Search Form
Now choose a category »
 

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

Office: U.S. Senate (SD) - Sr, Democratic

Animals and Wildlife

2014 American Veterinary Medical Assoctiation - Positions on Professional Advocacy 100%
2013 American Veterinary Medical Assoctiation - Positions on Professional Advocacy 100%
2013 Animal Welfare Institute - Compassion Index 0%
2013 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 75%
2013 Food Policy Action - Positions 67%
2013 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 50%
2012 Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance - Positions 75%
2011-2012 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2011-2012 Food Policy Action - Positions 83%
2011-2012 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 42%
2011 American Veterinary Medical Assoctiation - Positions on Professional Advocacy 100%
2011 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 40%
2010-2011 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2010 Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance - Positions 50%
2009-2010 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2009-2010 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 44%
2009 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 100%
2009 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 50%
2008 Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance - Positions 0
2008 Western Organization of Resource Councils - Positions 75%
2007-2008 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 80%
2007-2008 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions on Animal Protection 50%
2007-2008 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 50
2007 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 60%
2007 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions on Animal Protection 50
2007 Western Organization of Resource Councils - Positions 75%
2005-2006 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2005-2006 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 70%
2005-2006 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 40
2005-2006 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 40%
2005 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2005 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 40%
2004 American Humane Association - Positions 60%
2004 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Positions 60%
2004 Born Free USA - Positions 60%
2004 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 50%
2004 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 60
2004 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 60
2003-2004 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2003 American Humane Association - Positions 60%
2003 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Positions 60%
2003 Animal Welfare Institute - Positions 60%
2003 Born Free USA - Positions 60%
2003 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 64%
2003 Doris Day Animal League - Positions 60%
2003 Sierra Club - Positions 50%
2003 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 60%
2003 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 60%
2001-2002 American Humane Association - Positions 75%
2001-2002 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Positions 75%
2001-2002 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 40%
2001-2002 Animal Welfare Institute - Positions 75%
2001-2002 Born Free USA - Positions 75%
2001-2002 Doris Day Animal League - Positions 75%
2001-2002 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 75%
2001-2002 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 75%
2000 Animal Welfare Institute - Positions 50%
2000 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 60
1999-2000 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 60%
1999 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 50%
1995-1996 The Humane Society Legislative Fund - Positions 50%
1995 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 25%
1993-1994 The Humane Society of the United States - Positions 38%

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