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

Special Interest Groups

Rating Group: Michigan League of Conservation Voters

2009-2010 Positions

Issues: Environment
State Office District Name Party Rating
MI U.S. House 3 Justin Amash Republican 0%
MI Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley Republican 17%
MI State House 5 Fred Durhal, Jr. Democratic 94%
MI State House 18 Sarah Roberts Democratic 100%
MI State Senate 1 Coleman Young II Democratic 94%
MI State Senate 2 Bert Johnson Democratic 89%
MI State Senate 10 Tory Rocca Republican 89%
MI State Senate 11 Vincent Gregory Democratic 100%
MI State Senate 12 James Marleau Republican 39%
MI State Senate 13 Martin Knollenberg Republican 22%
MI State Senate 18 Rebekah Warren Democratic 100%
MI State Senate 19 Michael Nofs Republican 0%
MI State Senate 21 John Proos IV Republican 39%
MI State Senate 24 Rick Jones Republican 44%
MI State Senate 25 Phil Pavlov Republican 300%
MI State Senate 29 Dave Hildenbrand Republican 39%
MI State Senate 30 Arlan Meekhof Republican 22%
MI State Senate 32 Kenneth Horn Republican 17%
MI State Senate 34 Goeff Hansen Republican 67%
MI State Senate 35 Darwin Booher Republican 300%
MI State Senate 36 Jim Stamas Republican 17%
MI State Senate 37 Wayne Schmidt Republican 33%
MI Commissioner 3 Martha Scott Democratic 100%
MI Commissioner 5 Irma Clark-Coleman Democratic 100%
MI Commissioner 9 Fred Miller Democratic 100%
MI Commissioner 12 Richard LeBlanc Democratic 56%
MI Commissioner 14 Raymond Basham Democratic 100%
Dave Agema 11%
Jason Allen 20%
Glenn Anderson 100%
Kathy Angerer 100%
Richard Ball 89%
James Barcia 80%
Vicki Barnett 100%
Joan Bauer 100%
Douglas Bennett 44%
Patricia Birkholz 30%
Michael Bishop 0%
Timothy Bledsoe 100%
Jase Bolger 39%
Elizabeth Brater 100%
Cameron Brown 0%
Lisa Brown 100%
Terry Brown 100%
Pam Byrnes 89%
Barbara Byrum 100%
Nancy Cassis 20%
Bill Caul 11%
Deborah Cherry 80%
Hansen Clarke 100%
Ed Clemente 83%
Bob Constan 100%
Marc Corriveau 100%
Andrew Coulouris 94%
Hugh Crawford 17%
Alan Cropsey 20%
George Cushingberry, Jr. 72%
Kevin Daley 17%
Robert Dean 100%
Cynthia Denby 22%
Larry DeShazor 94%
Andy Dillon 78%
Marie Donigan 50%
Kate Ebli 94%
Kevin Elsenheimer 22%
John Espinoza 94%
Valdemar Garcia 0%
Douglas Geiss 100%
Bob Genetski 0%
Tom George 20%
Judson Gilbert II 0%
John Gleason 80%
Lee Gonzales 78%
Kevin Green 28%
Martin Griffin 50%
Jennifer Haase 100%
Gail Haines 89%
Richard Hammel 67%
Bill Hardiman 20%
Harold Haugh 94%
Joseph Haveman 17%
Michael Huckleberry 94%
Tupac Hunter 100%
Shanelle Jackson 50%
Gilda Jacobs 100%
Mark Jansen 20%
Ron Jelinek 20%
Robert Jones 100%
Roger Kahn 0%
Andrew Kandrevas 89%
Deb Kennedy 100%
Eileen Kowall 33%
Wayne Kuipers 0%
Kenneth Kurtz 6%
Michael Lahti 94%
Gabriel Leland 100%
LaMar Lemmons, Jr. 94%
Steven Lindberg 100%
Ellen Lipton 100%
Lesia Liss 100%
Matt Lori 17%
Pete Lund 6%
Jeff Mayes 89%
Gary McDowell 100%
Michelle McManus 0%
Tom McMillin 0%
Mark Meadows 100%
Tim Melton 100%
Kim Meltzer 22%
Tim Moore 17%
Chuck Moss 28%
David Nathan 94%
Judy Nerat 89%
Andy Neumann 83%
Dennis Olshove 100%
Paul Opsommer 33%
John Pappageorge 20%
Bruce Patterson 20%
Thomas Pearce 6%
Gino Polidori 94%
Michael Prusi 80%
Randy Richardville 20%
Bill Rogers 33%
Alan Sanborn 0%
Roy Schmidt 94%
Tonya Schuitmaker 50%
Bettie Scott 83%
Paul Scott 72%
Daniel Collins Scripps 100%
Kate Segal 100%
Joel Sheltrown 78%
Dian Slavens 100%
Jim Slezak 100%
Alma Smith 94%
Dudley Spade 61%
Tony Stamas 20%
Woodrow Stanley 100%
Jonathan Switalski 100%
Mickey Switalski 100%
Samuel Thomas III 100%
Rashida Tlaib 94%
Sharon Tyler 50%
Mary Valentine 100%
Gerald Van Woerkom 0%
John Walsh 28%
Gretchen Whitmer 100%
Jimmy Womack 94%

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