Rating Group: Michigan Chamber of Commerce

2005-2006 Positions

State Office Name Party Rating
MI U.S. House-2 Bill Huizenga R 100%
MI State Senate-3 Morris Hood III D 28%
MI State Senate-4 Virgil Smith, Jr. D 33%
MI State Senate-5 Tupac Hunter D 50%
MI State Senate-6 Glenn Anderson D 38%
MI State Senate-8 Hoon-Yung Hopgood D 29%
MI State Senate-9 Steven Bieda D 30%
MI State Senate-10 Tory Rocca R 95%
MI State Senate-11 Jack Brandenburg R 95%
MI State Senate-12 James Marleau R 100%
MI State Senate-16 Bruce Caswell R 90%
MI State Senate-19 Michael Nofs R 100%
MI State Senate-21 John Proos IV R 100%
MI State Senate-22 Joe Hune R 100%
MI State Senate-24 Rick Jones R 100%
MI State Senate-25 Phillip Pavlov R 100%
MI State Senate-26 Dave Robertson R 95%
MI State Senate-29 Dave Hildenbrand R 100%
MI State Senate-32 Roger Kahn R 100%
MI State Senate-33 Judy Emmons R 95%
MI State Senate-34 Goeff Hansen R 100%
MI State Senate-35 Darwin Booher R 95%
MI State Senate-36 John Moolenaar R 100%
MI State Senate-37 Howard Walker R 100%
MI State Senate-38 Tom Casperson R 95%
MI Mayor-At-Large Paula Zelenko 37%
MI Supervisor-At-Large Philip LaJoy R 95%
MI Trustee-At-Large David Law R 100%
MI Council Member-At-Large John Pastor R 95%
MI Council Member-At-Large Laura M. Toy 75%
MI Commissioner-2 Brenda Clack D 35%
MI Commissioner-3 Martha Scott D 37%
MI Commissioner-3 Rick Shaffer R 100%
MI Commissioner-5 Irma Clark-Coleman D 38%
MI Commissioner-6 Burton Leland 36%
MI Commissioner-8 Neal Nitz R 90%
MI Commissioner-9 Fred Miller D 29%
MI Commissioner-11 Robert Gosselin R 95%
MI Commissioner-12 Shelley Taub R 100%
MI Commissioner-14 Raymond Basham D 36%
MI Treasurer Andy Dillon N/A 52%
Frank Accavitti, Jr. 45%
Daniel Acciavatti 100%
Stephen Adamini 26%
Jason Allen 95%
Fran Amos 100%
Kathy Angerer 52%
Richard Ball 95%
James Barcia 57%
Rick Baxter 95%
Douglas Bennett 30%
Patricia Birkholz 91%
Michael Bishop 100%
Elizabeth Brater 32%
Cameron Brown 95%
Rich Brown 38%
Pam Byrnes 52%
Dianne Byrum 38%
Nancy Cassis 95%
Bill Caul 100%
Marsha Cheeks 40%
Deborah Cherry 41%
Hansen Clarke 38%
Ed Clemente 45%
Paul Condino 29%
Alan Cropsey 100%
George Cushingberry, Jr. 47%
Craig DeRoche 100%
Marie Donigan 38%
Leon Drolet 95%
Kevin Elsenheimer 100%
Robert Emerson 29%
John Espinoza 62%
David Farhat 86%
Barbara Farrah 50%
Edward Gaffney 100%
Valdemar Garcia 100%
John Garfield 95%
Tom George 86%
Judson Gilbert II 100%
Matthew Gillard 38%
John Gleason 43%
Lee Gonzales 33%
Michael Goschka 100%
Kevin Green 95%
Beverly Hammerstrom 95%
Bill Hardiman 100%
Jack Hoogendyk, Jr. 95%
Scott Hummel 100%
Gilda Jacobs 36%
Ron Jelinek 91%
R. Shirley Johnson 88%
Chris Kolb 29%
Jerry O. Kooiman 100%
Wayne Kuipers 100%
Kathleen Law 43%
Gabriel Leland 38%
LaMar Lemmons III 53%
LaMar Lemmons, Jr. 44%
Alexander Lipsey 20%
Jeff Mayes 45%
Bill McConico 47%
Gary McDowell 62%
Michelle McManus 95%
Andy Meisner 24%
Tom Meyer 100%
Tim Moore 90%
Leslie Mortimer 100%
Michael Murphy 40%
Gary Newell 100%
Dennis Olshove 50%
Brian Palmer 100%
David Palsrok 100%
Bruce Patterson 68%
Thomas Pearce 95%
Jim Plakas 22%
Gino Polidori 43%
Michael Prusi 36%
Michael Sak 52%
Alan Sanborn 95%
Mark Schauer 41%
Tonya Schuitmaker 100%
Fulton Sheen 95%
Joel Sheltrown 62%
Kenneth Sikkema 100%
Alma Smith 29%
Dudley Spade 52%
John Stahl 100%
John Stakoe 90%
Tony Stamas 100%
Glenn Steil, Jr. 100%
John Stewart 89%
Mickey Switalski 50%
Samuel Thomas III 58%
Steven Tobocman 29%
Aldo Vagnozzi 43%
Barb Vander Veen 100%
William VanRegenmorter 94%
Gerald Van Woerkom 91%
Christopher Ward 100%
Mary Waters 33%
Lorence Wenke 100%
Carl Williams 29%
Lisa Wojno 40%

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.