Rating Group: PawPAC

1997-1998 Positions

State Office Name Party Rating
CA U.S. House-4 Tom McClintock R 27%
CA U.S. House-16 Jim Costa D 89%
CA U.S. House-17 Mike Honda D 90%
CA U.S. House-28 Adam Schiff D 100%
CA U.S. House-29 Tony Cardenas D 91%
CA U.S. House-53 Susan Davis D 100%
CA State Senate-35 Roderick Wright D 88%
CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen D 100%
CA Supervisor-4 Dick Monteith 42%
CA Supervisor-5 Bruce McPherson 91%
CA Council Member-1 Gilbert Cedillo D 100%
CA Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson D 89%
Richard Ackerman 18%
Deirdre Alpert 100%
Elaine Alquist 91%
Dion Aroner 100%
Roy Ashburn 30%
Steve Charles Baldwin 11%
James Battin 45%
Scott Baugh 18%
Marilyn Brewer 33%
James Brulte 63%
John Burton 90%
Bill Campbell 33%
Dennis Cardoza 80%
James Cunneen 82%
Denise Ducheny 80%
Martha Escutia 91%
Liz Figueroa 92%
Richard Floyd 80%
Peter Frusetta 42%
Martin Gallegos 100%
Brett Granlund 36%
Sally Havice 89%
Tom Hayden 100%
Ray Haynes, Jr. 18%
Robert Hertzberg 91%
George House, Jr. 30%
Teresa Hughes 100%
K. Maurice Johannessen 40%
Ross Johnson 33%
Patrick Johnston 100%
Howard Kaloogian 10%
Betty Karnette 100%
Fred Keeley 100%
David Kelley 80%
William Knight 22%
Wally Knox 100%
Sheila Kuehl 100%
Lynne Leach 70%
Ted Lempert 100%
Bill Leonard 27%
Robert Leslie 50%
John Lewis 38%
Michael Machado 73%
Bob Margett 33%
Kerry Mazzoni 100%
Carole Migden 100%
William Phillip Morrow 22%
Richard Mountjoy 13%
Kevin Murray 91%
Jack O'Connell 100%
Keith Olberg 18%
Thomas Oller 18%
Deborah Ortiz 100%
Rod Pacheco 67%
Louis Papan 82%
Steve Peace 100%
Don Perata 100%
Richard Polanco 100%
Charles Poochigian 33%
Richard Keith Rainey 50%
George Runner, Jr. 25%
Jack Scott 91%
Kevin Shelley 100%
Byron Sher 100%
Hilda Solis 100%
Virginia Strom-Martin 92%
Bruce Thompson 40%
Helen Thomson 82%
John Vasconcellos 88%
Antonio Villaraigosa 90%
Edward Vincent 82%
Carl Washington 90%
Howard Wayne 91%
Scott Wildman 100%
Cathie Wright 50%

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.