Composite 4.63 / 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 510 (Unfit band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
As Kansas Attorney General, Schmidt signed Kansas onto the Missouri-led amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec. 9, 2020), whose purpose was to invalidate the certified presidential electors of four states and overturn the election result. This is legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose, the explicit Criterion-8 example. It pre-dates his House service but is judged against the fixed oath. The Court rejected the suit for lack of standing on Dec. 11, 2020.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of Missouri et al. (signatory list) · WIBW, Kansas joins states asking SCOTUS to hear Texas election lawsuit
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. Public-service record is civilian: Kansas Senate (2001-2011, Majority Leader 2004-2010), Kansas Attorney General (2011-2023), U.S. House (KS-2, 2025-present).
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. As Kansas Attorney General, Schmidt signed Kansas onto the
Missouri-led state amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take up Texas v. Pennsylvania
(Dec. 9, 2020), a legal-on-its-face action whose constitutional purpose was to set aside another
state's certified presidential electors. Signing that amicus is documented process-subversion
conduct against the peaceful-transfer purpose the oath protects, distinct from any floor vote.
It pre-dates his House service but is scored as character because the standard is fixed to the
oath, not the office held at the time. The Supreme Court rejected the suit two days later for lack
of standing.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?A genuine cross-aisle product exists in his short House tenure: the law-enforcement
background-check bill co-led with Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC), which passed with bipartisan support.
Upper-middle on documented willingness to legislate with the other side rather than only against
it; tenure too short for a Lugar-style index, so the score rests on concrete instances, not a
career pattern.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of denying opponents' personhood or standing as citizens; rhetoric is
partisan-conventional rather than dehumanizing. The drag is structural, not verbal: signing onto
an effort to discard the votes of four other states' electorates is itself an act that treats
those voters' choices as discardable. Middle, no enemy-making pattern, but the 2020 conduct
bears on equal-worth in substance.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?The Criterion-8 conduct hits abuse-of-power directly: state legal authority deployed toward
defeating a certified election outcome in other states. The 65 Project ethics complaint was
dismissed by a Kansas deputy disciplinary administrator (no rule violation found), that
dismissal is weighed as a cleared appearance-concern on the disciplinary axis, NOT as exoneration
of the underlying conduct, which the framework scores on its own terms. Low.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?No documented incitement or sustained inflammatory-rhetoric pattern in office; tone is
conventional. Held at the midline rather than higher because the most consequential rhetorical
act on record, lending his office's name to baseless election-overturning claims via the amicus, is a serious truthfulness/restraint failure even absent heated language.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?Two AG-era ethics complaints surfaced (the 2012 Planned Parenthood case-dismissal complaint and
the 2022 election-lawsuit complaint); both were dismissed/uncharged and are weighed as
appearance-concerns, never findings. No sustained self-accountability for the 2020 amicus is on
record, he has not disavowed it, which keeps this from rising above the midline.
[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 Schmidt breaking with his party or its leadership on a matter of principle at personal cost;
the defining cross-pressure moment (2020 election) ran the other way, he joined the party
position rather than resisting it. Below midline on the affirmative call-out duty.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented test of using a discretionary advantage purely for self at others' expense, and no
countervailing instance of refusing such an advantage at cost. Honest midline for absence of
evidence either direction.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap on record; no evidence the off-camera posture
diverges from the public one. Midline for absence of dispositive evidence.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Strong attendance (missed 4 of 529 roll calls through May 2026, better than median) and active
committee work on Armed Services, Judiciary, and Small Business indicate engaged constituent
service. No documented donor-capture pattern. Midline-plus held to midline by short tenure and
the absence of a developed independent-of-party record.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment. No documented self-dealing, family payments,
office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. Raw wealth and lawful career earnings
are not penalized. Upper-middle in the absence of any documented enrichment breach; not higher
only because the short federal record limits the disclosure window reviewed.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?No documented decorum breaches, stunts, or disorder in his House tenure; conventional
institutional posture. Held at midline rather than higher because the 2020 amicus is precisely
an instance of subordinating an institution (the certified-election process) to a partisan end, the inverse of institutional fidelity, even though it pre-dates this office.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 3 | why?Truthfulness is materially damaged by the amicus: it advanced standing and fraud-adjacent
election claims that, per the dismissed ethics complaint's own framing and the Court's summary
rejection, lacked basis in law or fact. Lending an officeholder's signature to legally baseless
election claims is a documented truthfulness failure of the most consequential kind. Low; no
offsetting pattern of public correction.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive command is real: J.D. (Georgetown) and S.J.D. (Kansas), twelve years as state
Attorney General, Kansas Senate Majority Leader, and a sponsored Criminal History Access Act plus
the background-check bill show command of subject matter over talking points. Upper-middle on
demonstrated competence and seriousness of work product.
