Composite 4.93 / 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 534 (Unfit band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Austin Scott is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020), one of 126 House Republicans, asking the Supreme Court to set aside certified electoral results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This is legal-on-its-face power deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose, the orderly counting of certified electoral votes, squarely within Criterion 8. It drives M01 to the 2-3 floor and hits M04, and forecloses support. His subsequent Jan 6-7 2021 vote to certify is weighed in mitigation within the affected measures but does not remove the flag.
Evidence: Supreme Court docket 22O155, amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected)
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 record of U.S. military service. Austin Scott's pre-congressional background is Georgia state-legislative (Georgia House of Representatives, 1997-2010) and small business. Service to country is honored as context where present; it is not scored, and its absence is not penalized.
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?Scott is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020), legal-on-its-face power used to ask the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral results in four states, including his own Georgia. That is process subversion against the oath's core (Criterion 8, capping), driving M01 to the 2-3 floor. Partially countervailed by his subsequent Jan 6-7 2021 conduct, he voted TO CERTIFY, declined to object to Arizona or Pennsylvania, and stated 'Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to overturn a state's electoral votes', which is why he sits at the top of the floor (3) rather than at 2. The certification vote is real fidelity; it does not erase the amicus signature six weeks prior. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?A long House tenure with documented bipartisan legislative work, co-led a bipartisan ITC letter on specialty-crop trade, sustained Agriculture Committee cross-aisle bill cosponsorship. Mid-range: workmanlike institutional cooperation on substance, no standout record of placing institution over party at cost, and the Dec 2020 amicus cuts the other way on the highest-stakes institutional question. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as enemies who do not belong; no enemy-making incitement on record. Generally restrained public posture. Held at upper-middle rather than higher because the documented record is thin on affirmative defense-of-opponent moments. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?The Criterion-8 amicus also hits M04: lending a sworn officeholder's name to a suit seeking to nullify other states' certified votes is a misuse of institutional standing against the constitutional allocation of election authority. No weaponization of state power against named individual rivals on record, which keeps this above the M01 floor, but the structural subversion is scored here too. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Largely measured public rhetoric across a long tenure; no documented sustained inflammatory or dehumanizing pattern. Upper-middle, competent restraint without a strong affirmative high-mark. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?Disclosed 17 of his wife's stock sales (May 2024-June 2025) past the STOCK Act 45-day deadline, a genuine fiduciary-transparency appearance-concern. Mitigated: the trades stem from his wife's inherited retirement account, he proactively notified the House Ethics Committee, disclosed 'within 48 hours' of learning of them, paid no fine, and stated openness to tougher trading rules. Weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Scott met it once and clearly, breaking with most of his caucus to certify and publicly grounding it in the oath ('my decision to support the Electoral College fulfills my sworn oath'). But the same record shows him signing the Dec 2020 amicus that ran with his side rather than against it on the prior high-stakes test. One real call-out, undercut by the earlier capitulation: below-middle, with the floor-break keeping it from lower. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?Mixed discretion record. The Jan 6-7 certification vote is a clean discretion-test pass against caucus pressure; the Dec 2020 amicus is a discretion-test failure in the opposite direction on the related question. Net middle, capacity for the right call demonstrated, not consistently exercised. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap on record; absence of evidence rather than affirmative evidence of consistency. Neutral middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Sustained district-focused legislative work, Agriculture Committee leadership, specialty-crop and farm-commodity advocacy aligned with a rural Georgia district. Solid representational alignment; upper-middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment. The late-disclosed trades are his wife's inherited retirement-account holdings, not documented office-information trades, self-dealing, family payments, or foreign-government revenue. The drag here is the transparency-timing appearance-concern (no evidence of office-driven enrichment), so the floor is held high; raw wealth and the trades themselves are not penalized as a breach. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Generally conventional institutional decorum across a long tenure, regular committee leadership, no documented floor-conduct sanctions. Held at middle rather than higher because lending his name to a suit to overturn certified results is itself an institution-degrading act on the highest-stakes question. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?His Jan 2021 statement correctly and publicly acknowledged that Congress lacks authority to overturn state electoral votes, a truthful, on-record acceptance of the election outcome. Held at middle, not higher, because the Dec 2020 amicus advanced the contested fraud-adjacent legal theory he later disavowed in practice. No sustained documented-falsehood pattern on record. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive committee command, Vice Chair of House Agriculture, member of Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, with detailed farm-policy and risk-management legislative work. Genuine substance over talking points; 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 | Confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020) asking the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral results in four states, including his own Georgia ↳ Criterion 8, process subversion against the oath's core (capping) | Subsequently voted TO CERTIFY on Jan 6-7 2021 and declined to object, keeps M01 at the top of the 2-3 floor, does not erase the signature |
| M04 | Same amicus lent a sworn officeholder's standing to a suit to nullify other states' certified votes ↳ misuse of institutional standing against the constitutional election framework | No weaponization against named individual rivals on record |
| M07 | Ran with his caucus on the Dec 2020 amicus rather than against it; the lone clean own-side call-out was the Jan 6-7 certification break ↳ active call-out duty met only once on the related tests | The certification floor-break was real and oath-grounded |
| M06 | Disclosed 17 of his wife's stock sales (May 2024-June 2025) past the STOCK Act 45-day deadline ↳ fiduciary-transparency appearance-concern | Wife's inherited retirement account; proactively notified Ethics Committee; disclosed within 48 hours of learning; no fine; backed tougher rules |
| Pillar I | The amicus signature is a Trust/Loyalty breach toward the constitutional order on the highest-stakes test ↳ Loyalty-to-oath drag | The Jan 6-7 certification vote demonstrates the underlying capacity for the right call |
| Pillar III | Institutional standing used to advance an election-nullification suit (Protection's opposite on that act); STOCK Act timing drag on Stewardship ↳ Protection/Stewardship drag | No exploitation of office for personal enrichment on record; strong district stewardship |
| Pillar IV | The amicus is the kind of influence one would not want propagated (Justice/Love of Truth), and an Integrity asterisk on the legacy ↳ Integrity/Justice drag | The contemporaneous oath-grounded certification statement tempers but does not cure it |
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: Loyalty, Steadiness, Selfless Service vs. their opposites. The Dec 2020 amicus is a documented drag toward the opposite of loyalty-to-oath on the single highest-stakes test of the period, signing a suit to discard certified results in four states. The Jan 6-7 certification vote shows the underlying capacity for fidelity, which is why this is not at floor; but the brief is the heavier fact in this pillar. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection. The contradiction between the amicus and the certification vote cuts both ways, it reads as either growth or as inconsistency. Proactive Ethics-Committee notification on the trades shows some self-correction. Middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. Strong district-level stewardship (Agriculture leadership) and no documented exploitation of office for enrichment hold this up; the amicus (institutional standing used against the election framework) and the STOCK Act timing pull it to the middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth. The oath-grounded certification statement is a genuine legacy positive; the amicus signature is a durable Integrity asterisk on the same constitutional question. They partially offset to a tempered middle. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 19/40 |
Total 19/40, Adequate-to-soft. The pillars are dragged primarily by the single Criterion-8 act and held off the floor by the contemporaneous Jan 6-7 certification vote and the absence of any enrichment or incitement pattern.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to overturn a state's electoral votes - nor does the Vice President - and I believe my decision to support the Electoral College fulfills my sworn oath to the Constitution.”
