Composite 5.51 / 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 581 (Adequate band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Stauber was one of 126 House Republicans who signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (filed Dec 11, 2020), which asked the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral results of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, a legal-on-its-face filing used to attempt to defeat the constitutional outcome of the 2020 election. This is capping process subversion: it floors M01, hits M04, and forecloses author endorsement. His subsequent Jan 6, 2021 vote to certify is weighed as a genuine countervailing act but does not remove the flag.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (Stauber among signatories) · Minnesota Reformer, Emmer, Stauber sign amicus asking SCOTUS to overturn election
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. Stauber served 23 years as a law-enforcement officer, Duluth Police Department, 1995–2017, retiring as a lieutenant. Public-safety service is context, not a score; the character and substantive command drawn from it are scored as conduct (M14) where they belong.
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?Capping Criterion-8 conduct floors this measure. Stauber joined the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief
(Dec 11, 2020) urging the Supreme Court to throw out the certified electoral results of four states, a
legal-on-its-face filing aimed at defeating a constitutional purpose (the peaceful transfer of power).
That is a direct strike at the oath. A partial, genuine counterweight is recorded but does not lift the
floor: three weeks later, on Jan 6, 2021, Stauber voted to CERTIFY Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electors
and publicly rejected the objection on constitutional grounds ("overturning the results of the Electoral
College would be an overstep of Congress' limited role"). The certification vote keeps him off the floor's
absolute bottom; the amicus keeps him on the floor.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 7 | why?Above-median bipartisan production. Top-quartile Lugar Bipartisan Index in the 116th Congress (0.7, 64th
of 435). The JUSTICE Act police-reform effort was negotiated across the aisle, including with Congressional
Black Caucus members, before it stalled. Genuine cross-party work, scored on conduct (the willingness to
build with the other side), not on the policy itself.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as illegitimate or as enemies who do not
belong. Standard partisan framing exists but stays within the bounds of policy disagreement. The drag is
the amicus posture (treating millions of other states' lawful voters as suspect), which bleeds into the
belonging measure but does not rise to a Criterion-10 incitement pattern. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?The Criterion-8 amicus also depresses the power-restraint measure: lending the office's name to a suit
seeking to nullify other states' certified results is the use of legitimate standing to subvert a
constitutional outcome. No separate weaponization of state power against named rivals is documented, which
keeps this above the M01 floor; but the same conduct that floors M01 holds this in the lower-middle.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetoric is largely conventional and policy-anchored without a documented dehumanization or sustained
enemy-making pattern. His Jan 6 statement notably used measured, constitutional language rather than
stolen-election framing. The amicus is the contrary data point. Net upper-middle, conduct only.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?Mixed accountability record. To his credit, he publicly broke from his own side's objectors on Jan 6 and
explained the constitutional reasoning openly, a real instance of owning an unpopular-within-caucus
position. Against it, there is no documented reckoning with or retraction of the December amicus he signed
three weeks earlier. The two postures are in tension and he has not reconciled them publicly. Middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Stauber met it on Jan 6, 2021: he voted to
certify and publicly rejected the objection that most of his caucus embraced, drawing predictable backlash
from the base. That is the higher bar, satisfied at real cost. It is held to upper-middle rather than high
because the same official had, weeks before, joined the amicus pushing the opposite direction, the
independent stance is real but not consistent. NOT scored on the certification vote as a vote; scored on
the documented willingness to break from his own side.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented abuse of discretionary authority for personal or factional advantage, and no documented
instance of refusing a self-serving advantage either. Absence of a defining discretion test in the record
lands him at the neutral middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented gap between a private posture and public persona; no leaked-vs-stated contradiction on
record. The Jan 6 statement matched his stated constitutional reasoning. Upper-middle on absence of a
documented integrity gap.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Constituent-service orientation is consistent with a working-class, mining-and-labor district (MN-08);
no documented donor-capture conduct or constituent-betrayal pattern. Scored on representational conduct,
not policy direction. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 7 | why?Scores office-attributable enrichment ONLY, not raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, family-payment
scheme, office-information trade, or foreign-government revenue. Personal-account equity trades (e.g., a
2025 Newell Brands purchase) appear disclosed within the STOCK Act window; no STOCK Act late-filing
violation or ethics complaint is on record. Held below maximum only because active stock trading by a
sitting member is a standing appearance-of-conflict concern, not because any breach is documented.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Conventional institutional decorum; no documented floor-conduct sanctions or spectacle-over-institution
pattern. No standout regular-order or institution-defending moment either. Neutral middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern. His Jan 6 statement affirmed the constitutional limits of
Congress and the states' authority rather than amplifying a stolen-election narrative, a truth-telling
mark against the grain of his caucus. The December amicus's premise (broad electoral irregularity) is the
contrary drag. Net upper-middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Demonstrated substantive command in his lane, mining/natural resources, law enforcement and police
reform (drawing on 23 years as a Duluth police lieutenant), and Social Security fraud-exclusion
legislation. Substance over pure messaging in his areas of focus. 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) seeking to nullify four states' certified electoral results ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion against the peaceful transfer of power | Voted to CERTIFY on Jan 6, 2021 on constitutional grounds, three weeks later, keeps him off the absolute floor but does not un-sign the amicus |
| M04 | Lent the office's standing to a suit aimed at defeating a constitutional outcome ↳ use of legitimate standing to subvert a constitutional purpose | No separate weaponization of state power against named rivals documented |
