Candidates Mostly Ignore Project Vote Smart

A recent press release from Project Vote Smart, a national research organization caught my eye because it was titled "New Mexico candidates stonewall public on basic issue positions."

That's one way of looking at it.

PVS' site is worth checking out. It includes lots of candidate bios, campaign finance data, public statements, voting records etc. It was founded by a variety of past and present officials, including Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, John McCain, Geraldine Ferraro, Newt Gingrich and more.
According to the project, only 11 percent of candidates for New Mexico's Legislature responded to its Political Courage Test; for Congressional candidates, only 21 percent responded. The candidates will have a second opportunity to respond for the general election.
The Political Courage Test, as described by Project Vote Smart, asks candidates: "Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?" Purportedly, candidates are contacted repeatedly to participate, but the participation rates have fallen over the last few years.

In its press release, Project Vote Smart blames the decrease on the fact that "party leaders and consultants are advising candidates not to respond" because "it will limit the candidates' ability to control their campaign messages, and it will expose them to opposition research."
The test is administered to uncontested candidates, apparently, because both Brian Egolf, D, running uncontested for the state House of Representatives for Santa Fe, and Peter Wirth, D, running uncontested for the Santa Fe seat in the State Senate, were two of the few who did respond. State Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Bernalillo, State Sen. Cisco McSorley, D-Bernalillo and Jerry Ortiz y Pino also participated. The list of who didn't participate is rather long, but, again, you can find it on Project Vote Smart's Web site. (And the link for New Mexico results, specifically, on our Swing State of Mind blog).

As for our exciting congressional races, the only participants were Joe Carraro, R, Robert Pidcock, D, and Rebecca Vigil-Giron, D, all running for the first congressional district; Greg Sowards, R, in the second congressional district and Daniel East, one of the two Republicans running in the June 3 primary for the third congressional district.

None of the other congressional candidates participated.
I asked Project Vote Smart how New Mexico's low participation compared with other states.
We were on the low end of the participation rate, but no state had very strong results.
Here's the breakdown:
KY- fed 18%, leg 14%
IN- fed 25%, leg 16%
WV- fed 18%, leg 22%
NC- fed 37%, leg 13%
PA- -fed 29%, leg 12%
AR- -fed 20%, leg 13%
NE- -fed 22%, leg 16%
NM- -fed 21%. leg 11%
OR- fed 25% leg 9%
Unfortunately, while refusing to answer questions doesn't necessarily reflect that well on the candidates, it also doesn't reflect that well on Project Vote Smart, in my opinion. My experience (limited though it may be to New Mexico elections) is that candidates respond when they feel they can't afford to ignore you and when not doing so could hurt them. I certainly don't think candidates come so faithfully to The Reporter for their endorsement interviews because they enjoy our hot, stuffy conference room, water (usually served in coffee mugs) and stale cookies.
And while it's commendable that there are candidates who take the time to respond to each and every questionnaire, I'm not sure one can determine that those candidates who didn't respond to this particular one are "stonewalling. That's my two cents.
To be sure it's a pretty detailed questionnaire, likely more detailed than any local media outlets or forums would be able to execute, so it's too bad we can't see fuller results.
In the test, candidates are asked to characterize their support, rather than their opposition, for a variety of issues from abortion to campaign finance to gun laws to social issues. This is because, according to the Project, "Through extensive research of public polling data, we discovered that voters are more concerned with what candidates would support when elected to office, not what they oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item." I
(Interesting, because through my own extensive polling, I've learned that when you use double negatives in a sentence, it's really hard for others to understand what you're saying and this is no exception.) OK, I'm being a little snippy here (probably because I'm worn out from our ongoing parade of politicians coming in for endorsement interviews), but regardless, there's tons of good info on the Project's Web site, worth checking out.