Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Special Interest Groups

Rating Group: The Humane Society of the United States

2004 Positions

State Office District Name Party Rating
John Olver 89%
Solomon Ortiz, Sr. 22%
Thomas William Osborne 11%
Major Owens 78%
Michael Oxley 22%
Ed Pastor 44%
Ron Paul 11%
Donald Payne 78%
John Peterson 11%
Tom Petri 67%
Charles Pickering, Jr. 22%
Todd Platts 67%
Richard Pombo 11%
Earl Pomeroy 56%
Jon Porter, Sr. 33%
Deborah Pryce 44%
Mark Pryor 60%
George Radanovich 11%
Nick Rahall II 56%
James Ramstad 78%
Ralph Regula 44%
Denny Rehberg 11%
Richard Renzi 22%
Silvestre Reyes 22%
Thomas Reynolds 22%
Jay Rockefeller IV 40%
Mike Rogers 11%
Mike Ross 11%
Steve Rothman 100%
Jim Ryun 11%
Martin Olav Sabo 78%
Rick Santorum 40%
Paul Sarbanes 100%
Jim Saxton 67%
John Shadegg 22%
E. Clay Shaw, Jr. 56%
Christopher Shays 100%
Donald Sherwood 11%
Robert Ruhl Simmons 100%
Ike Skelton 11%
Gordon Smith 40%
Olympia Snowe 80%
Vic Snyder 78%
Mark Souder 11%
Arlen Specter 80%
John Spratt, Jr. 67%
Pete Stark 100%
Cliff Stearns 33%
Ted Stevens 0%
Ted Strickland 56%
Bart Stupak 44%
John Sullivan 11%
John Sununu 0%
John Sweeney 56%
James Talent 20%
Tom Tancredo 44%
John Tanner 11%
Ellen Tauscher 100%
Charles Taylor 11%
Gene Taylor 44%
Lee Terry 22%
Craig Thomas 0%
William Thomas 11%
Todd Tiahrt 11%
John Tierney 100%
Ed Towns 100%
Stephanie Tubbs Jones 78%
Mark Udall 100%
George Voinovich 0%
James Walsh 22%
Zach Wamp 22%
John Warner 40%
Diane Watson 67%
Mel Watt 67%
Henry Waxman 100%
Anthony Weiner 100%
W. Curtis Weldon 56%
Gerald Weller 56%
Robert Wexler 100%
Heather Wilson 22%
Frank Wolf 67%
Lynn Woolsey 100%
David Wu 100%
Albert Wynn 89%
Bill Young 22%

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.

Skip to top
Back to top