Composite 4.02 / 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 478 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Tiffany signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 10-11, 2020) asking the Supreme Court to set aside certified electoral results in four states, including Wisconsin, and on Jan 6, 2021 voted to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral counts, stating he would have rejected Wisconsin's as well. He has continued to deny the 2020 outcome through the 2026 campaign. Legal-on-its-face power directed at defeating the constitutional purpose of certifying a decided election. This caps M01 at the floor and forecloses support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives (corrected) · Wisconsin Watch, Tiffany voted against certifying 2020 results
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 →
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 | 2 | why?CAPPING (Criterion 8, process subversion). Tiffany is a confirmed signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania
amicus brief (Dec 10-11, 2020), which asked the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral results in four
states, including his own Wisconsin. He then voted on Jan 6, 2021 to sustain objections to the Arizona and
Pennsylvania electoral counts, and stated he would have rejected Wisconsin's as well. Legal-on-its-face power
(a member's vote, a signature on a brief) was directed at defeating the constitutional purpose of certifying a
decided election. This is not scored on the bare objection vote alone, the amicus signature is the
independent capping trigger. Driven to the capping floor. NOTE: this oath measure scores the attempt to
overturn a certified election as conduct against the oath; it does NOT score the policy of election-integrity
legislation, which is graded elsewhere and not here.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 3 | why?Among the least-bipartisan members of Wisconsin's House delegation on the Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan
Index, a House Freedom Caucus member with a thin record of cross-aisle sponsorship or cosponsorship. This is a
conduct read on willingness to build across the aisle, not on policy positions or party. Low-middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented sustained pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. His
election-denial conduct is framed in statutory/process terms ("ballots cast in violation of procedure"),
not in dehumanizing or enemy-making terms, so criterion-10 is not triggered. Held at a flat middle:
no high-mark defense-of-an-opponent anchor on record, and a partisan posture, but no documented
anti-belonging rhetoric crossing into the capping band.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?Criterion-8 process-subversion also lands here. Using the instruments of office, a Supreme Court amicus
signature and floor objections, to attempt to set aside the certified will of voters is a misuse of
legitimate power against a constitutional purpose. No separate finding of weaponizing state power to punish
named private rivals, but the election-overturning attempt itself drives this measure low.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Rhetoric runs sharply partisan and persistently advances 2020-election claims that courts and Wisconsin's own
review rejected, but the documented register stays in policy/process framing rather than personal
enemy-making or incitement. No documented single line or pattern that meets the criterion-10 incitement bar.
A flat middle: contested content, restrained-enough delivery.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?No adjudicated ethics finding, sanction, or sustained appearance-concern on the fiduciary side located in the
record. One open appearance item belongs to the gubernatorial campaign (a likely AI-generated ad lacking the
Wisconsin-required disclaimer), which the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign flagged as a possible future complaint, unresolved and campaign-side, weighed only lightly as an appearance-concern. Default middle absent a
documented federal-office breach.
[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 opposite: Tiffany has
aligned with his party's most contested position (election denial) and, as of 2023 and into the 2026 campaign, still refuses to acknowledge the 2020 outcome, declining to break with his side even where the evidence and
courts went the other way. No documented instance of costly self-side accountability. Low.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented discretion-test event, neither a clear abuse of discretionary authority nor a notable
voluntary forgoing of advantage on record. Default middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; no reporting located showing an off-camera posture at odds
with the on-camera one. Default middle absent evidence either way.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Ordinary district-representation conduct (constituent service, the annual congressional art competition, routine
casework) without a documented standout of placing constituent interest over donor or party interest, and
without a documented dereliction. Flat middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?This measure scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-information
trades, or foreign-government revenue. No such documented conduct located. Raw wealth and ordinary campaign
finance are excluded by rule. Slightly above middle for the absence of any documented self-enrichment pattern.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 4 | why?Institutional fidelity is undercut by joining an effort that asked the judiciary to override the certified
electoral process, the inverse of honoring the institution over the outcome. Outside that, no pattern of
decorum breaches or stunts on record. Below middle, pulled down by the institution-over-outcome failure
rather than by everyday floor conduct.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?A sustained pattern of advancing 2020-election claims rejected by courts and by Wisconsin's own reviews,
continued through 2023 and into the 2026 gubernatorial campaign. Truthfulness-to-the-public takes a real,
documented hit on this specific recurring claim. Below middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 5 | why?A working substantive record on natural-resources, water, and district economic issues consistent with his
Wisconsin background; no standout command of policy detail and no documented pattern of empty
talking-points-only conduct located. Flat 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 10-11, 2020) seeking to discard certified electoral results in four states including Wisconsin; objected Jan 6, 2021 to AZ/PA counts ↳ Criterion 8 process subversion, attempt to overturn a certified election | Framed in statutory-procedure terms; the constitutional process ultimately held |
