An Update from the Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service
As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, North Carolinians express significant concern about the state of American democracy. Nearly two-thirds say political violence is likely before November’s general election. Yet broad bipartisan majorities still expect the election to occur as scheduled, and most voters say they would be less likely to support candidates who violate democratic and electoral principles, according to the June 2026 Catawba College-YouGov Survey.
The survey also finds a cautionary pattern: while most Democrats and Republicans reject candidates who violate electoral or democratic principles, a committed minority of partisans say they would be more likely to support candidates who engage in such conduct when it benefits their own side.
“Taken together, these findings paint a nuanced picture as North Carolina prepares for the mid-term general campaign,” said Dr. Michael Bitzer, professor of politics and history at Catawba College and director of the Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service, which wrote and paid for the survey administered by YouGov.
“North Carolinians are worried about political violence, but they have not lost confidence in the electoral process itself. And while most voters reject candidates who violate democratic norms, the willingness of a committed minority of partisans to overlook those behaviors serves as an important cautionary signal.”
A strong consensus across the political spectrum is evident among the 1,000 (weighted) North Carolina respondents: 70 percent of both Democrats and Independents and 81 percent of Republicans believe the elections will occur on November 3.
And yet, 66 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of Republicans, and 63 percent of Independents say it is very or somewhat likely political violence will occur before November.
When asked where or against whom political violence was most likely to occur, two-thirds of North Carolinians identified political events on the campaign trail as likely targets.
“Campaign rallies, public appearances, and other political events have increasingly become places where citizens worry violence could occur,” Bitzer said. “Recent attacks and threats involving high-profile political figures have reinforced those concerns while raising difficult questions about balancing public accessibility with candidate safety.”
“At the same time, public campaigning remains a fundamental part of our nation’s elections. Candidates cannot simply retreat from engaging with voters.”
Government buildings were identified as the second most likely target for political violence. North Carolina respondents believe Republican candidates will be the next most likely targeted group, followed by Republicans voters, election officials, Democratic candidates, and Democratic voters.
All groups had at least four in ten overall respondents saying they would be likely targets of political violence. Political events and government buildings generally saw the greatest consensus among partisan respondents, while partisan groups tended to see their candidates and voters as more likely to be targets than the opposition. Democrats were more likely than Independents or Republicans to say election officials could be targets of political violence.
When asked whether political violence would impact voter turnout, North Carolinians were split: 30 percent said such acts would increase turnout while 29 percent said it would decrease turnout. Two in ten said it would have no effect, and 21 percent were not sure.
North Carolinians are also split on whether the presence of federal officials at the polls would impact turnout: overall again, 30 percent said it would increase turnout and 28 percent said it would decrease. Slightly more Democrats said it would decrease, while more Republicans said it would increase turnout.
“These results suggest considerable uncertainty about how voters believe violence—or a heightened security presence—would influence participation,” Bitzer said. “North Carolinians do not see a single predictable effect. Some believe it would discourage voting, while others think it would motivate citizens to participate.”
Although North Carolinians express widespread concern about political violence, the survey also examined whether voters would support candidates who themselves engaged in behavior that violate democratic principles or the integrity of elections.
PARTISANS DRAW SIMILAR LINES WHEN CANDIDATES VIOLATE DEMOCRATIC & BASIC ELECTION PRINCIPLES
Democratic and Republican partisans reacted remarkably similarly across five hypothetical scenarios involving violations of democratic and election principles. In every scenario, more respondents said they would be less likely than more likely to support their own party's candidate. However, between roughly one-fifth and one-third of committed partisans remained willing to support candidates engaging in such behavior.
For the transgression scenarios, respondents who identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party were shown scenarios involving a Democratic candidate, while respondents who identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party were shown parallel scenarios involving a Republican candidate. Independents who didn’t lean to one party or the other were excluded.
The survey also found that partisan intensity mattered. Across all five scenarios, respondents who identified directly with a party were more willing than party-leaning Independents to support candidates who violated democratic or electoral principles, suggesting that stronger partisan identities are associated with greater willingness to excuse such conduct.
The scenario that attracted the most support related to partisan gerrymandering. The greatest number of both Democratic and Republican identifiers said they would be more likely to support their party’s candidate if the candidate engaged in extreme partisan gerrymandering.
“With the nation undergoing a current gerrymandering war to ‘gerrymax’ districts to benefit one party over the other, North Carolina partisans have the highest ‘likely to support’ a candidate who advocated eliminating the opposing party from being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives through redrawing of districts,” Bitzer noted.
The violations that attracted the least support for a candidate involved a candidate encouraging campaign workers to ‘tell registered voters that they must re-register to vote, even though it is not true’: only 16 percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to vote for that candidate, while 50 percent said they would be less likely to vote for that candidate. Among Democrats, 19 percent said they were more likely to vote for their candidate, while 55 percent said they were less likely. The remaining respondents said the scenario would make no difference or that they were not sure.
When asked about supporting a candidate who refused to condemn a violent, political motivated assault against an opposition politician, 24 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to support their candidate, while 44 percent of both groups said they would be less likely to vote for that candidate.
If a candidate suggested reducing the number of voting stations in areas that are more likely to vote for the opposition, 22 percent of Democrats and 18 percent of Republicans would vote for that candidate, with 43 percent and 37 percent respectively less likely to do so.
“The encouraging finding is that, across the political spectrum, more voters say they would punish rather than reward candidates who undermine democratic values,” Bitzer noted. “The more sobering discovery is that a meaningful minority of committed partisans remain willing to overlook those behaviors when their own side benefits.”
“America’s democratic republic ultimately depends on more than institutions—it depends on the choices voters are willing to reward. While most North Carolinians reject these hypothetical behaviors, the willingness of a distinct minority to tolerate them suggests that partisan loyalty can sometimes compete against American democratic principles.”
About the Center for NC Politics and Public Service
The Center for North Carolina Politics & Public Service at Catawba College is dedicated to enriching civic dialogue, deepening understanding, and fostering engagement within North Carolina. Through non-partisan initiatives, the Center promotes the ideals of public service, civic character and engagement, and informed citizenship across the state. By educating North Carolinians about the state's political dynamics and emphasizing the value of public service, the Center cultivates practical political understanding and encourages active civic participation. In doing so, it helps instill a lasting respect for public life and being a responsible citizen — both among Catawba College students and throughout the wider North Carolina community.
About Catawba College
Founded in 1851, Catawba College is a four-year, private, liberal arts college located in Salisbury, N.C. Ranked as one of the best regional colleges in the South, Catawba is known for its intellectual rigor, dedicated faculty, beautiful campus, and strong commitment to sustainability and the environment. The College offers more than 70 undergraduate and four graduate programs allowing students to explore diverse interests and create their own academic pathway. Additional information is available at catawba.edu.
