Arkansas' Freedom Scorecard (2012-2013)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Advance Arkansas Institute, which describes itself as an "organization committed to influencing public policy based on free markets, individual liberty and limited transparent government," released its Arkansas' Freedom Scorecard in 2012 and 2013. The scorecard described how Arkansas legislators voted on principles that the institute sought to promote.

The scorecard measured each state legislator in six categories. The institute characterized these categories as "economic freedom, education reform, good government, personal liberty, small government, and tax/budget policy."[1]

2013 report

The 2013 report covered the voting records of state legislators serving in Arkansas' 89th General Assembly, from 2012 to 2013. Roughly 100 notable bills were voted upon during the session and chosen by the Advance Arkansas Institute. The institute ranked the voting records of the legislators and gave each an overall score according to the votes the institute deemed in favor of "clean elections, criminal justice, education reform, economic freedom, Obamacare and health care reform, integrity in government, lawsuit reform, personal liberty, anti-cronyism, Second Amendment rights, smaller government, and tax relief." Scores between the state House and state Senate were not comparable due to the fact that not all bills that the House voted on made it to the Senate floor and vice versa.[2]

The 10 members of the state House considered most supportive of the institute's values in 2013 were:

The 10 members of the state House considered least supportive of the institute's values in 2013 were:

The 10 members of the state Senate considered most supportive of the institute's values in 2013 were:

The 10 members of the state Senate considered least supportive of the institute's values in 2013 were:

2013 Arkansas House scorecard

2013 Arkansas Senate scorecard

2012 report

The 2012 report covered the voting records of state legislators serving in Arkansas' 88th General Assembly, from 2011 to 2012. More than 40 bills during the session were examined and chosen by the Advance Arkansas Institute. The institute ranked the voting records of the legislators based on how closely they aligned with the institute's policy views. Scores between the state House and state Senate were not comparable due to the fact that not all bills that the House voted on made it to the Senate floor and vice versa.

The 10 members of the state House considered most supportive of the institute's values in 2012 were:

The 10 members of the state House considered least supportive of the institute's values were:

The 10 members of the state Senate considered most supportive of the institute's values were:

The 10 members of the state Senate considered least supportive of the institute's values were:

2012 Arkansas House Scorecard

2012 Arkansas Senate Scorecard

Methodology

The institute evaluated Arkansas state legislators based on six categories, which it described in the following terms.[3]

  • Economic freedom: The institute measured support for economic freedom in terms of how often a legislator voted against what it described as "inefficient or costly regulations" and "burdens on the right to earn a living." Bills included in this category covered mandates on home construction, farmers' market regulations, and regulations on pharmacies and customers. The institute also encouraged support for one bill in this category (HB 1893), which would establish "teaching license reciprocity with other states."
  • Education reform: Education reform for the institute included support for "a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools," which is required by the Arkansas Constitution. The institute viewed several bills worthy of support in this category, including bills that it described as "[removing] burdens from students under public school choice law," "[easing] caps on charter schools," "[repealing] parent-petition requirements for charter schools," and "[protecting] students' rights to public school choice." The institute also opposed two bills, which it described as "[ending] the requirement of reporting public school grade inflation" and "[creating] additional obstacles to charter-school formation."
  • Good government: The institute evaluated several bills in this category. These included a bill that it described as preventing the government "from treating law-abiding contractors equally with contractors who knowingly employ" people who enter the country without legal permission. It also considered bills "[requiring] ethics disclosures from election commissioners," "[prohibiting] election commissioners from having business dealings with election boards," "[requiring] voters to show photo ID at polls," and "[putting] government finances on [a] public website." The institute also recommended voting against several bills. These included bills that would "[reduce] criminal penalties for multiple crimes," "[extend] law enforcement authority to private colleges," and make cyberbullying a crime.
  • Personal liberty: The institute urged support for bills that it described as protecting personal liberty, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It also supported bills that it described as "[protecting] concealed carry rights," and "[blocking] local governments from regulating Second Amendment rights." The institute recommended opposition to bills that it described as "[prohibiting] cell phone use in school zones," "[expanding] college and university smoking prohibitions to private vehicles," and "[prohibiting] smoking in cars around children."
  • Small government: This category included legislation that the institute described as expanding the role of government. Bills in this category included spending on state health insurance exchanges, subsidies to private industries, statewide school dress code regulations, and the creation of the Commission on the Status of Women, among other legislation.
  • Tax/budget policy: The institute supported bills that it described as reducing "taxes on some capital gains," "manufacturers’ utility taxes," "auto sales tax on some transactions," "manufacturers’ sales and use taxes," and "sales tax on food." The institute opposed bills that it described as "[creating] an unemployment trust fund to be funded by tax-increase elections."

See also

External links

Footnotes