North Carolina — Civic Intelligence Unit

How to Read This

Colors reflect constitutional accountability based on publicly verifiable conduct. They are not endorsements or predictions of election outcomes. Ratings reflect the severity, pattern, and context of conduct.

Green — Clear constitutional compliance / restraint

Amber — Mixed, limited, or under-articulated record

Red — Clear or repeated constitutional breach

Senate Scorecard — At a Glance

Contest & Candidate	Use of Force	Rule of Law	Election Integrity
U.S. Senate
Roy Cooper (D)
Michael Whatley (R)

U.S. Senate

Roy Cooper

Democratic Candidate — U.S. Senate

Use of Force: Green Rule of Law: Green Election Integrity: Green

1. Use of Force — Green

Green

What the Record Shows

Authorized National Guard deployment (2021) through established legal channels, with federal consent and defined limits.
No evidence of force used to suppress lawful protest, political opposition, or electoral activity.
Publicly and unequivocally condemned the January 6 attack as illegitimate political violence.
Following fatal ICE actions in Minnesota, called for full, transparent investigation and emphasized that law enforcement's role is to keep people safe—signaling that enforcement authority must be exercised lawfully and with restraint.

Why Green

Demonstrates consistent emphasis on lawful authorization, proportionality, and accountability when force is used.

Draws a clear distinction between legitimate law enforcement and excessive or unjustified force, including at the federal level.

Rejects the normalization of political or enforcement violence and supports review when force results in loss of life.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

Green

What the Record Shows

As Governor, repeatedly challenged legislation he believed violated the North Carolina Constitution's separation of powers, relying on vetoes and judicial review rather than unilateral executive action.
Filed lawsuits challenging Senate Bills 512 and 382, arguing that legislative efforts to assume executive appointment and law-enforcement authority violated constitutional checks and balances.
Grounded those legal challenges in constitutional precedent, citing prior North Carolina Supreme Court decisions recognizing limits on legislative encroachment into executive powers.
Publicly opposed proposals to use taxpayer funds to compensate January 6 defendants, arguing that individuals who assaulted law enforcement should be held accountable rather than rewarded.

Why Green

Cooper's record demonstrates consistent use of constitutional processes to defend separation of powers and institutional accountability.

Rather than relying on executive action alone, he repeatedly sought judicial resolution of constitutional disputes and publicly defended established checks and balances.

The available record reflects affirmative support for the rule of law and lawful governmental oversight.

3. Election Integrity — Green

Green

What the Record Shows

Vetoed multiple election bills (SB 326, SB 747/749) on the grounds that they would exclude lawful ballots or weaken established election procedures.
Publicly condemned post-election litigation seeking to discard more than 60,000 certified votes in the election of NC Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs, calling it an “egregious attack on the right to vote.”
Opposed opaque election funding practices (HB 237) and challenged efforts that would politicize or consolidate control over election administration (SB 382).

Why Green

Demonstrates consistent respect for lawful process, certified outcomes, and judicial independence, even when politically disadvantageous.

Treats the law as a binding framework for governance—not a tool to be bent, bypassed, or retrofitted for political advantage.

Michael Whatley

Republican Candidate — U.S. Senate

Use of Force: Amber Rule of Law: Red Election Integrity: Red

1. Use of Force — Amber

Amber

What the Record Shows

Whatley has made robust support for law enforcement a centerpiece of his campaign. Has aligned with law-and-order rhetoric commonly associated with Republican leadership but has not articulated specific constitutional guardrails on enforcement authority.
Publicly denounced January 6 violence, though the condemnation was framed with reference to party politics rather than universal principles.
Strongly supports the enforcement of immigration laws and has backed ICE operations, criticizing local sanctuary city policies.
No clear public response to high-profile contested uses of force (e.g., the fatal ICE shooting in Minnesota), leaving ambiguity about how he would address excessive or unlawful force when it arises.
No evidence of emergency-powers abuse or advocacy of force against political opponents

Why Amber

Law-and-order posture with broad support for enforcement, but no articulated guardrails on proportionality, restraint, or accountability.

Condemnation of political violence is present but hedged; silence on contested use-of-force incidents, including the ICE actions in Minnesota, suggests a lack of clearly articulated principles governing restraint and accountability.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Red

Red

What the Record Shows

As North Carolina Republican Party chairman, oversaw and publicly supported the censure of Senator Richard Burr after Burr voted to convict President Trump in his second impeachment trial, criticizing Burr for exercising his constitutional judgment after the Senate voted to proceed with the trial.
Publicly supported the proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund, including payments to individuals prosecuted in connection with January 6, while providing no constitutional or institutional rationale beyond support for President Trump's position. Support for the proposal contrasted with opposition from several Republican leaders, including North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis.
No public record of defending the independence of oversight institutions or affirmatively supporting congressional accountability mechanisms in cases involving his own party.

Why Red

Whatley's record reflects a repeated pattern of placing partisan loyalty above institutional accountability.

His support for sanctioning a senator for exercising independent constitutional judgment, combined with support for weakening accountability mechanisms and dismissing constitutional oversight as partisan, raises significant concerns regarding respect for checks and balances and the independent exercise of constitutional responsibilities.

3. Election Integrity — Red

Red

What the Record Shows

As state party chair, repeatedly promoted false claims of “massive fraud” following the 2020 election.
Continued to back President's fraud claims after results were certified by courts and election officials.
Publicly impugned election administrators in multiple states without evidence.
Accepted election outcomes selectively, depending on whether his party prevailed.

Why Red

Sustained rejection of certified outcomes and lawful processes, not isolated rhetoric.

Conduct treats the law and election certification as contingent on political advantage, undermining public trust in democratic institutions.

What is not counted: Support for lawful recounts (neutral). Intra-party litigation alleging misconduct in a party election (dismissed; contextual only).

How to Read This

Senate Scorecard — At a Glance

1. Use of Force — Green

What the Record Shows

Why Green

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

What the Record Shows

Why Green

3. Election Integrity — Green

What the Record Shows

Why Green

1. Use of Force — Amber

What the Record Shows

Why Amber

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Red

What the Record Shows

Why Red

3. Election Integrity — Red

What the Record Shows

Why Red

Sources

Roy Cooper

Michael Whatley