Constitutional Accountability Scorecards

Justice Anita Earls

Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

• Dissented in Stein v. Berger to oppose legislative efforts to strip executive authority over election boards.
• Consistently upheld judicial hierarchy and separation of powers.
• Publicly framed dissents around constitutional accountability and institutional restraint.

Clear, on-record defense of checks and balances and judicial independence.

Election Integrity — Green

• Opposed efforts to discard tens of thousands of lawful ballots in Griffin v. NC State Bd. of Elections.
• Dissented where the Court signaled openness to vote nullification.
• Argued that legally cast ballots must be counted to preserve democratic legitimacy.

Affirmative defense of certified results and lawful voter participation.

Judge Sarah Stevens

Rule of Law / Oversight — Red

• Supported legislation, including SB 382, that restructures election administration by transferring authority away from the executive branch and concentrating control within the legislature.
• 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.

Don Davis

Use of Force — Amber

• 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, the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that included substantial resources for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). There is no clearly documented public statement from him 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 protestors.

• 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.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

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

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

Election Integrity — Green

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

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

Laurie Buckhout

Use of Force — Amber

• 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.

• 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 her stated positions remain within lawful enforcement frameworks, the absence of articulated constitutional limits results in a mixed but non-breaching record under CIU standards.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

• Publicly criticized the removal of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, characterizing it as destabilizing and performative, and 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.

• While her criticism of the McCarthy removal reflects concern for institutional stability, it does not translate into articulated support for formal oversight mechanisms, separation-of-powers constraints, or legislative checks on executive authority.
• Her January 6 framing centers on sentencing and treatment of defendants rather than affirming accountability for interference with constitutional processes, leaving her position on enforcement of democratic guardrails incompletely defined.
• The record shows neither rejection of the rule of law nor a clear, affirmative defense of it under partisan pressure.

Election Integrity — Amber

• 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.

• 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.

Bobby Hanig

Use of Force — Amber

• Consistently emphasizes a law-enforcement–first approach, including strong rhetorical support for policing and immigration enforcement.
• No public record of advocating emergency powers, domestic military deployment, or use of force against political opponents.
• No documented instances of misuse of coercive authority or endorsement of political violence.

• While the record shows compliance with lawful enforcement norms, it lacks articulated principles regarding restraint, proportionality, or constitutional limits on the use of force.
• The emphasis is enforcement-oriented rather than guardrail-focused, resulting in a mixed but non-breaching record.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Red

• Supported legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly that narrows legislative and judicial oversight of executive actions, particularly in the context of election administration.
• Backed statutory changes transferring election-administration authority from independent or executive bodies to the legislature.

• The record reflects repeated support for structural changes that consolidate power and weaken separation-of-powers safeguards.
• These actions reduce institutional accountability rather than reinforce constitutional checks.

Election Integrity — Red

• Publicly expressed uncertainty regarding the legitimacy of certified election outcomes.
• Supported restrictive voting legislation and restructuring of election boards that concentrates partisan control over election administration.

• The combination of outcome skepticism and structural support for partisan election control creates patterned risk to election legitimacy.
• The rating reflects institutional impact and repeated conduct, not isolated statements.

Richard Hudson

Use of Force — Amber

• 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.

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

Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

• 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.

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

Election Integrity — Red

• 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 neutral election administration and 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.

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

Richard Ojeda

Use of Force — Amber

• 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.

While the record shows no endorsement of excessive or unlawful force, it lacks affirmative articulation of restraint, proportionality, or civilian-control guardrails required for a Green rating under CIU standards.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Green

• 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.

Consistent, norm-reinforcing posture aligned with institutional accountability.

Election Integrity — Amber

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

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.

Chuck Edwards

Use of Force — Amber

• 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.

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

Rule of Law / Oversight — Red

• 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.

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.

Election Integrity — Red

• 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.

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

Jamie Ager

Use of Force — Green

• 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, ban masks during routine enforcement actions, and hold officers accountable for misconduct.
• No record of advocating emergency powers, domestic military deployment, or politicized use of force.

• 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.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

• Publicly emphasizes accountability and legal fairness.
• No record of attacks on courts, oversight bodies, or separation-of-powers norms.

Clean record, but limited evidence of affirmative leadership or institutional defense of oversight mechanisms.

Election Integrity — Amber

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

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.

Brad Knott

Use of Force — Amber

• 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.

• 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.
• While firmly enforcement-oriented, his statements stop short of endorsing unlawful force, resulting in a mixed but non-breaching record under CIU standards.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

• 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 as reflected in committee questioning and public statements.
• The record does not include affirmative statements defending judicial finality, separation of powers, or limits on executive authority during moments of constitutional stress.

• 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.
• There is no clear breach of rule-of-law norms, but also insufficient affirmative evidence to warrant Green.

Election Integrity — Red

• Voted Yea on the SAVE Act (H.R. 22), legislation that imposes 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.

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

Paul Barringer

Use of Force — Amber

• Publicly supports law enforcement and public safety, while also 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.
• No public statements endorsing political violence or unlawful use of force.
• 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.

• 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.
• Under CIU standards, absence of risk is not sufficient for Green without affirmative evidence of restraint.

Rule of Law / Oversight — Amber

• 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).

• 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, judicial independence, or oversight when politically inconvenient.
• CIU requires stress-test evidence or concrete commitments for Green; the current record is positive but under-specified.

Election Integrity — Amber

• 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).

• 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.