Methodology
What the Constitutional Accountability Scorecard Measures
Accountability,
Not Ideology
The Constitutional Accountability Scorecard (CAS) evaluates how candidates and public officials respect the constitutional guardrails that sustain democratic self-government. It is not a measure of ideology, policy preference, or party loyalty; rather, it focuses on publicly verifiable facts, clearly defined standards, and widely recognized constitutional principles to assess observable conduct that limits power, preserves accountability, and protects electoral legitimacy.
The Scorecard was developed to address a growing gap in political analysis: voters—especially independents and moderates—often lack a clear, evidence-based way to evaluate how candidates actually behave when democratic norms are tested.
Which Constitutional Categories Are Examined
The CAS focuses on three areas where candidates for elected office can cause disproportionate constitutional harm—or demonstrate meaningful restraint. The emphasis is on how power is constrained and exercised, not on policy ideology, toughness or enforcement intensity.
1. Use of Force
Evaluates how candidates approach coercive power, including:
- ● Domestic deployment of force
- ● Emergency authority
- ● Rhetoric toward political violence
This category gauges whether force is lawful, authorized, and restrained. Support for law enforcement, national defense or public safety is constitutionally neutral under CAS standards; only the use or endorsement of excessive, unwarranted, or illegal force is penalized.
2. Rule of Law & Oversight
Assesses respect for:
- ● Separation of powers
- ● Judicial authority
- ● Ethical constraints and accountability mechanisms
This category examines whether candidates treat the law as a binding constraint—or as an obstacle to be bypassed for political advantage. Policy positions framed as "law and order" or "enforcement" are not, by themselves, considered violations unless accompanied by the absence of support for institutional checks, oversight and/or accountability mechanisms.
3. Election Integrity
Measures commitment to:
- ● Lawful voter participation
- ● Acceptance of certified results
- ● Institutional independence in election administration
This category distinguishes between good-faith election administration debates and conduct that undermines democratic legitimacy through suppression, misinformation, or outcome rejection. Consideration is given to whether candidates affirm the need for fair elections and that they accept certified outcomes.
How Candidates Are Evaluated
Candidates are assessed using publicly available, verifiable evidence, including:
Intent is not inferred. Only what candidates did or said on the public record is evaluated.
Scoring Standards
Each candidate receives a rating in each applicable category:
How ratings are determined
CIU ratings are based on the severity, pattern, and context of conduct—not numerical averaging. A single serious breach of constitutional norms, or a demonstrated pattern of norm-breaking, is sufficient for a Red rating regardless of other conduct. Green ratings require affirmative evidence of restraint and accountability, particularly during moments when constitutional guardrails are tested.
Application of ratings
The record shows affirmative respect for constitutional guardrails, including demonstrated restraint, accountability, or defense of lawful process—especially during constitutional stress tests. No significant, unresolved conduct undermines constitutional norms.
The record is mixed, incomplete, or cautious. There is no clear constitutional breach, but insufficient affirmative evidence of restraint or accountability to warrant Green. Amber may reflect silence, inconsistency, or support for authority without articulated guardrails.
The record includes one or more significant breaches of constitutional norms, or a pattern of conduct that undermines accountability, lawful process, or democratic legitimacy. Red ratings are not offset or averaged away by other conduct.
Silence is never scored as a violation. A lack of evidence caps a score at Amber, but does not result in Red.
Office-Specific Application
Candidates are evaluated based on the powers of the office they seek, so no one is assessed for authority they do not hold.
This avoids penalizing candidates for powers they do not possess.
Contest Selection Criteria
The Constitutional Accountability Scorecard applies defined criteria in determining which contests to evaluate. For the North Carolina pilot, races were selected based on two considerations: (1) offices exercising substantial constitutional authority at the federal or statewide level, and (2) U.S. House contests that were demonstrably competitive.
Competitiveness was assessed using publicly reported fundraising data, as compiled by Ballotpedia. Contests were included where candidates from both major parties received significant and comparably substantial financial support, indicating an active and materially contested race.
This approach limits evaluation to elections where constitutional accountability assessments are most consequential and where voters face meaningful electoral choices. It avoids inclusion of uncontested or nominal races.
For North Carolina, the CAS evaluated: U.S. Senate; North Carolina Supreme Court Justice; and U.S. House races in NC-01, NC-09, NC-11, and NC-13.
What Is Counted — and What Is Not
Counted
- ✓ Actions with constitutional impact
- ✓ Repeated patterns of conduct
- ✓ Public defenses or rejections of democratic norms
Not Counted
- ✕ Policy disagreements alone
- ✕ Unadjudicated allegations
- ✕ Guilt by association
- ✕ Single statements later corrected
- ✕ Silence, absent evidence of misconduct
What the Scorecard Is — and Is Not
The CAS Is
- ● A civic accountability framework
- ● Evidence-based and rigorously non-partisan
- ● Designed for public transparency
The CAS Is Not
- ● A legal judgment
- ● A voter endorsement guide
- ● A prediction of election outcomes
- ● A policy scorecard
The CAS does not determine whether conduct is illegal. It evaluates whether conduct reflects respect for constitutional guardrails recognized in law, precedent, and democratic practice.