Composite 5.16 / 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 552 (Unfit band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Confirmed signatory of the December 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 House Republicans, which urged the Supreme Court to set aside the certified electoral votes of four states and overturn the 2020 presidential election. This is legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose, process subversion. It hits M01 and M04, drives M01 to the 2-3 floor, and forecloses support. Her later refusal to object to certification on Jan 6 is weighed as mitigation but does not cure the flag.
Evidence: Supreme Court docket 22O155, amicus brief of 126 Representatives · BuzzFeed News, list of 126 House signatories naming Ann Wagner
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 U.S. military service record. Prior public service includes U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg (2005-2009) under President George W. Bush and Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee. These are noted as biographical context, not scored, and confer no service-badge credit.
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?Driven to the criterion-8 floor. Wagner is a confirmed signatory of the December 11, 2020 Texas v.
Pennsylvania amicus brief, a legal-on-its-face filing whose object was to have the Supreme Court
discard the certified electoral votes of four states and overturn a decided presidential election.
That is process subversion: a constitutional instrument used to defeat a constitutional purpose. It
hits the oath at its core and caps M01 at 2-3 regardless of mitigation. Held at 3 rather than 2 only
because, three weeks later, she did NOT carry the subversion into the Jan 6 count, she publicly
refused to object to certification, citing the same oath. The amicus is the governing fact here; the
certification reversal is credited at M07, not erased from M01.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?Below-median on the Bipartisan Index (BPI ~0.336, ranked ~419th in the House), a record weighted toward
party-line lawmaking rather than cross-aisle coalition-building. Offset partially by genuine bipartisan
authorship on the anti-trafficking front (FOSTA passed 388-25 House / 97-2 Senate with a Democratic
co-lead). Net lower-middle: real bipartisan product exists, but the sustained cross-aisle posture does
not. Scored on the bipartisan-conduct record only, never on party or ideology.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as enemies who do not belong; the
anti-trafficking work is oriented toward protecting persons. The drag is the amicus-brief posture, which
sought to discount millions of certified votes as illegitimate, an institutional rather than a personal
anti-belonging act. Upper-middle minus the amicus weight.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?Criterion 8 also lands here. Joining a filing aimed at nullifying another sovereign's certified election
outcome is the use of legal process to defeat a constitutional result, the abuse-of-power axis. No
evidence of weaponizing investigative or prosecutorial machinery against named rivals, which keeps it off
the floor, but the process-subversion signature holds the score down.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Generally measured public rhetoric without a documented incitement pattern. Her Jan 3, 2021 statement
declining to contest certification, "I took a solemn oath", is restrained, rule-of-law language. No
sustained enemy-making found. Held at upper-middle by the institutional weight of having signed the
amicus, which spoke the language of a stolen election even as her own rhetoric stayed temperate.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No adjudicated ethics finding, OCE referral, or sanctioned STOCK Act violation surfaced on the record.
The fiduciary picture is clean on the evidence available. Held at a solid-middle baseline rather than
higher because the search did not surface affirmative, voluntary accountability of the McCain "worst
mistake of my life" kind that would earn an upper score.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 7 | why?The genuine call-out-your-own-side instance. On Jan 3, 2021 Wagner became the first Missouri House
Republican to publicly announce she would not object to certifying Biden's electors, breaking with four
of her own delegation (Hartzler, Graves, Long, Smith) and citing Article II and the 12th Amendment.
That is the higher active-duty standard, opposing her side at real intra-party cost. It is weighed and
credited here in full. It does NOT cure the M01/M04 amicus flag three weeks prior, but it is real and
earns an above-middle mark on this measure.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No standout documented test of choosing the harder, lower-glory path when discretion allowed an easier
one, and no documented abuse of discretion either. The Jan 6 certification stance is partial evidence of
principled choice under pressure, but it sits against the earlier amicus that took the path of least
intra-party resistance. Honest middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap; no reporting of an off-camera persona at odds with the
public one. Default solid-middle absent affirmative evidence either way.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Long tenure as a senior Financial Services member with an active constituent-facing record (e.g., May
2026 call for an FBI probe into St. Louis-area mail theft). No documented donor-capture conduct
attributable to office. Solid-middle on the fiduciary-to-constituents axis.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 7 | why?Scores office-attributable enrichment ONLY. No documented self-dealing, family-payment scheme,
office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue tied to her office surfaced on the record. Raw
household wealth is expressly not penalized. Above-middle on the absence of documented office enrichment.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Mixed on honoring the institution above the spectacle. The decorous Jan 6 certification posture weighs
positive; the prior amicus, lending a House member's name to an effort to have the Court void another
state's election, weighs against institutional fidelity. Net middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern in her own statements; her certification remarks affirmed the
legitimacy of the result and the courts' rejection of "over five dozen" challenges. Held at middle rather
than higher because signing a brief premised on election-integrity claims the courts had rejected sits in
tension with truthful institutional representation.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Demonstrated substantive command in her domains, senior Financial Services subcommittee leadership and
the multi-year, technically detailed FOSTA anti-trafficking effort she authored and shepherded into law.
