Composite 5.84 / 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 610 (Adequate band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Simpson is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (Dec 11 2020), which asked the Supreme Court to block the certification of lawfully certified electors in four states Biden won. Per the amicus cross-check, every signatory receives criterion-8: a legal-on-its-face filing used to defeat the constitutional purpose of a certified election. This caps M01 at the 2-3 floor, hits M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support. His subsequent refusal to object on the Jan 6 floor is a real mitigation weighed in the measure reasoning but does not remove the flag.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (SCOTUS docket 22O155) · Idaho Press, Eye on Boise: Idaho amicus signatories (Simpson and Fulcher)
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. Simpson is a dentist by profession (DDS, Washington University School of Dental Medicine, 1977) who practiced in the Simpson Family Dental Practice in Blackfoot, Idaho, and served in the Idaho House of Representatives (including as Speaker) before entering Congress in 1999.
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 by Criterion 8 (process subversion). Simpson 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
block certification of another state's lawfully certified electors, defeating a constitutional
purpose. That places him at the crit-8 floor regardless of other conduct. Held at 3 rather than 2
because, unlike many co-signatories, he then declined to object on the Jan 6 floor, publicly stated
that objecting "would be devastating for Idaho," and located Congress's only duty as counting the
states' returns, a genuine partial correction within the same constitutional moment. The amicus is
the controlling defect; the floor reflects both the defect and the limited self-correction.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 7 | why?Sustained cross-aisle working posture across a long House career, Republican Main Street Partnership
member, broad bipartisan co-sponsorship, and a documented willingness to court Democratic votes on his
signature salmon/Columbia Basin initiative. Country-over-denial-of-a-win shows up concretely rather
than rhetorically. Upper-middle, not higher, because the bipartisanship is real but unremarkable
against the strongest cross-aisle architects.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. The salmon
proposal explicitly tried to hold ranchers, tribes, utilities and environmentalists inside one
bargain rather than pit them against each other, a persons-of-equal-worth posture. No crit-10
conduct. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?Criterion 8 hits M04 as well as M01: lending an officeholder's name to a suit seeking to nullify
another state's certified result is a misuse of the office's standing against the constitutional
order. No weaponization of state power against individual rivals is documented, and the Jan 6 floor
restraint is a real offset, which keeps this above the M01 floor, but the amicus is a documented
abuse-of-position instance and the score reflects it.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Career-long low-temperature rhetoric; no documented record of slurs, dehumanizing language, or
incitement. Reputation among colleagues is for procedural command and even temper (frequent speaker
pro tempore during contentious debate). Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No ethics findings, sanctions, or open appearance-concerns located across a long tenure. Middle
rather than higher: a clean-but-unremarkable fiduciary record with no affirmative accountability
moment of the kind that would lift it, and no demerit to lower it.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?The higher bar is calling out one's own side at cost. Simpson cleared it more than once: 1 of only 35
House Republicans to vote for the Jan 6 commission, and an open advocate of a salmon/dam-breach plan
deeply unpopular in his own region and party. Held to middle-plus rather than higher because the same
record contains the un-called-out amicus signature, the willingness to break with his side is real
but not unbroken.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?Discretion test: where free to take the politically easy path, Simpson on the salmon question spent
real capital on an unpopular conviction. Solid-middle; not at the apex tier reserved for sacrificing
one's political life when nothing compelled it, but a documented instance of using discretion against
self-interest.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented public/private contempt gap; the on-record moderate, procedure-minded reputation
appears consistent with his off-camera standing among colleagues. Middle on absence of contrary
evidence rather than affirmative proof.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Long appropriations tenure directed at concrete constituent infrastructure (INL, Energy & Water,
Interior). Reversed an earlier anti-earmark posture toward Community Project Funding, which is a
defensible constituent-service argument openly made, not a hidden one. Middle: genuine constituent
