In 2013, the Kansas Policy Institute, a free market think tank, released a scorecard for state representatives and senators. The report gave each legislator a score based on how he or she voted in the prior legislative term on issues that the Kansas Policy Institute described as pro-limited government policies.[1]
2013 scorecard
The state Senate section of the report showed how each state senator voted in the 2012-2013 term. The nine key criteria applied to all votes on legislation for senators in the scorecard included:
| “
|
- Does it create or eliminate an agency, program or function of government? Does it attempt to prevent the consolidation of multiple agencies? Consolidation of multiple agencies into a new agency is not considered creation of an agency for this purpose.
- Does it remove or give the government new power to prohibit or restrict activities in the free market? Examples may include licensing requirements and other restrictions on legal business practices.
- Is it hostile to the concept of Federalism as set forth in the 10th Amendment? Does it restrict property, speech, gun or other constitutionally-recognized rights or freedoms? Conversely, does it restore balance between the state and federal government, resume state authority over an issue under the 10th Amendment, or remove restrictions on constitutionally-protected rights?
- Is it supportive of or hostile to the Separation of Powers doctrine?
- Does it have a major positive or negative impact on the overall tax burden?
- Does it hold government accountable by making services more accessible and/or improve quality at the same price? Conversely, does it prevent such circumstances by favoring the interest of government employees over taxpayers?
- Does it reaffirm basic legal rights or otherwise protect citizens from judicial activism?
- Does it enhance or restrict citizen input on the selection of judges?
- Does it provide students and parents more choice or does it restrict school choice options?[1][2]
|
”
|
The Kansas Policy Institute used these key criteria as their primary means of evaluating the votes of every state senator on any given piece of legislation. All senators were given three points for every vote they made in line with the institute’s limited government principles on legislation falling under these key criteria. They were given one point for every vote in line with these secondary criteria:
| “
|
- Does it redistribute income, or use tax policy or other incentives to reward specific interest groups, individual businesses, or industries with special favors or perks? Conversely, does it eliminate special favors and perks in the tax code or public policy?
- Does it perform a function that can and should be performed by the private sector, or restore functions to the private sector?
- Does it grow or shrink the regulatory scope of an agency?
- Does it add or remove a minor agency or licensing board?
- Does it directly or indirectly create/reduce taxes, fees or other assessments?
- Does it increase or decrease control of the private sector through rules, regulation or statute?
- Does it increase or decrease long-term debt, or override or restore statutory or constitutional protections against long-term debt?
- Does it give or reduce special benefits for government employees or elected officials?
- Does it promote government transparency or does it restrict access to information that should be in the public domain?
- Does it change licensing provisions in ways that further restrict competition in the free market or does it relax regulations to encourage competition or otherwise provide for the functioning of free markets?
- Does it promote more efficient use of taxpayer funds or does it oppose or reduce government efficiency?
- Does it give teachers, principals, school districts or the Department of Education more flexibility to make student-focused decisions by relaxing or eliminating regulations or does it increase regulatory control?
- Does it prevent or allow government funds or operations from being used for political purposes?
- Does it require school districts to make student-focused decisions related to student achievement or does it allow school districts to put other considerations ahead of student-focused achievement?[1][2]
|
”
|
Each senator is given an overall numeric score based on both the primary and secondary criteria
In addition to a numeric score, each senator was given a percentage score, with 100% showing that a senator voted in complete agreement with the Kansas Policy Institute.[3]
In the Kansas State Senate, eight senators scored at least 70%, while four senators scored 30% or below. Dennis Pyle had the highest score at 91.4% and Tom Holland had the lowest score at 22.4%.[3]
The state House section of the 2013 Kansas Policy Index showed how each state representative voted in the 2012-2013 term. The methodology for the ranking was the same as described above for state senators.[3]
In the Kansas House of Representatives, nine representatives scored at least 80%, while eight representatives scored below 35%. Virgil Peck, Peter DeGraaf, and Amanda Grosserode tied for the highest score at 88%. Don Hill, John Doll, and Emily Perry tied for the lowest score at 29%.[3]
Complete lists
Click [show] in order to expand the tables below with the full lists of rankings by legislator.
Methodology
The Kansas Policy Institute wrote that it chose pieces of legislation to include in the scorecard "based on the impact the proposed legislation [would have] on student-focused education issues, the free market and the constitutional principles of individual liberty and limited government."
Analysts gave points to votes that they determined to be in favor of limited government principles. They also deducted points from votes that they determined to be opposed to limited government. After a final score was given, the institute calculated a percentage, representing how strongly a legislator's voting record agreed with the Kansas Policy Institute.
| “
|
The [percentage] represents the relative position of a legislator’s score on a number line of the minimum and maximum score, with the percentage indicating proximity to the maximum score. For example, if a legislator with score range of ±43 and a score of zero would be at the 50% point of the minimum / maximum number line. A legislator with a score of negative 20 on that same range would be at the 26.7% point (Freedom Percentage) on the number line (or 73.7% away from the maximum). It is calculated by adding the maximum positive score for the House or Senate to each legislator’s actual score and dividing the total by twice the appropriate maximum score.[1][2]
|
”
|
External links
| State legislatures |
|---|
| | Legislatures | Alabama (H, S) · Alaska (H, S) · Arizona (H, S) · Arkansas (H, S) · California (A, S) · Colorado (H, S) · Connecticut (H, S) · Delaware (H, S) · Florida (H, S) · Georgia (H, S) · Hawaii (H, S) · Idaho (H, S) · Illinois (H, S) · Indiana (H, S) · Iowa (H, S) · Kansas (H, S) · Kentucky (H, S) · Louisiana (H, S) · Maine (H, S) · Maryland (H, S) · Massachusetts (H, S) · Michigan (H, S) · Minnesota (H, S) · Mississippi (H, S) · Missouri (H, S) · Montana (H, S) · Nebraska · Nevada (A, S) · New Hampshire (H, S) · New Jersey (GA, S) · New Mexico (H, S) · New York (A, S) · North Carolina (H, S) · North Dakota (H, S) · Ohio (H, S) · Oklahoma (H, S) · Oregon (H, S) · Pennsylvania (H, S) · Rhode Island (H, S) · South Carolina (H, S) · South Dakota (H, S) · Tennessee (H, S) · Texas (H, S) · Utah (H, S) · Vermont (H, S) · Virginia (H, S) · Washington (H, S) · West Virginia (H, S) · Wisconsin (A, S) · Wyoming (H, S)
| | | | 2025 | | | | 2024 | | | | 2023 | | | | Historical elections | | | Features of
state legislatures | | | | State senates | | | | State houses | | | | Leadership positions | |
|
