Composite 4.88 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Unfit band at credit 530, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service record on file for Beth Van Duyne. Prior public service: Mayor of Irving, Texas (2011–2017) and a regional administrator at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2017–2019) before election to Congress. Listed as context, not scored.
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 | 5 | why?Imported raw floor of 0 was a contamination artifact and is corrected, the Jan-6 certification VOTE itself is the constitutional process and is not scored as a finding against the oath. What IS weighed, lightly, is that she voted to sustain the objection to Pennsylvania's electors on Jan 6, 2021, an appearance-concern about deference to a certified result. Crucially she did NOT sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (she was a member-elect in Dec 2020; the brief carried sitting members only, verified against the 126-signatory list), so no Criterion-8 process-subversion cap applies. Mitigated materially: she cast a SPLIT vote, the only Texas Republican to do so, voting to SUSTAIN Arizona's certification, an independent break from her delegation. Honest middle, not a floor. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index places her well below the historical average, 366th of the House in the 117th Congress and 319th in the 118th. A documented low-bipartisanship record on the cross-aisle-cooperation measure. Scored on conduct (willingness to work across the aisle), not on party or policy. Below-middle. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented federal-office pattern of casting constituents as outsiders. The drag is a pre-office appearance-concern from her Irving mayoralty, the 2015 anti-Sharia council resolution and her defense of the response in the Ahmed Mohamed clock episode, which read to critics as targeting a Muslim constituent. These are pre-office and weighed as appearance, not finding; the related defamation suit naming her was dismissed (anti-SLAPP). No sustained in-office enemy-making pattern, so no Criterion-10 cap. Honest middle. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 5 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals while in office. The single appearance-concern is the Jan-6 vote to sustain the Pennsylvania objection, but she did NOT sign the Texas v. PA amicus (member-elect at the time, verified absent from the 126-signatory list) and split her vote to sustain Arizona's certification. A bare partial floor objection alone is not Criterion-8 process subversion. No capping flag. Middle. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Sharp partisan rhetoric is documented but partisan heat is not scored. The weighable drag is the pre-office Irving-era language around the Sharia resolution and clock episode that read as targeting a religious-minority constituent, appearance-concern, pre-office, dismissed suit. No documented in-office incitement or directing-confrontation pattern. Honest middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?One documented, minor decorum fine under H.Res.38 (failure to comply with a House-floor health rule, May 2021); she appealed and the Committee denied the appeal. A small rule-compliance lapse, owned through the appeal process rather than a substantive ethics breach. No financial-ethics finding on record. Middle. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of breaking from her party at personal cost is on record. The Jan-6 Arizona split is a modest independent data point but was procedural, not a call-out of her own side's conduct. Below-middle for an absent affirmative record, not for any documented bad act. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented test of discretion in which she sacrificed personal or political advantage for principle, and no documented abuse of discretion. Absent a clear anchor in either direction, a neutral middle. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap, no on-record evidence that her off-camera conduct diverges from her public posture in either direction. Neutral middle absent an anchor. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Represents a competitive suburban DFW district; voting record tracks her party more than the district's swing character, and the low bipartisan index suggests limited cross-pressure responsiveness. No documented donor-capture finding. Middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Imported raw score of 5 reflected a wealth or party proxy and is corrected per the contamination rule, M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, foreign-government revenue). No such documented finding is on record for Van Duyne. Score reflects only the ordinary absence of a clean affirmative transparency anchor, not any breach. Above-middle. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?The H.Res.38 floor health-rule fine (appeal denied) is a documented minor decorum/institutional-respect lapse. Otherwise no pattern of contempt for institutional process on record. A small drag below a clean middle. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?As a member-elect she signed a December 2020 letter demanding investigation of 'irregularities' and voted to sustain the PA objection, appearance-concerns about amplifying contested election claims, weighed lightly given she split to sustain Arizona. No documented sustained, deliberate-falsehood pattern rising above contested political claims. Middle. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Serves on Ways and Means with documented substantive engagement on tax, trade, and oversight matters (e.g., SEC climate-disclosure questioning). Competent command of her policy lanes; not a pure talking-points record. Slightly above 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 |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index 366th (117th) and 319th (118th), well below historical average ↳ cross-aisle cooperation deficit | Conduct measure of bipartisanship, not party or policy; no bad act, an absence of cross-aisle record |
| M01 | Voted to sustain the objection to Pennsylvania's electors on Jan 6, 2021 ↳ deference-to-certified-result appearance-concern | Did NOT sign the Texas v. PA amicus (member-elect); split her vote to SUSTAIN Arizona, only Texas Republican to split. No Criterion-8 cap. |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out her own side at personal cost ↳ absent affirmative own-side-accountability record | Absence, not a documented bad act |
| M03 | Pre-office Irving 2015 anti-Sharia resolution and clock-boy episode read as targeting a Muslim constituent ↳ belonging/Persons-of-Equal-Worth appearance-concern | Pre-office; related defamation suit naming her dismissed under anti-SLAPP; no in-office pattern |
| M06 | H.Res.38 floor health-rule fine, May 2021; Ethics Committee denied her appeal ↳ minor rule-compliance lapse | Small decorum matter, not a substantive financial-ethics breach |
| M12 | Same H.Res.38 floor-rule noncompliance ↳ institutional-decorum drag | Single minor instance |
| M13 | Dec 2020 member-elect letter demanding election-irregularity investigation + PA objection vote ↳ amplification of contested election claims | Weighed lightly; split to sustain Arizona; not a sustained deliberate-falsehood pattern |
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: Steadiness, Loyalty, Selfless Service. The record shows party loyalty and a willingness to break ranks once procedurally (the Jan-6 Arizona split), but no documented courage-at-cost anchor and no documented collapse. Neutral middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. Strong conviction and authenticity; the drag is the absence of documented self-correction and the pre-office belonging-rhetoric concern. Held at a neutral middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. No documented exploitation or office-driven enrichment (M11 clean), but no documented use of power to protect the vulnerable against her own interest either. Middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth. The Jan-6 PA objection and the contested-claim amplification are real drags toward Favoritism; the Arizona split and absence of any enrichment finding temper them. A genuine middle. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 20/40 |
Total 20/40, an honest middle. No extraordinary sacrifice anchor and no capping conduct; the pillars sit where the documented record places them, neither inflated by partisanship nor floored by it.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I split my vote, I objected to Pennsylvania but I would not object to Arizona.”
