Candidate issue evidence

Alabama Legislator Issue Atlas

Reviewed legislative votes, bills, amendments, public positions, and Vote Smart responses for the target candidate cohort.

Research and analysis by Jackson Hannan • August 2026

How to read this projectEvidence interpretation

Color indicates the direction of reviewed evidence. Opacity indicates evidence volume. Gray indicates no directional evidence.

30Target candidates

5Evidence types

14Issue families

The matrix reports reviewed directional evidence by candidate and issue family. Issue positions are displayed separately because candidates may combine positions that do not fall on a single left–right scale.

Candidate comparison

Candidate issue matrix

Choose a cell to inspect the candidate and the evidence behind that issue.

More progressiveMore conservativePattern = mixed recordGray = no directional evidence

Select a candidate or heatmap cellThe profile will show their biography, issue record, evidence mix, and underlying sources.

Research notes

Methods and limitations

Directional balance, not an ideology test. Color combines reviewed legislative evidence with separately labeled candidate-supplied Vote Smart questionnaire dimensions.

Vote Smart is sparse. Five of the 30 focal candidates have a scored questionnaire available at or before the focal election. The 1994 archive has no scored questionnaire profiles. Missing responses are never coded as moderate or replaced with group ratings.

Public positions remain legible. Campaign statements appear even when their wording has not been normalized into a directional score.

Timing matters. The latest questionnaire no later than the focal election may be shown, with its year preserved. Later answers never leak backward.

This project uses LegiScan, ALISON, Vote Smart candidate-supplied Political Courage Tests, campaign materials, contemporary reporting, reviewed bill text, and the Candidate Margin Overperformance model. Read the CMO methodology.