North Carolina

Don Davis

Use of Force — Amber

• Supports lawful enforcement authority; no evidence of advocating excessive or unlawful force.
• Has not made detailed public statements articulating constitutional guardrails on use of force, such as proportionality, restraint, or accountability mechanisms.
• No red flags in voting record or public conduct related to coercive authority.

• Absence of misconduct avoids Red, but Green requires affirmative articulation of constitutional guardrails—restraint principles, oversight commitments, or accountability frameworks.
• The current record is clean but under-specified.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

• Voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress for defying a lawful subpoena (2022).
• Supported House efforts to enforce congressional oversight authority.
• No record of seeking to undermine judicial authority, obstruct lawful investigations, or exempt officials from legal accountability.

• Affirmative votes to enforce congressional oversight demonstrate commitment to rule-of-law principles under constitutional stress.
• No countervailing conduct undermines this record.

Election Integrity — Green

• No record of promoting election fraud claims, rejecting certified results, or supporting efforts to overturn lawful election outcomes.
• Co-sponsored legislation to protect election workers and strengthen election security infrastructure.
• Publicly affirmed the legitimacy of certified election results.

• Demonstrates consistent respect for certified outcomes and lawful electoral process; legislative record includes affirmative support for election integrity infrastructure.

Laurie Buckhout

Use of Force — Amber

• Retired U.S. Army Colonel with extensive military background.
• Supports strong national defense and law enforcement; no public statements advocating excessive or unlawful force.
• No detailed public articulation of constitutional guardrails on domestic use of force, proportionality, or accountability mechanisms.

• Military background suggests familiarity with command authority and rules of engagement, but the public record lacks specific commitments to constitutional restraint in domestic contexts.
• Absence of red flags, but insufficient affirmative evidence for Green.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

• No prior legislative record (non-incumbent).
• Campaign materials emphasize accountability and transparency in general terms.
• No public statements on congressional oversight authority, judicial independence, or separation of powers during constitutional stress tests.

• General affirmations of accountability are positive but do not constitute the stress-test evidence or specific commitments required for Green under CIU standards.

Election Integrity — Amber

• No public record of promoting election fraud narratives or rejecting certified outcomes.
• Campaign materials do not include explicit statements affirming acceptance of certified election results.
• No prior voting record on election legislation (non-incumbent).

• Absence of election denial avoids Red, but silence on certified outcome acceptance and lack of legislative record prevents Green.
• The record is incomplete rather than concerning.

Richard Hudson

Use of Force — Amber

• Supports robust law enforcement and border security measures.
• No public statements advocating excessive or unlawful use of force.
• Has not articulated specific constitutional guardrails on proportionality, restraint, or accountability in domestic enforcement contexts.

• Broad support for enforcement authority without articulated constitutional guardrails; absence of misconduct but insufficient affirmative evidence of restraint principles for Green.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

• Voted against impeachment following January 6, 2021.
• Has not publicly called for accountability for those involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
• No record of affirmatively undermining judicial authority or obstructing lawful investigations.

• Opposition to impeachment and silence on January 6 accountability reflect missed opportunities to affirm rule-of-law principles during constitutional stress.
• However, absence of affirmative obstruction or undermining of judicial authority prevents Red.

Election Integrity — Red

• Voted to object to certification of 2020 Electoral College results.
• Promoted claims of widespread election fraud without evidence following the 2020 election.
• Joined Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking to overturn certified results in other states.

• Direct participation in efforts to reject certified election outcomes constitutes a clear breach of election integrity standards.
• Pattern of conduct—certification objection, fraud claims, lawsuit participation—reflects sustained rejection of lawful electoral process.

Richard Ojeda

Use of Force — Amber

• Retired U.S. Army Major with combat deployments.
• Supports veterans and military readiness; no advocacy of excessive or unlawful force.
• Military background suggests familiarity with rules of engagement, but public record lacks specific articulation of constitutional guardrails on domestic use of force.

• Clean record with professional military experience, but absence of specific public commitments on proportionality and accountability in domestic enforcement prevents Green.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

• Publicly affirmed that no one is above the law, including elected officials and former presidents.
• Called for accountability for January 6 participants and organizers.
• Emphasized the importance of congressional oversight and separation of powers.

• Explicit affirmation of accountability principles and rule-of-law commitments during constitutional stress demonstrates the affirmative evidence required for Green.

Election Integrity — Amber

• No record of promoting election fraud claims or rejecting certified outcomes.
• Supports democratic participation and voting access.
• No explicit on-the-record statement affirming acceptance of certified election outcomes regardless of result.

• Absence of denial avoids Red, but CIU standards require explicit affirmation of certified outcome acceptance for Green.
• The record is supportive but under-specified on this specific commitment.

Justice Anita Earls

Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

• Dissented in rulings where the majority weakened judicial independence or consolidated political control over election administration.
• Authored or joined opinions defending access to the courts and due process protections, particularly in election-related cases.
• Publicly affirmed the importance of impartial judicial review and the court's institutional role in upholding constitutional limits.

• The record reflects affirmative defense of judicial independence, access to courts, and separation-of-powers principles.
• Dissents in high-profile cases demonstrate willingness to resist structural erosion of constitutional constraints.

Election Integrity — Green

• Dissented in Jefferson Griffin v. NC Board of Elections, opposing majority's decision to exclude ballots cast under previously established rules.
• Defended institutional independence of election administration and access to the ballot.
• Emphasized adherence to procedural regularity over outcome-driven reasoning in election cases.

• Demonstrates consistent commitment to lawful process, certified outcomes, and judicial independence in election-related matters.
• Record reflects defense of democratic participation and resistance to structural changes that weaken election legitimacy.

Sarah Stevens

Rule of Law / Oversight — Red

• Endorsed statutory changes that weaken established checks and balances over election governance.
• Supported institutional frameworks that reduce independent oversight of election administration and judicial accountability.

• The record reflects a repeated pattern of support for structural changes that consolidate governmental power and diminish separation of powers protections.
• These actions elevate constitutional risk by weakening institutional constraints designed to prevent partisan capture of election administration.
• The rating is based on documented legislative and institutional outcomes, not political affiliation, campaign rhetoric, or personal associations.

Election Integrity — Red

• Structural integrity: Supported partisan gerrymandering and statutory restructuring of election boards that concentrates partisan control over election administration.
• Ethical compliance: Campaign finance violations were formally identified by the North Carolina State Board of Elections; warnings were issued and improperly received funds were returned.

• The combination of structural actions that weaken neutral election administration and documented ethical noncompliance in campaign finance creates elevated risk to election legitimacy and public trust.
• The rating reflects institutional impact and adjudicated findings, not partisan affiliation or isolated procedural errors.