orientation, no donor-capture evidence either way.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment. No self-dealing, family-payment, office-information
trading, or foreign-government revenue is documented; no STOCK Act violation located. Raw wealth and
partisan alignment are excluded by rule. Middle on a clean-but-unremarkable enrichment record.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Strong institutional decorum: trusted by leadership to preside as speaker pro tempore during
contentious debate precisely for his command of House procedure and even-handed gaveling. Honors the
institution's regular order. Held below the top tier because the 2020 amicus is itself an
institutional-fidelity lapse that sits in tension with the otherwise procedure-respecting record.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern. His own certification statement correctly located
Congress's constitutional duty and warned against federalizing elections, an accurate, candid public
account. Tempered to middle by the contradiction of having signed the amicus that advanced the very
challenge he then declined to press on the floor.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Deep substantive command of appropriations and Western water/energy/salmon policy, the $33.5B
Columbia Basin framework was a detailed, science-engaged proposal rather than a talking point, and
his procedural mastery is widely acknowledged. Substance over performance. 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 11 2020) asking SCOTUS to block certification of four states' certified electors ↳ Criterion 8 process subversion, defeats a constitutional purpose | Declined to object on the Jan 6 floor; called objecting 'devastating for Idaho'; partial same-moment correction holds the floor at 3 not 2 |
| M04 | Lent the office's standing to the Texas v. PA amicus ↳ abuse of position against the constitutional order | No weaponization against individual rivals; Jan 6 floor restraint offsets above the M01 floor |
| M07 | The crit-8 amicus signature was never called out or recanted ↳ incomplete own-side accountability | 1 of 35 R to vote for the Jan 6 commission; unpopular salmon stand against his own region, real own-side breaks |
| M13 | Accurate certification statement contradicted by his prior amicus signature on the same challenge ↳ candor-vs-conduct gap | Public statement itself was accurate and candid about Congress's duty |
| M12 | The 2020 amicus is an institutional-fidelity lapse ↳ decorum/institution drag | Trusted speaker pro tempore for procedural command and even-handed gaveling |
| Pillar II | Amicus signature sits in tension with his stated constitutional reasoning (Consistency) ↳ Consistency drag | Salmon stand and commission vote show genuine Conviction and Self-Reflection |
| Pillar IV | Crit-8 conduct is a durable legacy asterisk on an otherwise institution-respecting record (Integrity/Justice) ↳ Integrity/Justice drag | Moderate, low-temperature, procedure-honoring career tempers but does not erase the flag |
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
| 5 | why?Attributes: Loyalty to oath, Steadiness, Courage. Steadiness and procedural reliability are real (speaker pro tempore role), and the Jan 6 floor restraint shows loyalty to the count. But the crit-8 amicus is a direct drag toward Self-Interest/Collapse on the highest-stakes loyalty test, loyalty to the constitutional order, holding this at the midline. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. The salmon/dam proposal and the commission vote evidence genuine Conviction and willingness to break from his side. Held to middle by a Consistency drag: the amicus signature contradicts his own stated constitutional reasoning on certification. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. Long appropriations stewardship for constituents and an effort to broker a multi-party salmon bargain count positively; the crit-8 misuse of the office's standing against the certified result is the offsetting drag toward Exploitation of position. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice. A moderate, low-temperature, institution-respecting career with a genuine act of regional moral courage (salmon), carrying a durable crit-8 asterisk that a child reflecting the record would have to reckon with. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 21/40 |
Total 21/40, Adequate-to-mixed. The pillars hold at the midline: real procedural reliability and issue courage on one side, a capping constitutional-fidelity lapse on the other.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Objecting to the Electoral College returns is also a step towards the federalization of elections, something that would be devastating for Idaho. Congress' only Constitutional duty is to count the Electoral College votes sent by the states in accordance with state law.”
Statement explaining his refusal to object to certification on the House floor · Simpson House office, Statement on Certification of the Electoral College · PRINCIPLED · cite
“I am one of only 35 Republicans to support an independent commission to investigate the events of January 6th.”
