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. Only demonstrably competitive U.S. House contests — assessed using publicly reported fundraising data compiled by Ballotpedia — are evaluated here. Non-competitive districts are listed for transparency but not rated.

Green — Clear constitutional compliance / restraint
Amber — Mixed, limited, or under-articulated record
Red — Clear or repeated constitutional breach
N/A — Not applicable

House Scorecards — At a Glance

District & Candidate Use of Force Rule of Law Election Integrity
NC-01
Don Davis (D, incumbent)
Laurie Buckhout (R)
NC-02 — Non-competitive (not evaluated)
NC-03 — Non-competitive (not evaluated)
NC-04 — Non-competitive (not evaluated)
NC-05 — Non-competitive (not evaluated)
NC-06 — Non-competitive (not evaluated)
NC-07 — Non-competitive (not evaluated)
NC-08 — Non-competitive (not evaluated)
NC-09
Richard Hudson (R, incumbent)
Richard Ojeda (D)
NC-10 — Non-competitive (not evaluated)
NC-11
Chuck Edwards (R, incumbent)
Jamie Ager (D)
NC-12 — Non-contested (not evaluated)
NC-13
Brad Knott (R, incumbent)
Paul Barringer (D)
NC-14 — Non-contested (not evaluated)
NC-01
Don Davis
Democratic Incumbent — NC-01
Use of Force: Amber Rule of Law: Green Election Integrity: Green

1. Use of Force — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Supported congressional oversight of military action under the War Powers Resolution, reinforcing legislative checks on executive use of force.
  • Voted with most Republicans and seven other Democrats for HR 7147 (DHS funding bill that included substantial ICE resources), with no clearly documented public statement directing ICE to operate within explicitly articulated constitutional boundaries.
  • Called for a "thorough, independent investigation" into federal immigration-enforcement killings while simultaneously expressing general support for immigration enforcement, without articulating specific constitutional guardrails or limits on use of force.
  • Publicly rejected political violence and has not advocated for unconstitutional deployment or misuse of coercive force against political opponents or protesters.
Why Amber

Davis shows restraint and rejection of political violence. But the ICE funding vote without articulated guardrails and only reactive calls for oversight create a mixed record on constitutional use-of-force accountability.

Scoring Note: Use of Force and Rule of Law scores reflect support for continued DHS/ICE funding without additional statutory constraints, balanced against public calls for oversight and investigation.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

What the Record Shows
  • Bipartisan legislative conduct emphasizing institutional accountability rather than partisan advantage.
  • Public support for transparency, congressional authority, and oversight of executive action.
Why Green

The record reflects consistent respect for congressional oversight norms and separation of powers, with no evidence of efforts to weaken accountability mechanisms.

3. Election Integrity — Green

What the Record Shows
  • Opposed restrictive voting laws with demonstrated or likely discriminatory impact.
  • Rejected voter-suppression measures and efforts to manipulate election administration or outcomes.
Why Green

On-record support for lawful voter participation and the integrity of certified elections.

Laurie Buckhout
Republican Challenger — NC-01
Use of Force: Amber Rule of Law: Amber Election Integrity: Amber

1. Use of Force — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Consistently uses elevated, crisis-oriented force framing on border security, including characterizing the situation as the country being "under siege," and advocating construction of a border wall and reinstatement of "Remain in Mexico."
  • Emphasizes military strength and deterrence "by all means necessary," including in reference to threats described as both foreign and domestic.
  • No public record of endorsing unlawful force, suspension of due process, domestic military deployment against civilians, or violence directed at political opponents.
Why Amber

The record reflects a maximalist enforcement posture that prioritizes strength and coercive capacity, while lacking explicit guardrails regarding domestic deployment, proportionality, civilian control, de-escalation, or civil-liberty protections. While stated positions remain within lawful enforcement frameworks, the absence of articulated constitutional limits results in a mixed but non-breaching record.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Publicly criticized the removal of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, signaling discomfort with internal party actions that disrupt legislative continuity and institutional functioning.
  • Questioned the severity of sentences imposed on January 6 defendants, arguing that penalties appeared disproportionate when compared to other episodes of civil unrest.
  • Did not dispute that January 6 involved unlawful conduct or violence, but did not specifically address Congress's constitutional role in certifying elections or the institutional breach represented by the attack.
Why Amber

While her criticism of the McCarthy removal reflects concern for institutional stability, it does not translate into articulated support for formal oversight mechanisms or separation-of-powers constraints. Her January 6 framing centers on sentencing and treatment of defendants rather than affirming accountability for interference with constitutional processes.