[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 | As Kansas AG, signed Kansas onto the Missouri-led amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec. 9, 2020) urging the Court to set aside four states' certified presidential electors ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, capping; oath-fidelity floor | Action was legal on its face and pre-dates House service; scored as character against the oath, not the office |
| M04 | Same 2020 amicus, state legal authority deployed toward defeating a certified election outcome in other states ↳ abuse of office / process subversion | 65 Project ethics complaint dismissed (no Kansas rule violation found), cleared on the disciplinary axis only |
| M13 | Amicus advanced standing and election claims the Court summarily rejected and the complaint characterized as baseless in law and fact ↳ truthfulness, baseless election claims under an officeholder's name | - |
| M07 | No documented instance of breaking with his own party at personal cost; joined the party line at the 2020 cross-pressure moment ↳ active call-out duty unmet | - |
| M06 | Two AG-era ethics complaints (2012 Planned Parenthood dismissal; 2022 election lawsuit), both dismissed/uncharged; no disavowal of the 2020 amicus ↳ fiduciary appearance-concern + absence of self-accountability | Both complaints dismissed/uncharged, weighed as appearance, not findings |
| Pillar I | Loyalty ran to party over the constitutional transfer-of-power purpose at the one tested moment ↳ Trust/Loyalty drag | - |
| Pillar II | No documented self-reflection or correction on the most consequential act of his public career ↳ Self-Reflection/Teachability drag | - |
| Pillar III | Used legal power toward an anti-constitutional end (Criterion 8) rather than to protect the franchise ↳ Protection/Accountability drag toward Exploitation of process | - |
| Pillar IV | The 2020 amicus is an influence one would not want propagated; truthfulness asterisk on the legacy ↳ 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, Courage, Steadiness. At the single defining cross-pressure of his career, loyalty ran to party position rather than to the constitutional transfer of power the oath protects. No POW-grade evidence of courage at cost in the opposite direction. Below midline. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. He is consistent and authentic to his convictions, but there is no documented self-reflection or correction on the 2020 amicus, the act most in need of it. Drag toward the opposite of Teachability holds this below midline. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. The Criterion-8 conduct is the inverse of protection, legal power aimed at an anti-constitutional end (discarding certified electors) rather than safeguarding the franchise. Lowest pillar. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. Competent, serious public service across decades, but the durable legacy mark is lending an officeholder's name to legally baseless election claims, a Love-of-Truth and Justice drag that a parent would not want a child to model. Below midline. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 15/40 |
Total 15/40. The pillars sit low because the one capping act, the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, is precisely the kind of conduct each pillar measures against, and there is no offsetting extraordinary sacrifice or accountability to lift them.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“When I served as Kansas attorney general, we made fighting crimes against children a priority.”
Reflecting on his AG tenure (House social media) · Rep. Derek Schmidt official page · CIVIC · cite
“Kansas joins states asking the Supreme Court to hear the Texas election lawsuit.”
Announcing Kansas's participation in the Missouri-led amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania · WIBW, Dec. 9 2020 · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Derek Larkin Schmidt (born January 23, 1968). U.S. Representative for Kansas's 2nd Congressional District since January 3, 2025. Fifth-generation Kansan from Independence. B.A. University of Kansas (1990); M.A. international politics, University of Leicester; J.D. Georgetown University Law Center; S.J.D. University of Kansas. Kansas State Senate 2001-2011 (Majority Leader 2004-2010); Kansas Attorney General 2011-2023; 2022 Republican nominee for Governor of Kansas (lost to Laura Kelly).
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Freshman House member (119th Congress) on Armed Services, Judiciary, and Small Business committees. Strong attendance (missed 4 of 529 roll calls through May 2026, better than the chamber median). Documented bipartisan work product: the law-enforcement background-check bill co-led with Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC), passed with bipartisan support; sponsored the Criminal History Access Act of 2026. Twelve years of prior executive experience as Kansas Attorney General anchors his substantive command (M14). Policy positions themselves are not graded in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining moment is adverse. On December 9, 2020, as Kansas Attorney General, Schmidt signed Kansas onto the Missouri-led state amicus brief supporting Texas v. Pennsylvania, an action seeking to have the Supreme Court invalidate the certified presidential electors of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The Court rejected the underlying suit for lack of standing two days later. This is scored as Criterion-8 process subversion (capping): legal-on-its-face authority used to defeat the constitutional peaceful-transfer purpose. It pre-dates his House service but is judged against the oath, which is fixed regardless of the office held at the time.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Conventional partisan tone with no documented dehumanization or sustained incitement pattern; there is no Criterion-10 flag. The rhetorical concern is not heat but content, lending an officeholder's signature to election claims the Court summarily rejected and a disciplinary complaint characterized as baseless. The truthfulness failure is structural, not verbal.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment: no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue on record. Raw wealth and lawful career earnings are not penalized. Two AG-era ethics complaints (2012 Planned Parenthood case dismissal; 2022 election lawsuit) were dismissed or uncharged and are weighed as appearance-concerns, never findings. The fiduciary axis is comparatively clean; the record's weight sits in the Criterion-8 conduct, not in financial impropriety.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Criterion-8 flag (capping): signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus on December 9, 2020, an attempt to set aside other states' certified presidential electors. This drives M01 to the 3-floor, hits M04, and forecloses author support regardless of composite. No Criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement pattern is documented. Flag count: one (capping).
7. What The Framework Says
Schmidt presents an otherwise competent and conventional public servant, twelve years as a state attorney general, a clean fiduciary record, strong attendance, and genuine bipartisan legislative product in his freshman House term. But the Civic Leader Scorecard is fixed to the oath, and one act on this record is dispositive: as Kansas Attorney General he signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to discard four states' certified presidential electors. That is Criterion-8 process subversion, legal-on-its-face power aimed at defeating the constitutional transfer of power, and under the standard it caps the record and forecloses support regardless of the surrounding competence. There is no documented self-correction or disavowal to mitigate it. The fiduciary and rhetoric axes are comparatively clean and are recorded as such; the verdict turns on conduct against the oath, not on party, policy, or ideology.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): U.S. Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus of Missouri et al. · Congress.gov member profile
Tier 2: Kansas Reflector, 65 Project ethics complaint coverage · GovTrack voting/attendance record
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House financial disclosures · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.