked 272nd in the 2023 House), below the long-run baseline, a documented pattern of limited
cross-aisle bill-building rather than any single vote. Scored as a disposition toward governance, not as
partisan or ideological alignment (which the standard never grades). Below middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of anti-belonging rhetoric casting constituents or opponents as people who do not
belong. The principal civic failure on this record is procedural (the amicus), not a documented stream of
dehumanizing speech. Honest middle: no high-mark defense of an opponent's dignity on record either.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?Criterion-8 also reaches M04. Lending a member's name and office to a brief seeking to nullify another
state's lawful, certified electors is the use of legal process to subvert a constitutional outcome, power turned against the structure it was sworn to protect. Held low alongside M01.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Rhetorical temperature is generally conventional; no documented sustained incitement or enemy-making
pattern in his public speech. His 2020-21 election statements were grave in substance (scored under the
capping flag and M01), but his tone was not the heated-incitement variety criterion-10 captures. Middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No ethics finding, sanction, or sustained appearance-concern on record. STOCK Act periodic-transaction
filings are routine and reviewed by House Ethics without adverse action. A clean fiduciary-process record;
held just above middle for the absence of any affirmative transparency distinction.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. The record shows the inverse at the
decisive moment: Rouzer signed the amicus alongside his party and characterized the second impeachment as a
"knee-jerk reaction grounded in anger and disgust" rather than holding leadership of his own party to
account. No documented instance of breaking from his side at personal cost. Low.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?The discretion test, using unconstrained latitude for the public good when nothing compels it. No
documented high-mark act of self-denial, and no documented abuse of discretion in routine office conduct.
Honest middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; no reporting of an off-camera posture diverging from the
public one. Absence of evidence in either direction keeps this at the middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 4 | why?Constituent-fidelity conduct. Steady constituent-service presence as a long-tenured NC-7 member, but the
decision to join litigation seeking to discard other states' votes elevated a national partisan contest
over faithful representation of his own district's institutional interests. Slightly below middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment. No documented self-dealing, family-payment scheme,
office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue. Stock activity is disclosed within STOCK Act
windows with no finding of conflict. No raw-wealth penalty applied. Clean on the breach standard.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Institutional decorum in routine House work is conventional; chairs the Highways and Transit Subcommittee
and conducts regular-order committee business without documented disruptive or spectacle conduct. Held at
above-middle for ordinary institutional functioning, not distinction.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Truthfulness conduct. Rouzer publicly advanced the contested premise that the four states "clearly
violated the Constitution" and declined to acknowledge the certified result for a sustained period,
lending his name to claims courts rejected for lack of standing and evidence. A real candor drag, weighed
as conduct (not policy). Below middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive command in his lane: agriculture and transportation/infrastructure policy, subcommittee
chairmanship, named bills in the current Congress. Workmanlike substance over pure talking points; above
middle, not exceptional.
[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 | Signatory to the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020) asking the Supreme Court to discard four states' certified electoral votes ↳ Criterion 8, process subversion / capping; oath fidelity | Denounced the Jan 6 violence itself the same day, does not cure the procedural subversion |
| M04 | Used office and name on litigation to nullify another state's lawful certified electors ↳ Criterion 8, legal power turned against a constitutional purpose | - |
| M07 | Joined his own party on the amicus and called the second impeachment a 'knee-jerk reaction'; no documented call-out of his own side at cost ↳ active-duty call-out standard unmet | - |
| M13 | Publicly asserted the four states 'clearly violated the Constitution' and withheld acknowledgment of the certified result ↳ candor / falsehood-adjacent claims rejected by courts | - |
| M02 | Negative Lugar Bipartisan Index (~-0.72, 272nd, 2023), below baseline ↳ limited cross-party governance disposition (conduct, not ideology) | - |
| M10 | Joined out-of-state election litigation over faithful district-institutional representation ↳ constituent-fidelity drag | - |
| Pillar I | The amicus is a direct breach of loyalty to the constitutional order over party ↳ Trust & Loyalty drag | No personal-corruption record offsets within this pillar |
| Pillar IV | Process-subversion signature is the defining legacy mark; candor drag compounds ↳ Legacy & Virtue 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
| 3 | why?Attributes: Loyalty, Selfless Service, Courage, Steadiness. The amicus signature is a direct drag toward the opposite of loyalty to the constitutional order, placing party advantage over the structure he swore to uphold. No countervailing high-mark act of fidelity at cost. Low. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. He acted on stated conviction openly rather than covertly, and there is no documented enrichment hypocrisy, but no self-correction or accountability for the election-overturn posture is on record. Middle, held down by the candor drag. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Attributes: Protection, Courage in Conflict, Stewardship, Accountability. Routine stewardship in committee work, but he declined to use his influence to protect the institution at the decisive 2020-21 moment, instead lending it to subversion. Below middle. No personal-exploitation finding. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. The process-subversion signature and the sustained refusal to acknowledge a certified result define the legacy drag toward the opposites of Justice and Love of Truth. Low. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 15/40 |
Total 15/40. The pillars sit low because the defining conduct is a criterion-8 process-subversion act, not because of any personal-corruption finding (there is none). A clean fiduciary record cannot offset a breach of the oath's core purpose.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“In the joint session of Congress today, we will vote to sustain objections to slates of electors submitted by states we believe clearly violated the Constitution in the presidential election of 2020.”