3. Election Integrity — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Publicly supports voter identification requirements.
  • Expressed concern about potential vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems ("if there's a computer involved, it can be hacked").
  • Framed 2020-related uncertainty as a "confluence of events" that created doubt among voters.
  • No documented public statements explicitly rejecting certified election results.
  • No explicit endorsement of "Stop the Steal" language.
Why Amber

Support for voter ID alone is neutral under CIU standards. Her rhetoric reflects skepticism about system security but stops short of explicit denial of certified outcomes. The record lacks an affirmative statement accepting certified results regardless of outcome.

NC-09
Richard Hudson
Republican Incumbent — NC-09
Use of Force: Amber Rule of Law: Amber Election Integrity: Red

1. Use of Force — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Consistently supports immigration enforcement and ICE operations through legislation and public statements, without publicly articulating limits, guardrails, or accountability standards governing use of force.
  • No public advocacy for emergency powers, domestic military deployment, or direct use of force against political opponents.
Why Amber

The record reflects lawful support for enforcement authority but limited emphasis on accountability or restraint in the context of politically charged uses of force.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Demonstrates uneven engagement with oversight, supporting accountability in some contexts while opposing it in others.
  • No documented efforts to weaken judicial authority or formally dismantle oversight mechanisms.
  • Opposed impeachment following January 6, declining to support a formal accountability mechanism in response to executive conduct tied to political violence.
Why Amber

Mixed oversight posture with no clear institutional breach, but insufficient affirmative leadership in defending checks and balances to warrant Green.

3. Election Integrity — Red

What the Record Shows
  • Supported restrictive voting legislation, including the SAVE Act, that imposes additional barriers to lawful voter participation.
  • Supported statutory voting restrictions justified by fraud-prevention claims, despite limited evidence of systemic fraud and potential impacts on lawful participation.
  • Publicly endorsed claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election and supported efforts to overturn certified results, including backing the Texas lawsuit challenging multiple state outcomes.
Why Red

Support for structural voting restrictions creates sustained risk to lawful voter participation and election legitimacy, exceeding ordinary policy disagreement.

Richard Ojeda
Democratic Challenger — NC-09
Use of Force: Green Rule of Law: Green Election Integrity: Amber

1. Use of Force — Green

What the Record Shows
  • Public statements reflect a forceful, enforcement-aware posture informed by military experience, without advocacy for unlawful force or emergency powers.
  • No public record of endorsing domestic military deployment, emergency authority, or coercive force directed at political opponents.
Why Green

The record shows no endorsement of excessive or unlawful force, consistent with CIU's standard for restraint based on publicly verifiable conduct.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

What the Record Shows
  • Publicly affirmed legal equality, accountability, and the binding nature of constitutional limits on government power.
  • No record of undermining courts, oversight mechanisms, or separation-of-powers norms.
Why Green

Consistent, norm-reinforcing posture aligned with institutional accountability.

3. Election Integrity — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Publicly opposed voter-suppression measures and efforts to restrict lawful participation.
  • No public statements rejecting certified election outcomes or promoting election-denial narratives.
Why Amber

Opposition to restrictive voting measures supports democratic participation, but the absence of an explicit, on-the-record affirmation of acceptance of certified outcomes caps the rating at Amber under CIU standards.

