Lincoln 'Linc' D. Chafee
Governor Lincoln 'Linc' D. Chafee's Special Interest Group Ratings
Filter by Issue:
- down
- Abortion
- Abortion and Reproductive
- Agriculture and Food
- Animals and Wildlife
- Arts, Entertainment, and History
- Budget, Spending and Taxes
- Business and Consumers
- Campaign Finance and Elections
- Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
- Conservative
- Crime
- Death Penalty
- Defense
- Drugs
- Education
- Employment and Affirmative Action
- Energy
- Environment
- Executive Branch
- Federal, State and Local Relations
- Foreign Affairs
- Gambling and Gaming
- Government Operations
- Guns
- Health and Health Care
- Housing and Property
- Immigration
- Indigenous Peoples
- Judicial Branch
- Labor Unions
- Legislative Branch
- Liberal
- Marriage, Family, and Children
- Military Personnel
- National Security
- Science
- Senior Citizens
- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
- Social
- Stem Cell Research
- Technology and Communication
- Trade
- Transportation
- Unemployed and Low-Income
- Veterans
- Women
Abortion
| 2006 | Planned Parenthood - Positions | 100% |
| 2005 | NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions | 65% |
| 2004 | NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions | 100% |
| 2003-2004 | National Right to Life Committee - Positions | 9% |
| 2003 | NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions | 90% |
| 2001-2002 | National Right to Life Committee - Positions | 0% |
| 2001 | NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions | 0% |
| 2001 | Planned Parenthood - Positions | 100% |
| 2000 | NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions | 90% |
| 1999-2002 | National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association - Positions | 100% |
| 1999-2000 | National Right to Life Committee - Positions | 16% |
| 1999 | NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions | 100% |
| 1996-2003 | Planned Parenthood - Positions | 100% |
| 1995-2004 | National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association - Positions | 64% |
Agriculture and Food
| 2003-2004 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 44% |
| 2001-2002 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 70% |
| 2000 | American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions | 83% |
| 1999-2000 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 57% |
Animals and Wildlife
Budget, Spending and Taxes
Business and Consumers
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
Conservative
Education
| 2005 | National Association for College Admission Counseling - Positions | 100% |
| 2003-2004 | National Education Association - Positions | 60% |
| 2003-2004 | National Parent Teacher Association - Positions | 27% |
| 2003-2004 | National School Boards Association - Positions | 33% |
| 2003 | National Education Association - Positions | 55% |
| 2002 | National Education Association - Positions | 50% |
| 2002 | National School Boards Association - Positions | 100% |
| 2001-2002 | National Parent Teacher Association - Positions | 80% |
| 2001 | English First - Positions | 0% |
| 2001 | National Education Association - Positions | 70% |
| 2000 | National Education Association - Positions | 80% |
| 1999-2000 | Home School Legal Defense Association - Positions | 60% |
| 1999 | National Education Association - Positions | 100% |
Energy
| 2005-2006 | Campaign for America's Future - Energy Score | 67% |
| 2002 | American Coalition for Ethanol - Positions | 100% |
Entitlements and the Safety Net
Environment
Foreign Affairs
Government Operations
Guns
Health and Health Care
Immigration
| 2006 | American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions | 77% |
| 2005-2006 | Federation for American Immigration Reform - Positions | 14% |
| 2005-2006 | United States Border Control - Positions | 8% |
| 2005 | Federation for American Immigration Reform - Positions | 0% |
| 2004 | Federation for American Immigration Reform - Positions | 0% |
| 2003-2006 | Americans for Better Immigration - Positions | 5% |
| 2003-2005 | Americans for Better Immigration - Positions | 8% |
| 2002 | American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions | 0% |
| 1996-1998 | Americans for Immigration Control - Positions | 0% |
| 1995-2004 | American Immigration Lawyers Association - Positions | 33% |
| 1989-2003 | Americans for Better Immigration - Lifetime Score | 24% |
