| State | Office | District | Name | Party | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC | U.S. House | 2 | Joe Wilson, Sr. | Republican | 93% |
| SC | Lieutenant Governor | Glenn McConnell | Republican | 45% | |
| SC | State Senate | 1 | Thomas Alexander | Republican | 100% |
| SC | State Senate | 2 | Larry Martin | Republican | 100% |
| SC | State Senate | 4 | William O'Dell | Republican | 62% |
| SC | State Senate | 11 | Glenn Reese | Democratic | 46% |
| SC | State Senate | 14 | Harvey Smith Peeler, Jr. | Republican | 100% |
| SC | State Senate | 15 | Wes Hayes, Jr. | Republican | 52% |
| SC | State Senate | 16 | Chauncey Gregory | Republican | 100% |
| SC | State Senate | 20 | John Courson | Republican | 88% |
| SC | State Senate | 21 | Darrell Jackson | Democratic | 22% |
| SC | State Senate | 26 | Nikki Setzler | Democratic | 93% |
| SC | State Senate | 31 | Hugh Kenneth Leatherman, Sr. | Republican | 74% |
| SC | State Senate | 32 | John McGill | Democratic | 48% |
| SC | State Senate | 33 | Luke Rankin, Sr. | Republican | 40% |
| SC | State Senate | 39 | John Matthews, Jr. | Democratic | 24% |
| SC | State Senate | 42 | Robert Ford | Democratic | 5% |
| James Edward Bryan, Jr. | 50% | ||||
| Holly Ann Cork | 79% | ||||
| Charles Tyrone Courtney | 70% | ||||
| John Drummond | 67% | ||||
| Dick Elliott | 73% | ||||
| Warren Kenneth Giese | 89% | ||||
| Maggie Wallace Glover | 15% | ||||
| Donald Harry Holland | 15% | ||||
| John Land III | 31% | ||||
| Phil Leventis | 6% | ||||
| William Mescher | 86% | ||||
| Tommy Moore | 38% | ||||
| Ernest Leroy Passailaigue, Jr. | 63% | ||||
| Kay Patterson | 23% | ||||
| John Richardson Russell | 81% | ||||
| Greg Ryberg | 100% | ||||
| Edward Saleeby | 45% | ||||
| Linda Short | 26% | ||||
| Jefferson Verne Smith | 87% | ||||
| David Thomas | 91% | ||||
| Bob Waldrep, Jr. | 51% | ||||
| Mickinley Washington, Jr. | 16% |
Special Interest Groups
Rating Group: South Carolina Business and Industry Political Education Committee
1993-1996 Positions
Issues:
Business and Consumers
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.