| M04 | Same election-overturning instruments (amicus + floor objections) used office power against a constitutional purpose ↳ misuse of legitimate power against the certified will of voters | - |
| M13 | Continued to deny the 2020 outcome through 2023 and into the 2026 campaign after courts and Wisconsin reviews rejected the claims ↳ truthfulness-to-the-public on a recurring documented claim | - |
| M02 | Among the least-bipartisan of Wisconsin's House delegation on the Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index; Freedom Caucus member ↳ cross-aisle conduct | - |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out his own side at cost; held the contested party line on election denial ↳ active self-side accountability duty unmet | - |
| M06 | Gubernatorial campaign ad likely AI-generated without the Wisconsin-required disclaimer; flagged by Wisconsin Democracy Campaign ↳ appearance-concern (campaign-side, unresolved) | No complaint filed; campaign matter, not a federal-office breach |
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?Loyalty ran to party position over the constitutional process at the decisive 2020-21 moment, the amicus signature and objections show a drag toward Self-Interest/Faction over the oath's fidelity. Low. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?A consistent, authentic conservative conviction record (Conviction, Authenticity present), but no documented Self-Reflection or Teachability on the central 2020 claim, he has not revised it against the evidence. Below middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 3 | why?Power was used to attempt to set aside certified results rather than to protect the franchise, a drag toward the protective duty's opposite. No documented exploitation for personal gain. Low. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 3 | why?The legacy-defining conduct measured here is participation in an election-overturning effort and sustained denial of a settled outcome, a real drag on Integrity and Love of Truth. Low. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 13/40 |
Total 13/40. The Pillars track the capping conduct: the 2020-21 election-overturning attempt and its continuation are the dominant character facts on the record and pull all four pillars down.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Ballots cast in violation of the procedures set forth in state statute may not be included in the certified result of any election. That is the law, and that is why I must support tomorrow's objection.”
Statement announcing he would object to the electoral count · Tiffany House office statement, January 2021 · CONTESTED · cite
“I spoke to Troupis to get the legal perspective of what the arguments were before the state Supreme Court in that case.”
Explaining a Jan 4, 2021 call with the attorney who helped organize Wisconsin's fake-electors slate · NOTUS reporting · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Thomas Patrick Tiffany (born December 30, 1957). U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District since a May 2020 special election. Member of the House Freedom Caucus. Previously a Wisconsin state senator (2013-2020) and state assembly member. Former dam-tour-boat operator in northern Wisconsin. Announced and became the Republican nominee for Governor of Wisconsin in the 2026 cycle while continuing to hold his House seat (term ends January 3, 2027).
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
House Freedom Caucus member; among the least-bipartisan of Wisconsin's House delegation on the Lugar Center / McCourt School Bipartisan Index. Legislative focus on natural resources, water, mining/forestry, and northern Wisconsin district economic issues. Voting record is reliably on the conservative wing; policy positions are noted as context and are NOT scored, only conduct against the oath is.
3. Constitutional Moments
The decisive constitutional moment on the record is negative: Tiffany signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 10-11, 2020) urging the Supreme Court to discard certified electoral results in four states, including his own Wisconsin, and on Jan 6, 2021 voted to sustain objections to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral counts, stating he would have rejected Wisconsin's results as well. He has continued to decline to acknowledge the 2020 outcome through 2023 and into the 2026 campaign. This is Criterion-8 process subversion: legal-on-its-face instruments aimed at defeating the constitutional purpose of certifying a decided election.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Sharply partisan and persistent on 2020-election claims, but the documented register stays in statutory/process framing rather than personal enemy-making or incitement; no criterion-10 pattern located. The truthfulness concern is specific and recurring: continued advancement of election claims rejected by courts and by Wisconsin's own reviews.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No adjudicated ethics finding, sanction, or documented office-attributable enrichment located in the federal record. The one open appearance item is gubernatorial-campaign-side, a likely AI-generated ad lacking the Wisconsin-required disclaimer, flagged by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign as a possible future complaint, unresolved. Weighed lightly as an appearance-concern, not a finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class pattern: Criterion 8 (process subversion), confirmed. Tiffany is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief and a Jan 6, 2021 objector to the electoral count who stated he would also have rejected Wisconsin's certified result. This is a capping flag: it drives M01 to the floor, lands on M04, and forecloses author support regardless of composite. No criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement pattern met (election-denial framed in process terms, not dehumanization). Flag count: one (capping).
7. What The Framework Says
Tiffany's record carries a confirmed Criterion-8 capping flag: signing the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and voting to reject certified electoral counts on Jan 6, 2021, with stated willingness to reject his own state's result and sustained refusal to accept the 2020 outcome thereafter. Under the fixed oath standard, an attempt to overturn a certified election is the gravest conduct the framework measures, and it forecloses support regardless of where the composite lands. Outside that, the record is an unremarkable partisan-wing profile: low bipartisanship, no documented self-enrichment, no enemy-making/incitement pattern, ordinary district service. The capping conduct is the dispositive fact.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (SCOTUS docket) · House Financial Disclosures (Clerk)
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Wisconsin Watch, certification vote · NOTUS, Wisconsin Republicans / fake-electors
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.