| 1989-2002 | Americans for Better Immigration - Lifetime Score | 56% |
| 1989-2001 | Americans for Better Immigration - Lifetime Score | 28% |
Judicial Branch
| 2001-2002 | American Bar Association - Positions | 67% |
| 1999-2000 | American Bar Association - Positions | 50% |
Labor Unions
Legal
| 2001-2002 | American Bar Association - Positions | 67% |
| 1999-2000 | American Bar Association - Positions | 50% |
Liberal
Marriage, Family, and Children
| 2005 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 89% |
| 2004 | American Family Association - Positions | 0% |
| 2004 | Family Research Council - Positions | 0% |
| 2003-2004 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 36% |
| 2003 | American Family Association - Positions | 33% |
| 2003 | Family Research Council - Positions | 29% |
| 2003 | National Network for Youth - Positions | 0% |
| 2002 | American Family Voices - Positions | 50% |
| 2001-2002 | Family Research Council - Positions | 11% |
| 2001 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 73% |
| 2000 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 100% |
| 2000 | Family Research Council - Positions | 50% |
| 1999-2000 | Home School Legal Defense Association - Positions | 60% |
| 1999 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 100% |
Military Personnel
National Security
| 2005-2006 | ACT! for America - Positions | 42% |
| 2003-2004 | ACT! for America - Positions | 50% |
| 2003-2004 | American Security Council Foundation - Positions | 60% |
| 2003-2004 | Center for Security Policy - Positions | 56% |
| 2002 | American Security Council Foundation - Positions | 100% |
| 1998-2002 | Center for Security Policy - Positions | 31% |
Science
| 2004 | Parkinsons Action Network - Positions | 100% |
| 2003 | American Society of Anesthesiologists - Positions | 100% |
| 2003 | Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology - Positions | 67% |
Senior Citizens
Social
Socially Liberal
Technology and Communication
| 2006 | CNET News - Positions | 40% |
| 2005-2006 | Information Technology Industry Council - Positions | 100% |
| 2003-2004 | Information Technology Industry Council - Positions | 100% |
| 2002 | Information Technology Industry Council - Positions | 67% |
| 2000 | Information Technology Industry Council - Positions | 100% |
Trade
| 2003-2004 | The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score | 100% |
| 2003-2004 | USA Engage - Positions | 80% |
| 2001-2002 | The Cato Institute - Trade Barrier Votes Score | 88% |
| 2001-2002 | The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score | 100% |
| 2001-2002 | USA Engage - Positions | 80% |
| 1999-2000 | The Cato Institute - Trade Barrier Votes Score | 100% |
| 1997-1998 | The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score | 50% |
Unemployed and Low-Income
| 2003-2004 | Bread for the World - Positions | 100% |
| 2003-2004 | The Partnership for the Homeless - Positions | 100% |
| 2001-2002 | Bread for the World - Positions | 100% |
| 2000 | Bread for the World - Positions | 100% |
| 1999 | Bread for the World - Positions | 50% |
Veterans
Women
| 2005 | National Organization for Women - Positions | 75% |
| 2003-2004 | Business and Professional Women USA - Positions | 92% |
| 2003-2004 | Federally Employed Women - Positions | 50% |
| 2003 | Business and Professional Women USA - Positions | 100% |
| 2001-2002 | Business and Professional Women USA - Positions | 56% |
Impartial/Nonpartisan
How to Interpret these Evaluations
Project Vote Smart displays all known interest group ratings for each candidate and official, regardless of issue or bias.
Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups often do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns. Nevertheless, they can be invaluable in showing where an incumbent has stood on a series of votes in the past one or two years, especially when ratings by groups on all sides of an issue are compared. Website links, if available, and descriptions of the organizations offering performance evaluations are accessible by clicking on the name of the group.
Most performance evaluations are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. For consistency and ease in understanding, Project Vote Smart converts all scores into a percentage when possible. Please visit the group's website or call 1-888-VOTESMART for more specific information.