Statement explaining his vote to certify the 2021 Electoral College count and decline to object · Office of Rep. Austin Scott · PRINCIPLED · cite
“Signed the amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania asking the Supreme Court to set aside certified electoral results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.”
One of 126 House Republican signatories to the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief · Supreme Court docket 22O155, amicus of 126 Representatives · CONTESTED · cite
“Disclosed within 48 hours of the time that I was made aware of them.”
Explaining late STOCK Act disclosure of 17 of his wife's stock sales from an inherited retirement account · NOTUS, STOCK Act late-disclosure reporting · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
James Austin Scott (born December 10, 1969). U.S. Representative for Georgia's 8th Congressional District since 2011, the longest-currently-serving Republican in Georgia's congressional delegation. Vice Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit; member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Prior service in the Georgia House of Representatives, 1997-2010. Re-elected through the current term ending January 3, 2027.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Long-tenured rural-Georgia House Republican with a substantive Agriculture-policy portfolio (farm commodities, risk management, crop trade) and seats on Armed Services and Intelligence. Documented bipartisan substance, co-led an ITC letter on specialty-crop trade practices and routine cross-aisle Agriculture cosponsorship. Policy positions and party alignment are NOT scored here; only conduct against the oath is. The Dec 2020 amicus and the Jan 6-7 2021 certification vote are recorded as institutional/constitutional conduct, scored as such.
3. Constitutional Moments
Two opposed moments on the same question define this record. December 11, 2020: Scott was one of 126 House Republicans who signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral results in four states (including Georgia), process subversion of a constitutional purpose, scored as a Criterion-8 capping flag. January 6-7, 2021: he broke with most of his caucus, voted to certify, declined to object to Arizona or Pennsylvania, and grounded it explicitly in his oath. The later act is real fidelity at some intra-party cost; it tempers but does not cure the earlier signature.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally measured public rhetoric across a long tenure, with no documented sustained pattern of dehumanizing opponents or inciting confrontation. No Criterion-10 enemy-making pattern on record. The defining conduct here is not rhetorical but the Dec 2020 amicus signature, scored under Criterion 8.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The principal fiduciary concern is STOCK Act transparency timing: Scott disclosed 17 of his wife's stock sales (May 2024-June 2025) after the 45-day deadline. The holdings stem from his wife's inherited retirement account; Scott proactively notified the House Ethics Committee, said he disclosed within 48 hours of learning of the trades, paid no fine, and stated openness to tougher trading rules. Weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding, and not as office-driven enrichment (no evidence of office-information trades, self-dealing, family payments, or foreign-government revenue).
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class flag. Criterion 8, Process Subversion (capping): Scott signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020) asking the Supreme Court to set aside certified electoral results in four states, including his own. The signature is confirmed against the 126-Representative signatory list. The flag drives M01 to the 2-3 floor and hits M04, and it forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. His subsequent Jan 6-7 2021 certification vote is weighed in mitigation within the affected measures but does not remove the flag. No Criterion-10 pattern on record. Flag count: one.
7. What The Framework Says
Austin Scott's record contains a genuine contradiction on the constitutional question that matters most for this standard. He signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to overturn certified results in four states, a Criterion-8 process-subversion act that caps this record, and then, six weeks later, broke with his caucus to certify the 2021 count and publicly grounded it in his oath. The certification vote is real and earns weight in the affected measures; it is why this record sits at the top of the flag's floor rather than the bottom. But the capping flag stands: lending a sworn officeholder's name to a suit to discard other states' certified votes is the kind of legal-on-its-face act the standard exists to catch. Support is foreclosed. The honest middle elsewhere, substantive committee work, district stewardship, a mitigated STOCK Act timing concern, no enrichment or incitement pattern, is recorded as it is, neither inflated nor erased.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Supreme Court docket 22O155, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus of 126 Representatives · Congress.gov member profile · Office of Rep. Austin Scott, Jan 2021 certification statement
Tier 2: Ballotpedia, Austin Scott · NOTUS, STOCK Act late-disclosure reporting
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 signatories) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.