Representative James 'Jim' David Matheson's Special Interest Group Ratings

Office: U.S. House (UT) - District 4, Democratic
Filter by Issue
How To Interpret These Evaluations

Environment

2014 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 50% 2013 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 50% 2013 Environment America - Positions 0% 2013 Food Policy Action - Positions 85% 2013 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 25% 2013 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 48% 2012 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 17% 2012 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 51% 2012 Sierra Club - Positions on Clean water (House Only) 14% 2011-2012 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 28% 2011-2012 Environment America - Positions 0% 2011-2012 Food Policy Action - Positions 71% 2011-2012 League of Conservation Voters - Session Score 27% 2011-2012 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions (House Only) 29% 2011 Environment America - Positions 39% 2011 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 37% 2011 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 58% 2011 Sierra Club - Positions on Clean Water (House Only) 25% 2011 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions (House Only) 31 2010-2011 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 45% 2010 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 64% 2010 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 90% 2009-2010 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 43% 2009-2010 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 75% 2009-2010 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 67% 2009 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 40% 2009 Environment America - Positions 80% 2009 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 64% 2008 Environment America - Positions 62% 2007-2008 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 63% 2007-2008 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 64% 2007 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 50% 2007 League of Conservation Voters - First Session Score 55% 2006-2012 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 57% 2006 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 58% 2006 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 100% 2005-2006 American Forest and Paper Association - Positions 83% 2005-2006 American Lands Alliance - Positions 11% 2005-2006 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 83% 2005-2006 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 60% 2005-2006 Partnership for America - Positions 31% 2005 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 67% 2005 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 56% 2004 Center for International Policy - Positions 100% 2004 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 60% 2003-2004 American Lands Alliance - Positions 40% 2003-2004 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 73% 2003-2004 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 58% 2003-2004 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 34% 2003-2004 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 81% 2003 American Lands Alliance - Positions 13% 2003 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 53% 2003 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 60% 2003 Sierra Club - Positions 50% 2002 Californians for Population Stabilization - Positions 33% 2001-2002 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 60% 2001-2002 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 68% 2001-2002 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 67% 2001-2002 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 73% 2001 Californians for Population Stabilization - Positions 50%

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.