NC-11
Chuck Edwards
Republican Incumbent — NC-11
Use of Force: Amber Rule of Law: Red Election Integrity: Red

1. Use of Force — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Consistently supports ICE operations and border-enforcement measures through legislation and public statements. Publicly supported congressional testimony and investigation into the Minneapolis ICE shooting but did not explicitly articulate constitutional limits on use of force.
  • No documented advocacy for emergency powers, domestic military deployment, or use of force in response to political disputes.
Why Amber

Lawful enforcement support without articulated restraint principles, accountability standards, or constitutional guardrails governing use of force.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Red

What the Record Shows
  • Found to have violated congressional franking rules — an adjudicated misuse of official resources.
  • Issued no public accountability statements addressing executive or institutional responsibility following January 6, despite the event constituting a constitutional stress test for oversight norms.
Why Red

Documented legal and ethical violations, combined with failure to affirm oversight norms during a constitutional stress test, constitute a clear breach of rule-of-law standards.

3. Election Integrity — Red

What the Record Shows
  • Supported restrictive voter-ID legislation and the SAVE Act, increasing barriers to lawful voter participation.
  • Did not publicly oppose election misinformation or efforts undermining confidence in certified results.
Why Red

The combination of structural voting restrictions and silence in the face of election misinformation creates a patterned risk to electoral legitimacy.

Jamie Ager
Democratic Challenger — NC-11
Use of Force: Green Rule of Law: Amber Election Integrity: Amber

1. Use of Force — Green

What the Record Shows
  • Publicly criticized overbroad immigration enforcement tactics, stating that certain raids "went too far" and caused collateral harm to lawful residents.
  • Explicitly called for prioritizing deportation of violent criminals rather than families, emphasizing proportionality in enforcement decisions.
  • Affirmed the need to enforce the law while following due process and constitutional rights during immigration operations, and called for holding officers accountable for misconduct.
  • No record of advocating emergency powers, domestic military deployment, or politicized use of force.
Why Green

Demonstrates affirmative, on-record articulation of proportionality, due process, transparency, and accountability guardrails governing enforcement authority. The record reflects explicit constitutional framing of limits on coercive power, meeting CIU's standard for clear evidence of restraint.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Publicly emphasizes accountability and legal fairness.
  • No record of attacks on courts, oversight bodies, or separation-of-powers norms.
Why Amber

Clean record, but limited evidence of affirmative leadership or institutional defense of oversight mechanisms. CIU requires stress-test evidence or concrete commitments for Green.

3. Election Integrity — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Endorsed as a voting-rights champion by the Voter Protection Project.
  • Campaign messaging aligns with protecting lawful voter access and participation.
Why Amber

Support for voter access and participation is evident, but the public record does not include an explicit affirmation of acceptance of certified election outcomes or opposition to election denial, capping the rating at Amber under CIU standards.

NC-13
Brad Knott
Republican Incumbent — NC-13
Use of Force: Amber Rule of Law: Amber Election Integrity: Red

1. Use of Force — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Publicly emphasizes aggressive immigration enforcement and deportations, including strong rhetorical support for ICE and removal operations as a deterrence tool.
  • In response to a fatal ICE shooting in Minnesota, publicly defended ICE's role and shifted blame to state and local Democratic leadership, without addressing proportionality, oversight, or use-of-force standards governing federal law-enforcement operations.
  • Frames immigration enforcement failures as a crisis requiring stronger federal action, including harsher penalties and expanded enforcement tools.
  • No public record of explicitly endorsing unlawful force, domestic military deployment against civilians, or political violence.
Why Amber

The record reflects a maximalist enforcement posture, including public defense of ICE actions amid controversy, without articulated guardrails related to proportionality, civilian oversight, de-escalation, or civil-liberty protections. Statements stop short of endorsing unlawful force, resulting in a mixed but non-breaching record.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Actively uses congressional oversight mechanisms in highly politicized contexts, including questioning former Special Counsel Jack Smith during House hearings related to January 6 prosecutions.
  • Public rhetoric emphasizes enforcement, punishment, and deterrence rather than protection of judicial independence or investigatory autonomy.
  • The record does not include affirmative statements defending judicial finality, separation of powers, or limits on executive authority during moments of constitutional stress.
Why Amber

Oversight activity alone is constitutionally legitimate; however, the available record does not clearly demonstrate affirmative defense of checks and balances or accountability mechanisms when politically inconvenient. No clear breach, but insufficient affirmative evidence for Green.

