| State | Office | District | Name | Party | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI | State Senate | 28 | Mark Jansen | Republican | 65% |
| MI | State Senate | 31 | Mike Green | Republican | 88% |
| MI | Director of the Office of the State Budget | Robert Emerson | Democratic | 0% | |
| MI | Commissioner | 7 | Burton Leland | 6% | |
| MI | Commissioner | 9 | Michael Hanley | 6% | |
| Laura Baird | 18% | ||||
| Raymond Basham | 24% | ||||
| Patricia Birkholz | 50% | ||||
| Rose Bogardus | 13% | ||||
| Elizabeth Brater | 18% | ||||
| Lingg Brewer | 29% | ||||
| Bob Brown | 47% | ||||
| William Byl | 47% | ||||
| William Callahan | 53% | ||||
| Nancy Cassis | 69% | ||||
| Deborah Cherry | 6% | ||||
| Eileen DeHart | 6% | ||||
| Larry DeVuyst | 76% | ||||
| A. T. Frank | 47% | ||||
| Terry Geiger | 57% | ||||
| Patricia A.K. Godchaux | 12% | ||||
| Michael Goschka | 65% | ||||
| Derrick Hale | 0% | ||||
| Beverly Hammerstrom | 41% | ||||
| Ron Jelinek | 41% | ||||
| Jon Jellema | 44% | ||||
| R. Shirley Johnson | 24% | ||||
| Thomas Kelly | 18% | ||||
| Kwame Kilpatrick | 19% | ||||
| Edward LaForge | 6% | ||||
| Gerald Law | 41% | ||||
| George Mans | 30% | ||||
| Lynne Martinez | 12% | ||||
| George McManus, Jr. | 64% | ||||
| Raymond Murphy | 0% | ||||
| Charles Perricone | 71% | ||||
| Hubert Price, Jr. | 0% | ||||
| Michael Prusi | 13% | ||||
| Nancy Quarles | 13% | ||||
| Ray Raczkowski | 76% | ||||
| Andrew Richner | 53% | ||||
| Vera Rison | 6% | ||||
| Sue Rocca | 76% | ||||
| Alan Sanborn | 76% | ||||
| Mark Schauer | 6% | ||||
| Gloria Schermesser | 24% | ||||
| Martha Scott | 7% | ||||
| Judith Scranton | 18% | ||||
| Kenneth Sikkema | 71% | ||||
| Keith Stallworth | 6% | ||||
| Paul Tesanovich | 12% | ||||
| Samuel Thomas III | 6% | ||||
| Edward Vaughn | 8% | ||||
| Paul Wojno | 53% |
Issues:
Conservative
How to Interpret these Evaluations
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.
