Secretary John Forbes Kerry's Special Interest Group Ratings

Office: U.S. Secretary of State, Democratic
Filter by Issue
How To Interpret These Evaluations

Women

2012 Federally Employed Women - Positions 90% 2012 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2011-2012 American Association of University Women - Positions 100 2011-2012 Concerned Women for America - Positions 0% 2011 Concerned Women for America - Positions 0% 2011 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2010 Federally Employed Women - Positions 80% 2010 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2009-2010 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 2009-2010 Concerned Women for America - Positions 0% 2009 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 2009 Federally Employed Women - Positions 90% 2009 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2009 Women Employed - Positions 100% 2008 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2007-2008 American Association of University Women - Positions 90% 2007-2008 Concerned Women for America - Positions 11% 2007-2008 Federally Employed Women - Equality in Government Score 80 2007-2008 National Organization for Women - Positions 94% 2007 American Association of University Women - Positions 83 2007 Federally Employed Women - Positions 60% 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 90% 2006 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2005-2006 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 2005-2006 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 100% 2005-2006 Concerned Women for America - Positions 0% 2005-2006 Federally Employed Women - Positions 100% 2005-2006 National Organization for Women - Positions 96% 2005 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 2005 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2005 National Organization for Women - Positions 100% 2005 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 66% 2004 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2003-2004 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 2003-2004 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 38% 2003-2004 Concerned Women for America - Positions 14% 2003-2004 Federally Employed Women - Positions 50% 2003-2004 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 38% 2003 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 2003 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - Positions 0% 2003 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 80% 2003 Concerned Women for America - Positions 0% 2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2001-2002 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 2001-2002 Business and Professional Women USA - Positions 100% 2001-2002 Concerned Women for America - Positions 33% 2001-2002 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 81% 2001 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 2001 American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - Positions 100% 2001 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 2000 Concerned Women for America - Positions 0% 2000 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 1999-2000 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 1999 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 1999 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 1998 National Organization for Women - Positions 85% 1997-1998 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 1997-1998 Concerned Women for America - Positions 0% 1997 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 1997 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 1996 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 100% 1995-1996 American Association of University Women - Positions 100% 1995-1996 Concerned Women for America - Positions 50% 1995 The Woman Activist - Positions 100% 1989-1990 National Women's Political Caucus - Positions 100%

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.