3. Election Integrity — Red

What the Record Shows
  • Voted Yea on the SAVE Act (H.R. 22), legislation imposing additional documentation requirements and barriers to lawful voter participation.
  • Publicly framed election integrity around fraud-prevention narratives ("prevent fake votes") and system vulnerability claims, despite limited evidence of systemic fraud.
  • Cast a ballot from an incorrect address/polling location — an error described as an "honest mistake" but one that would likely have resulted in ballot rejection or scrutiny for an ordinary voter.
  • No clear, on-the-record affirmation of acceptance of certified election outcomes, nor explicit rejection of election-denial narratives.
Why Red

Support for restrictive voting legislation, justified by fraud-prevention claims, creates structural risk to lawful voter participation. Knott's personal failure to comply with basic election-administration requirements — while advocating heightened compliance burdens for others — undermines equal application of election law. Under CIU standards, this combination constitutes a serious breach of election-integrity norms, regardless of intent.

Paul Barringer
Democratic Challenger — NC-13
Use of Force: Amber Rule of Law: Amber Election Integrity: Amber

1. Use of Force — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Publicly supports law enforcement and public safety, while emphasizing rehabilitation, second chances, and reducing recidivism rather than punitive escalation.
  • On immigration, calls for a secure border paired with "smart, effective enforcement," while emphasizing lawful pathways, modernization of the system, and humane treatment.
  • No public record of advocating emergency powers, domestic military deployment, or expanded coercive authority against civilians.
  • In response to a fatal ICE shooting in Minnesota, publicly criticized the incident and emphasized accountability and the rule of law, without defending or endorsing the use of force by federal agents.
Why Amber

Barringer's posture is non-escalatory and does not raise use-of-force red flags, but the public record does not include explicit articulation of constitutional guardrails (restraint standards, civilian control, or limits on coercive power) under stress. Absence of risk is not sufficient for Green without affirmative evidence of restraint.

2. Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Frames his candidacy around constitutional values, democratic norms, and restoring trust in institutions, including respect for the rule of law.
  • Publicly emphasizes the importance of democratic governance and opposition to authoritarianism in foreign and domestic contexts.
  • No record of supporting efforts to weaken judicial authority, undermine investigations, or bypass oversight mechanisms.
  • No prior legislative record in Congress (non-incumbent).
Why Amber

Barringer's statements are affirmational but general. They signal respect for the rule of law but do not yet demonstrate how he would defend checks and balances or oversight when politically inconvenient. CIU requires stress-test evidence or concrete commitments for Green.

3. Election Integrity — Amber

What the Record Shows
  • Publicly supports democratic participation and lawful voting, and does not promote election-denial narratives.
  • No public statements questioning the legitimacy of certified election results.
  • No clear, on-the-record statement explicitly affirming acceptance of certified election outcomes regardless of party or candidate.
  • No voting record on federal election legislation (non-incumbent).
Why Amber

Absence of denial or misconduct avoids Red, but silence or general support for democracy is not sufficient for Green under CIU standards. Without an explicit commitment to acceptance of certified outcomes and institutional independence in election administration, the record remains incomplete.

Sources

Don Davis (NC-01)

  1. Time (2026). 7 House Democrats Voted for a DHS Funding Bill. 1 Says He Now Regrets It.
  2. NC Newsline (2026). Davis joins NC Republicans in praising raid in Venezuela; Ross questions constitutionality of action.
  3. U.S. Congress (2026). H.R.7147.
  4. WFAE 90.7 (2026). NC GOP lawmakers call for investigation into fatal Minneapolis shooting.
  5. Congresswoman Foushee (2025). Foushee, Ross, Adams, and Davis Reintroduce Redistricting Transparency Legislation.
  6. U.S. Congress (2025). House Roll Call Vote 102. (H.R. 22 - SAVE Act).
  7. NC General Assembly (2018). Senate Roll Call Vote Transcript for Roll Call #824. (Voter ID Constitutional Amendment).

