The annual Goldwater Institute Legislative Report Card is out and the grades are in. Four of the 8 “A” grades assigned for overall performance were won by Republican women. Goldwater scores Arizona lawmakers on their support of principles of limited constitutional government.
Senators Gail Griffin, Lori Klein, Judy Burges, and Sylvia Allen won high grades in the overall assessment. The report cards are based on the lawmakers’ support for laws the Goldwater Institute deems to be in keeping with Constitutional principles.
According to Goldwater the primary criterion of which is whether a bill expands individual liberty consistent with the Arizona Constitution, or restricts liberty.
This report card assessed 517 votes. Average scores were 56 percent in the House and 59 percent in the Senate. The average House of Representatives score is 56 percent, and the average Senate score is 59 percent, each translating to a letter grade of C and C+, respectively.
The long-term trend in average House and Senate scores has improved markedly since 2003, with the House now pulling close to even with the Senate.
Senate Republicans score 67 percent on average, which is 25 points higher than Senate Democrats, who score an average of 42 percent—a difference that has substantially narrowed from a 36-point difference in 2011 because Senate Democrats improved their score. House Republicans have an average score of 65 percent, which is 26 points higher than House Democrats’ score of 39 percent—a difference that has also substantially narrowed from a 35 point difference in 2011 because House Democrats improved their score.
Education scores, in particular, were sharply higher in both major parties this year. The highest overall score was Sen. Steve Smith’s 76 percent. Rep. Eddie Farnsworth received the highest score in the House, which was 73 percent. These high scorers received overall grades of A-.
The 2012 Legislative Report Card also compares traditionally funded and publicly funded candidates. In both houses, traditional and publicly financed candidates appear roughly equally dispersed among the highest- and lowest-scoring rankings, reconfirming that the sources of campaign funding have no apparent connection to voting behavior.