Abortion Issues

(Back to top)

2005  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota 0 percent in 2005.

2002  Based on responses to a 2002 questionnaire, interviews, past voting records, and constituent contacts, NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota considers the position of Senator Garnos to be 0.

Agriculture Issues

(Back to top)

2008  Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to South Dakota Farmers Union's position, Senator Garnos received a rating of 75.

2006  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota Farmers Union 100 percent in 2006.

2005  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota Farmers Union 97 percent in 2005.

2003  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota Farmers Union 75 percent in 2003.

2000  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota Farmers Union 60 percent in 2000.

1999  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota Farmers Union 80 percent in 1999.

Business and Consumers

(Back to top)

2005-2006  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota National Federation of Independent Business 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2004  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota National Federation of Independent Business 67 percent in 2004.

2002  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota National Federation of Independent Business 71 percent in 2002.

1999-2000  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota National Federation of Independent Business 67 percent in 1999-2000.

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

(Back to top)

2000-2003  Based on votes that Gay Rights Information considered to be the most important in 2000-2003, they have assigned Senator Garnos a grade of 0 (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

2000-2002  Based on votes that Gay Rights Information considered to be the most important in 2000-2002, they have assigned Senator Garnos a grade of 0 (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

Gun Issues

(Back to top)

2008  Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2008, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Garnos a grade of A- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2006  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota Shooting Sports Association 78 percent in 2006.

2004  Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Garnos a grade of A (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2002  Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Garnos a grade of B (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2002  Senator Garnos supported the interests of the South Dakota Gun Owners of America 92 percent in 2002.

2000  Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2000, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Garnos a grade of B (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

1998  Based on a questionnaire and the votes that National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund considered to be the most important in 1998, they have assigned Senator Garnos a grade of C (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

How to Interpret these Evaluations: (Back to top) Project Vote Smart collects performance evaluations from special interest groups who provide them, regardless of issue or bias. If you have any comments concerning performance evaluations or know of a group that provides ratings not included here, please contact us at ratings@vote-smart.org. Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups are biased. They 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, 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.