Joint statement with other GOP members announcing objection to certification · WECT / Rouzer office statement · CONTESTED · cite
“[The second impeachment is a] knee-jerk reaction grounded in anger and disgust.”
Statement opposing the second impeachment of President Trump · Republican Accountability profile; contemporaneous reporting · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
David Cheston Rouzer (born February 16, 1972). U.S. Representative for North Carolina's 7th congressional district since January 2015 (R). Previously served in the North Carolina Senate (2009-2013) and as a USDA official in the George W. Bush administration. Chairs the Highways and Transit Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Won the 2026 Republican primary; up for reelection November 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Center-right House Republican; DW-NOMINATE consistently conservative. Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index negative (~-0.72, ranked 272nd in the 118th Congress, 2023), below the long-run House baseline for cross-party bill-building. Substantive focus on agriculture, water infrastructure, and surface transportation; active subcommittee chairmanship. Recent bills include the Prioritizing Primary Care Act of 2026 and the CFTC Proprietary Information Act of 2026. Policy positions are noted, not scored, the standard grades conduct only.
3. Constitutional Moments
The decisive constitutional-fidelity moment on this record is adverse. In December 2020 Rouzer signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to discard four states' certified electoral votes (the Court dismissed for lack of standing). On January 6, 2021 he voted to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electors, both rejected by the House. He condemned the Capitol violence the same afternoon but opposed the second impeachment. The certification VOTE itself is the constitutional process working and is not scored as a breach; the amicus signature is the criterion-8 process-subversion act that caps this record.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Rouzer's public rhetoric is generally conventional in temperature; there is no documented sustained pattern of enemy-making or incitement (criterion 10 not met). The drag on this record is procedural and candor-based, the amicus and the sustained advancement of contested election claims, not a stream of dehumanizing speech.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No ethics finding, sanction, or sustained appearance-concern on record. STOCK Act periodic-transaction reports are filed and routinely reviewed by House Ethics without adverse action. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue. M11 reflects a clean breach standard; raw wealth is not penalized.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented severity flag. Criterion 8 (process subversion), confirmed: Rouzer is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (Dec 11, 2020), which sought to nullify four states' certified electoral votes. This is a capping flag, it pins M01 and M04 to the floor and forecloses author-verdict support regardless of composite. No criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement PATTERN is documented. Flag count: one (criterion 8, capping).
7. What The Framework Says
Rouzer presents an otherwise ordinary, non-corrupt House record, clean on the fiduciary breach standard, conventional in rhetoric, workmanlike in committee, but it is governed by a single capping act. Signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus was a legal-on-its-face power turned to defeat the core constitutional purpose the oath protects: the peaceful transfer of power after a certified election. The standard does not grade his party or his politics; it grades that he lent his office to nullifying votes he was not elected to judge. That forecloses support. Honest middles elsewhere do not lift a record capped at its foundation.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Supreme Court, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives · U.S. House Clerk, financial disclosures · Congress.gov member record
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · House financial disclosures · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.