Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category
 

Timothy 'Tim' Peter Johnson's Ratings and Endorsements on Issue: Environment

Environment

2014 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score 100%
2014 Environment America - Positions 100%
2014 Food Policy Action - Positions 67%
2014 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 73%
2013-2014 League of Conservation Voters - Positions (113th Congress, full session) 94%
2013 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 75%
2013 Environment America - Positions 100%
2013 Food Policy Action - Positions 67%
2013 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 72%
2013 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 92%
2012 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 100%
2012 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 72%
2011-2012 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2011-2012 Environment America - Positions 100%
2011-2012 Food Policy Action - Positions 83%
2011-2012 League of Conservation Voters - Session Score 96%
2011 Environment America - Positions 63%
2011 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 91%
2011 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 70%
2011 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and WILL - Positions (House Only) 69
2010-2011 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2010 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 71%
2010 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 70%
2009-2010 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2009-2010 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 89%
2009-2010 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 100%
2009 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2009 Environment America - Positions 86%
2009 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 100%
2008 Western Organization of Resource Councils - Positions 75%
2007-2008 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 80%
2007-2008 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 58%
2007 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 60%
2007 League of Conservation Voters - First Session Score 33%
2007 Western Organization of Resource Councils - Positions 75%
2006-2012 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 50%
2006 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 71%
2005-2006 American Forest and Paper Association - Positions 57%
2005-2006 American Lands Alliance - Positions 50%
2005-2006 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 70%
2005-2006 Partnership for America - Positions 11%
2005 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2005 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 80%
2005 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and WILL - Positions 66%
2004 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 50%
2003-2004 American Lands Alliance - Positions 33%
2003-2004 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2003-2004 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 52%
2003-2004 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 100%
2003-2004 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and WILL - Positions 82%
2003 American Lands Alliance - Positions 22%
2003 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 64%
2003 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 58%
2003 Sierra Club - Positions 50%
2001-2002 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 40%
2001-2002 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 52%
2001-2002 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 100%
2001-2002 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and WILL - Positions 68%
2001 Californians for Population Stabilization - Positions 100%
1999-2000 American Lands Alliance - Positions 33%
1999-2000 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 88%
1999-2000 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 100%
1999 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 89%
1998 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 80%
1997 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 71%
1995-1996 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 62%

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.

Skip to top
Back to top