Substance over talking points on her core portfolio. 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 |
|---|---|---|
| M01 | Confirmed signatory of the Dec 11 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief seeking to discard four states' certified electoral votes ↳ Criterion 8 process subversion, caps M01 at floor | Did NOT object to certification on Jan 6; partial restraint keeps the floor at 3 not 2 |
| M04 | Same amicus brief, legal process used to defeat a certified constitutional outcome ↳ abuse-of-power / process-subversion axis | No weaponization of investigative or prosecutorial machinery against named rivals |
| M02 | Below-median Lugar Bipartisan Index (~0.336, ~419th) ↳ party-line lawmaking weighting | Genuine bipartisan authorship on FOSTA with a Democratic co-lead |
| M12 | Lent a House member's name to an effort to void another state's election ↳ institutional-fidelity drag | Decorous, oath-citing Jan 6 certification posture weighs the other direction |
| Pillar I | The amicus is a loyalty-to-faction-over-Constitution drag at the oath's core ↳ Trust & Loyalty drag | The Jan 6 certification break with her own delegation is real countervailing Courage |
| Pillar III | Process-subversion use of legal power (amicus) cuts against Protection of the constitutional result ↳ Protection/Influence drag | Anti-trafficking Protection record is substantive and real |
| Pillar IV | The amicus is an influence one would not want propagated as civic example ↳ Legacy/Justice drag | The oath-citing certification stand is a legacy-positive counterweight |
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: Courage, Loyalty, Steadiness. The Jan 6 refusal to contest certification, breaking first within her own delegation and citing the oath, is genuine Courage. It is held down by a drag toward faction-over-Constitution: the prior amicus brief is loyalty to a partisan election-overturn effort at the expense of the constitutional result. The two pull against each other; net below-middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Consistency. Her certification statement reads as authentic conviction. Consistency is the drag, signing the amicus and then declining to object three weeks later are hard to reconcile as one coherent posture. Middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. Real Protection in the anti-trafficking record (FOSTA). Drag toward the Influence opposite in the amicus, where legal process was aimed at defeating a certified outcome. Net middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. The oath-citing certification stand is legacy-positive Moral Courage. The amicus is the durable asterisk, an influence one would not want a child to model. Below-middle, with the drag dominant because it is criterion-class. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 18/40 |
Total 18/40. The pillars are pulled in two directions by the same three-week window in late 2020-early 2021: a criterion-8 process-subversion act (the amicus) and a genuine call-your-own-side stand (the certification refusal). The capping flag governs the verdict regardless of the pillar arithmetic.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment are clear that the power to elect the President lies with the States and the People, not Congress. I cannot and will not unconstitutionally insert Congress into the Presidential election in this manner.”
Statement declining to object to the electoral-college certification, breaking with four Missouri GOP House colleagues · Wagner House statement / Missouri Independent · PRINCIPLED · cite
“Joined 125 fellow House Republicans on the amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania urging the Supreme Court to set aside the certified electoral results of four states.”
Signatory to the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 Representatives · Supreme Court docket 22O155, amicus brief of 126 Representatives · CONTESTED · cite
“This bill takes a major step forward in the fight to end online sex trafficking and gives survivors the tools to fight back.”
House passage of FOSTA, Wagner's multi-year anti-trafficking effort · Wagner House press release · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Ann Louise Wagner (born September 13, 1962). U.S. Representative for Missouri's 2nd Congressional District since 2013. Previously U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg (2005-2009) and Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee. Senior member of the House Financial Services Committee. Author of FOSTA, the 2018 online anti-sex-trafficking law. Running for re-election in 2026 (Republican primary Aug 4, 2026); seat targeted by the DCCC's "Districts in Play."
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Below-median on the Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index (BPI ~0.336, ranked ~419th in the House for the 118th Congress), a party-line-weighted record with episodic bipartisan product. Signature achievement: FOSTA (Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act), authored over multiple Congresses with a Democratic co-lead, passed 388-25 in the House and 97-2 in the Senate and signed in 2018; later upheld on constitutional challenge. Senior Financial Services Committee work on disclosure and SEC oversight. Policy positions are not scored in either direction per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
Two consequential and opposing acts in a single window. December 11, 2020: signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief of 126 House Republicans urging the Supreme Court to discard four states' certified electoral votes, a criterion-8 process-subversion act that governs this record's verdict. January 3-4, 2021: became the first Missouri House Republican to announce she would not object to the electoral certification, citing Article II and the 12th Amendment and breaking with four delegation colleagues, a genuine call-your-own-side stand credited at M07. The capping flag from the amicus is not cured by the later restraint.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Personally temperate public rhetoric without a documented incitement or enemy-making pattern. Her certification statement is rule-of-law language affirming the courts' rejection of the election challenges. The tension on this axis is institutional rather than verbal: she lent her name to a brief premised on stolen-election claims the courts had rejected, while her own spoken record stayed measured.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No adjudicated ethics finding, OCE referral, or sanctioned STOCK Act violation surfaced on the available record. No documented office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue. Raw wealth is not penalized. The fiduciary picture is clean on the evidence; M06/M11 reflect that absence of documented breach rather than affirmative, voluntary accountability.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One documented Severity-class flag. Criterion 8 (Process Subversion), capping: Wagner is a confirmed signatory of the December 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, whose purpose was to have the Supreme Court set aside four states' certified electoral votes and reverse a decided presidential election. This is a legal-on-its-face power aimed at defeating a constitutional purpose. It drives M01/M04 to the floor and forecloses author_verdict.support regardless of composite. No criterion-10 enemy-making pattern is documented. The Jan 6 certification refusal is weighed as genuine mitigation on M07 and the pillars but does not lift the cap. Flag count: one.
7. What The Framework Says
Wagner's record contains a real and creditable act of conscience, the early, first-in-her-delegation refusal to contest the 2021 certification, made at intra-party cost and grounded in the oath. The standard records that honestly. But three weeks earlier she had signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, an effort to have the Supreme Court throw out four states' certified electoral votes and overturn the election. That is criterion-8 process subversion: a power legal on its face deployed to defeat a constitutional purpose. Under the framework it caps the oath measures at the floor and forecloses support no matter how the rest of the record reads. The later restraint mitigates; it does not erase the prior subversion. The anti-trafficking achievement and the clean fiduciary record are real and counted, but the capping flag governs.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus of 126 Representatives · House financial disclosures
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Missouri Independent, certification vote · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (126 Representatives) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.