Laurie Buckhout (NC-01)

  1. Laurie Buckhout for Congress (2026). Issues & Priorities.
  2. Neuse News (2024). Retired Colonel Laurie Buckhout on leadership, politics, and governance.
  3. X Post (formerly Twitter). (2024, August 14).
  4. WITN Interview (2024). Decision 2024: Full interviews with candidates for NC Governor, District 1 Congress.
  5. Vote Smart. Laurie Buckhout Political Courage Test.

Richard Hudson (NC-09)

  1. U.S. Congress (2025). House Roll Call Vote 102.
  2. Richard Hudson on Instagram (2025). 5 times Democrats blasted ICE with harsh rhetoric.
  3. Office of the Clerk, U.S. House (2021). Roll Call 17 | H. Res. 24 (Impeachment).
  4. United States Representative Richard Hudson (2018). Hudson Votes to Support ICE.
  5. United States Representative Richard Hudson (2018). Hudson Votes Against Voter Fraud, Abuse of Taxes.
  6. ABC11 News (2021). "It was heartbreaking" Lawmaker visits border as crisis impact reaches North Carolina.
  7. The Carolina Journal (2023). Hudson zeroes in on HHS secretary for misleading statements on NC migrant facility.
  8. North State Journal (2024). HUDSON: Protecting freedom and democracy.
  9. NC Newsline (2020). More than half of U.S. House Republicans back unsubstantiated Texas suit.
  10. WUNC News (2022). What GOP candidates are saying about the 2020 election.
  11. Politico (2021). 1 year later, GOP still chained to Trump's baseless election fraud claims.

Richard Ojeda (NC-09)

  1. Richard Ojeda on Facebook (2025). Facebook video, April 2025.
  2. Richard Ojeda on Facebook (2025). Facebook video, August 2025.
  3. WCHS-TV (2018). Miller and Ojeda: Where they stand on immigration.

Chuck Edwards (NC-11)

  1. U.S. Congress (2025). House Roll Call Vote 102.
  2. NC General Assembly (2018). Senate Roll Call Vote Transcript for Roll Call #824.
  3. Asheville Watchdog (2024). Congressional committee: "Substantial reason to believe" Rep. Chuck Edwards violated free-mail privilege.
  4. Cornell Law School. 39 U.S. Code § 3210 — Franked mail.
  5. ABC 13 News (2025). Rep. Edwards says he 'fully supports' immigration crackdown efforts in Charlotte.
  6. U.S. Congress (2023). H.R.6851 — Cooperation with ICE Act.
  7. Blue Ridge Public Radio (2025). At raucous town hall in Asheville, Rep. Chuck Edwards fields questions from an angry crowd.
  8. AP News (2025). North Carolina GOP town hall gets rowdy as attendees hurl scathing questions on Trump.
  9. Congressman Chuck Edwards (2026). Edwards Introduces Legislation to Strengthen Election Integrity.

Jamie Ager (NC-11)

  1. Charlotte Observer (2026). 3 in WNC's crowded 11th US House District race say Helene recovery is top priority.
  2. Voter Protection Project (2025). National Voting Rights Group Endorses Jamie Ager for Congress.
  3. Ager for Congress. Stopping Government Waste and Corruption.
  4. 828 News Now (2025). Fairview farmer Jamie Ager launches bid for Congress in NC-11.
  5. ABC 11 News (2025). North Carolina farmer enters race for Congress in WNC.

Brad Knott (NC-13)

  1. Washington Examiner via Knott's official site (2025). North Carolina Awaits ICE; Congressmen Back Deportation.
  2. Candidate statements: Instagram · Facebook · YouTube (starting ~6:20)
  3. WUNC (2025). In telephone town hall, NC Congressman Knott talks healthcare, guns, immigration.
  4. PBS NewsHour (2026). WATCH: Jack Smith explains why Trump was the only defendant charged in Jan. 6 case.
  5. House Roll Call 102 on the SAVE Act (2025). Roll Call 102.
  6. WRAL (2024). A Republican candidate voted from the wrong address. Will it affect his bid for Congress?

Paul Barringer (NC-13)

  1. Barringer's Official Site (2026). Campaign priorities and platform.
  2. Instagram (2025). Candidate statement, Instagram.
  3. TikTok (2025). Candidate statement, TikTok.