Vote to establish the January 6 commission, breaking with the GOP majority · KTVB, Simpson 1 of 35 House Republicans to vote for Jan 6 commission · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“I have weighed the science and forthrightly faced the facts; if we do nothing the salmon will be gone.”
Unveiling the Columbia Basin Initiative to breach four Snake River dams, a stance against his own region's politics · Idaho Capital Sun, salmon plan coverage · CIVIC · cite
“Signing on as amicus in Texas v. Pennsylvania.”
Joined 125 other House Republicans asking the Supreme Court to block certification of four states' electors, the documented criterion-8 conduct · SCOTUS docket 22O155, Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Michael Keith Simpson (born September 8, 1950). U.S. Representative for Idaho's 2nd Congressional District since 1999, a Republican. A dentist by profession (DDS, Washington University School of Dental Medicine, 1977), he practiced in Blackfoot before serving in the Idaho House of Representatives, including as Speaker, 1984-1998. Senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, chairing or serving on its Energy & Water and Interior-Environment subcommittees. A self-described moderate and member of the Republican Main Street Partnership.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Long-serving appropriator known for procedural command (frequent speaker pro tempore) and a moderate, cross-aisle posture, Main Street Partnership, bipartisan or moderate positions on climate, immigration, arts funding, LGBT issues, and Ukraine aid. Signature initiative: the Columbia Basin Initiative (2021), a ~$33.5B framework to breach four lower Snake River dams to recover salmon while compensating affected communities, a politically costly stance in his own region. Earmark/Community Project Funding posture evolved over time and is treated as policy, not scored. Votes on impeachment, the Jan 6 commission, and certification are recorded as conduct context, not graded as partisan alignment.
3. Constitutional Moments
A split record at the December 2020 - January 2021 constitutional moment. On the negative side: Simpson signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020) seeking to block certification of four states' certified electors, the documented criterion-8 process-subversion conduct that caps M01/M04 and forecloses support. On the positive side, within the same moment: he declined to object on the Jan 6 floor, publicly located Congress's only duty as counting the states' returns, warned against federalizing elections, and was 1 of just 35 Republicans to vote for an independent Jan 6 commission. The standard records both honestly; the amicus is the controlling, capping defect.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Low-temperature and procedure-minded across a long career; no documented record of slurs, dehumanizing language, or incitement. The salmon proposal was argued in the register of stewardship and shared sacrifice rather than enemy-making. No criterion-10 pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No ethics findings, sanctions, or appearance-concerns located across his tenure; no documented office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue; no STOCK Act violation located. M06 and M11 reflect a clean-but-unremarkable fiduciary record rather than either a demerit or an affirmative accountability lift.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One Severity-class flag: Criterion 8 (process subversion), confirmed and capping, for signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief on Dec 11 2020. No criterion-10 (enemy-making/incitement) conduct is documented. The crit-8 flag caps M01 at the 2-3 floor, hits M04, and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. Flag count: one.
7. What The Framework Says
Simpson presents a genuinely mixed record under the standard. The affirmative side is real: an unusually independent, politically costly salmon-recovery stand against his own region; one of only 35 Republicans to vote for the Jan 6 commission; a refusal to object to certification on the floor; and a long reputation for procedural fairness and low-temperature, cross-aisle work. But the standard does not curve. He signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus asking the Supreme Court to nullify four states' certified electors, a criterion-8 act of process subversion that caps his oath-fidelity measure and forecloses support, however much the rest of the record cuts the other way. The honest reading is a decent institutionalist with a capping constitutional-fidelity lapse he did not recant.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (SCOTUS docket 22O155) · Simpson House office, Statement on Certification of the Electoral College · House Committee on Ethics, Financial Disclosure
Tier 2: Idaho Press, Eye on Boise: Idaho amicus signatories · KTVB, Simpson 1 of 35 R to vote for Jan 6 commission · Idaho Capital Sun, Simpson salmon plan coverage · Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.