Paraphrase of her Jan 6, 2021 split certification votes; the only Texas Republican to split · Texas Tribune / WFAA reporting · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Elizabeth Ann "Beth" Van Duyne. U.S. Representative for Texas's 24th congressional district (suburban Dallas–Fort Worth) since January 3, 2021; Republican. Previously Mayor of Irving, Texas (2011–2017) and a regional administrator at HUD (2017–2019). Member of the House Ways and Means Committee. Seated in the 117th Congress and serving in the 119th; on the ballot for re-election in 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index well below historical average, 366th of the House in the 117th Congress and 319th in the 118th, indicating a low-bipartisanship sponsorship/cosponsorship record. Serves on Ways and Means with documented engagement on tax, trade, and oversight (including SEC climate-disclosure questioning). Voting record tracks her party in a competitive suburban district. Policy positions are NOT scored here in either direction, per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy.
3. Constitutional Moments
January 6, 2021: voted to sustain the objection to Pennsylvania's electoral certification but voted to sustain Arizona's, the only Texas Republican to cast a split vote. She did NOT sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief; she was a member-elect when that sitting-member brief was filed in December 2020 (verified absent from the 126-signatory list). As a member-elect she did sign a December 16, 2020 letter with fellow incoming Republicans demanding investigation of claimed election "irregularities." The amicus cross-check is therefore negative and no Criterion-8 process-subversion cap is applied; the PA objection is weighed only as a partial appearance-concern, materially mitigated by the Arizona split.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Sharp partisan rhetoric is documented but partisan heat is not scored. The weighable concern predates her federal office: as Mayor of Irving she pushed a 2015 council resolution backing a state anti-Sharia bill and defended the official response in the Ahmed Mohamed clock episode, which critics read as targeting a Muslim constituent. A defamation suit naming her was dismissed under Texas's anti-SLAPP statute. No documented in-office pattern of incitement or directing confrontation, no Criterion-10 cap.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family-payment, office-information-trading, or foreign-government-revenue finding on record. The imported M11 raw score was corrected because it appeared to proxy wealth or party rather than office-driven gain, which the standard prohibits. One minor H.Res.38 floor health-rule fine (May 2021, appeal denied) is the only documented compliance matter, weighed as decorum, not financial impropriety.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. The Criterion-8 amicus cross-check is negative: Van Duyne was a member-elect when the Texas v. Pennsylvania brief was filed and is absent from the 126-signatory list. Her Jan-6 PA objection was a bare partial floor objection (she split to sustain Arizona), which the framework does not treat as process subversion. No sustained enemy-making/incitement pattern in office triggers Criterion 10. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest middle. The contamination in the imported card is corrected: M01's raw floor of 0 was an artifact, there is no Criterion-8 capping conduct here, because she did not sign the Texas v. PA amicus and her Jan-6 objection was partial, and M11 is cleaned of any wealth/party proxy. What remains is a genuinely mixed conduct record: a below-average bipartisan index, a pre-office belonging-rhetoric appearance-concern, a minor floor-rule fine, and amplification of contested 2020 claims as a member-elect, set against a partial-and-independent Jan-6 split vote and no documented enrichment. Neither floored by partisanship nor lifted by it, a middling record measured against the oath.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House Committee on Ethics, H.Res.38 statement · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus of 126 Representatives (signatory list)
Tier 2: Lugar-McCourt Bipartisan Index · Texas Tribune, Jan 6 certification votes · WFAA, Van Duyne split vote
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures · GovTrack · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.