| M06 | No public reckoning with or retraction of the December amicus, despite the contradicting Jan 6 certification posture ↳ unreconciled accountability gap | Did publicly own the unpopular-within-caucus Jan 6 certification position |
| M03 | Amicus posture treated millions of other states' lawful voters as presumptively suspect ↳ belonging drag (not a Criterion-10 pattern) | - |
| M11 | Active personal-account stock trading by a sitting member ↳ standing appearance-of-conflict | Disclosed within STOCK Act window; no late-filing violation or ethics complaint on record; not office-driven enrichment |
| Pillar I | The amicus is a loyalty-to-oath breach; the Jan 6 certification is the countervailing loyalty-to-Constitution act ↳ Trust & Loyalty drag | Certification vote demonstrates the underlying loyalty was recoverable |
| Pillar IV | The amicus is the defining asterisk on the legacy (Integrity/Justice) ↳ Legacy & Virtue drag | The Jan 6 break from his own side tempers but does not erase 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
| 5 | why?Attributes: Courage, Selfless Service, Loyalty, pulled in two directions by the same record. The Texas v. PA amicus is a loyalty-to-oath breach (drag toward Self-Interest/factional collapse); the Jan 6 certification vote against his own caucus is the countervailing Courage and loyalty-to-Constitution act. Net middle: the breach and the recovery roughly offset. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, the openly-reasoned Jan 6 stand shows Authenticity and Conviction at cost. Held below high by the unreconciled gap with the December amicus (no Self-Reflection on the contradiction documented). |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, solid district-service and law-enforcement-grounded substance, no documented Exploitation. Drag toward Favoritism from the amicus posture; no abuse of power against rivals. Middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, the Criterion-8 amicus is the defining asterisk; the Jan 6 break from his own side is a genuine moral-courage mark that tempers it. A legacy genuinely split between an oath-strike and an oath-stand. Middle. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 21/40 |
Total 21/40, Adequate-to-middling. The pillars are pulled down by the Criterion-8 amicus and held up by the Jan 6 certification vote and a real bipartisan/substantive working record. An honestly split record.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Overturning the results of the Electoral College would be an overstep of Congress' limited role and would revoke power from where it should be derived, you, the people, and the states.”
Statement on the Joint Session, explaining his vote to certify Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electors against his caucus's objection · Rep. Stauber official statement · PRINCIPLED · cite
“Yesterday, I joined an amicus brief requesting the Supreme Court review the lawsuit brought forward by the Texas Attorney General and address the American people's questions on the integrity of this presidential election.”
Confirming he joined the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to overturn certified electoral results · Rep. Stauber, X/Twitter · CONTESTED · cite
“We worked for months with representatives from both sides of the aisle... on areas where they could find compromise.”
On negotiating the JUSTICE Act police-reform legislation across party lines · Rep. Stauber official · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Peter Allen Stauber (b. January 20, 1966). U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 8th Congressional District since 2019, currently serving a fourth term (term ends Jan 3, 2027); running for re-election in 2026. Former professional and college hockey player (1988 NCAA D-I champion, Lake Superior State); 1990 Detroit Red Wings draftee. Served 23 years with the Duluth Police Department (1995–2017), retiring as a lieutenant. St. Louis County Commissioner before Congress. Republican.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center Bipartisan Index top-quartile in the 116th Congress (0.7, 64th of 435). Center-right voting record. Focus areas: mining and natural-resource development (MN-08's Iron Range), law enforcement and police reform (the JUSTICE Act, negotiated across the aisle), and program-integrity measures (2026 Social Security fraud-exclusion bill). The Jan 6, 2021 vote to certify is recorded as institutional/process conduct, the certification process working, NOT graded as a policy or partisan vote, per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
A record split on the 2020-21 transfer of power. On Dec 11, 2020, Stauber joined the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (one of 126 House Republican signatories) urging the Supreme Court to discard four states' certified electoral results, the defining Criterion-8 process-subversion act on his record. Three weeks later, on Jan 6, 2021, he broke from most of his caucus and voted to CERTIFY Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electors, publicly grounding the vote in Congress's limited constitutional role. The two postures are unreconciled in the public record: an oath-strike followed by an oath-stand.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Largely conventional, policy-anchored rhetoric without a documented dehumanization or sustained enemy-making pattern; no Criterion-10 conduct found. His Jan 6 certification statement was notably measured and constitutional rather than stolen-election framing. The contrary mark is the December amicus, whose premise cast broad doubt on other states' lawful vote counts.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-driven enrichment, self-dealing, family-payment scheme, office-information trade, or foreign-government revenue. Active personal-account stock trading (e.g., a 2025 Newell Brands purchase) is a standing appearance-of-conflict concern, but disclosures appear within the STOCK Act window and no late-filing violation or ethics complaint is on record. Raw wealth is not scored.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class flag. Criterion 8 (Process Subversion), confirmed: Stauber signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020), verified against the 126-signatory brief and contemporaneous Minnesota reporting. This is capping conduct, it floors M01, depresses M04, and forecloses author endorsement regardless of composite. The Jan 6, 2021 certification vote is recorded as a genuine countervailing act but does not remove the flag. No Criterion-10 pattern found. Flag count: one.
7. What The Framework Says
An honestly split record. Stauber did the right and costly thing on Jan 6, 2021, voting to certify against his own caucus and explaining it in plain constitutional terms, and brings a real bipartisan and law-enforcement-grounded substantive record. But three weeks earlier he had signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to nullify four states' certified electors, and that Criterion-8 conduct caps the record. Under the framework, a capping flag forecloses endorsement no matter how the rest reads, and the amicus stands unreconciled with the certification vote in the public record. The standard records both the strike and the stand; the strike is the one that caps.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Supreme Court, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 signatories) · Congress.gov member record · House financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Minnesota Reformer · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · House financial disclosures · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.