Rating Group: South Carolina Sierra Club

1995-1996 Positions

Issues: Environment
State Office Name Party Rating
SC U.S. House-2 Joe Wilson, Sr. R 57%
SC Lieutenant Governor John McGill D 14%
SC State House-2 William Sandifer III R 38%
SC State House-36 Rita Allison R 38%
SC State House-43 Greg Delleney, Jr. R 43%
SC State House-46 Gary Simrill R 50%
SC State House-50 Grady Brown D 43%
SC State House-66 Gilda Cobb-Hunter D 100%
SC State House-69 Richard Quinn, Jr. R 0%
SC State House-70 Joseph Neal D 100%
SC State House-76 Leon Howard D 100%
SC State House-82 William Clyburn, Sr. D 67%
SC State House-84 Roland Smith R 38%
SC State House-95 Jerry Govan, Jr. D 100%
SC State House-110 Chip Limehouse III R 38%
SC State House-113 Seth Whipper D 86%
SC State House-114 Robert Harrell, Jr. R 50%
SC State Senate-1 Thomas Alexander R 14%
SC State Senate-2 Larry Martin R 14%
SC State Senate-4 William O'Dell R 43%
SC State Senate-11 Glenn Reese D 43%
SC State Senate-14 Harvey Smith Peeler, Jr. R 14%
SC State Senate-15 Wes Hayes, Jr. R 67%
SC State Senate-16 Chauncey Gregory R 100%
SC State Senate-19 John Scott, Jr. D 100%
SC State Senate-20 John Courson R 83%
SC State Senate-21 Darrell Jackson D 100%
SC State Senate-26 Nikki Setzler D 29%
SC State Senate-31 Hugh Kenneth Leatherman, Sr. R 0%
SC State Senate-33 Luke Rankin, Sr. R 50%
SC State Senate-39 John Matthews, Jr. D 67%
SC Council Member-3 George Bailey R 38%
Harry Raymond Askins 50%
John Michael Baxley 62%
William Daniel Boan 50%
Floyd Breeland 100%
Henry Brown, Jr. 25%
Joe Brown 88%
Theodore Brown 83%
James Edward Bryan, Jr. 43%
Alma Weaver Byrd 100%
Ralph Canty 100%
Marion Pinckney Carnell 29%
Harry Cato 12%
Wilbur Lucius Cave 33%
Daniel Cooper 17%
Holly Ann Cork 100%
Charles Tyrone Courtney 40%
James Mann Cromer, Jr. 75%
Thomas Dantzler 12%
Guy Davenport, Jr. 43%
John Drummond 25%
Michael Easterday 12%
Dick Elliott 80%
John Felder 29%
Ronald Fleming 12%
Robert Ford 71%
Dr. Margaret Gamble 12%
Warren Kenneth Giese 20%
Maggie Wallace Glover 71%
James Harrison 20%
Charles Alexander Harvin III 14%
Terry Edward Haskins 50%
Mack Hines, Jr. 71%
Donald Harry Holland 0%
Curtis Inabinett 80%
Douglas Jennings, Jr. 62%
Thomas Keegan 38%
Mark Stephen Kelley 25%
Kenneth Kennedy 43%
Marion Hardy Kinon 43%
Herbert Kirsh 57%
James Klauber 17%
Jake Knotts, Jr. 25%
Larry Labruce Koon 12%
John Land III 14%
James Lander 29%
Stephen Lanford, Sr. 38%
James Norris Law 43%
Phil Leventis 100%
Lanny Littlejohn 12%
Walter Lloyd 100%
Rudolph Marion Mason 38%
Jennings Gary McAbee 14%
Glenn McConnell 80%
E. DeWitt McCraw 12%
Woodrow Maxie 'Woody McKay 50%
Willie McMahand, Sr. 75%
William Mescher 43%
Bessie Moody-Lawrence 100%
Tommy Moore 50%
Denny Neilson 43%
Ernest Leroy Passailaigue, Jr. 86%
Kay Patterson 50%
Olin Phillips 14%
Thomas Rhoad 14%
Rex Rice 25%
Rebecca Davis Richardson 38%
John Riser 25%
Alfred Burgess Robinson, Jr. 14%
John Richardson Russell 50%
Greg Ryberg 17%
Lynn Seithel 62%
Charles Ray Sharpe 12%
Robert Joseph Sheheen 75%
Linda Short 86%
Jefferson Verne Smith 20%
William Smith 12%
Molly Mitchell Spearman 38%
Harry Carl Stille 50%
Eugene Creighton Stoddard 0%
Elsie Rast Stuart 29%
David Thomas 20%
Ronald Parker Townsend 38%
Daniel Tripp 12%
Teddy Norman Trotter 25%
Lewis Raymond Vaughn 12%
Bob Waldrep, Jr. 50%
Robert Walker 0%
Mickinley Washington, Jr. 67%
Michael Stewart Whatley 29%
Donny Wilder 38%
Timothy Castles Wilkes 57%
David Horton Wilkins 38%
William Witherspoon 12%
Annette Young 38%
William Jeffrey Young 67%

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.