Research
reports on voter guides in Kentucky, North Carolina
October
21, 2004
These reports are the opinion of the researchers.
Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky
The Kentucky Candidate Information Survey (KCIS)
is a nonpartisan project sponsored by the Family Trust Foundation
of Kentucky, a non-profit organization dedicated to “encouraging
and strengthening families and family life in Kentucky.”
According to the KCIS, “the issues-only, head-to-head approach
avoids pushing a particular agenda, but at the same time, cuts
through the political rhetoric often found in campaign literature.”
Kentuckians will be voting this November on an amendment to the
Kentucky Constitution, which would define marriage as between
one man and one woman. I believe the KCIS distorts what “yes”
and “no” votes would mean. For example, according
to the KCIS, a “no” vote on the amendment means one
supports gay marriage and the rights of gay couples to adopt children.
A "no" vote maintains that gay couples could raise children
“just as well” as a mother and father. I do not see
the words “children” or “adopt” in the
proposition. The guide also says those voting “no”
on the amendment believe love is all that is necessary for children,
and that a “yes” vote “assures every child would
have the hope of having both a mother and a father.” Those
who support the Amendment, KCIS states, “believe the coming
together of the two halves of humanity in marriage (male and female)
IS the perfect diversity that children need in their
nurture, while same-sex couples offer nothing but 'sameness' to
the children they acquire." (Emphasis in original). Not all
supporters or opponents of the amendment base their position addressed
diversity and child-rearing methods.
The KCIS gave each candidate running for major state and federal
offices a series of 20 statements about issues of public interest
developed from the 108th Congress or the 2004 Kentucky General
Assembly, as well as from state news sources. Candidates were
asked to respond to the assertions using “Strongly Disagree,”
“Disagree,” “Undecided,” “Agree,”
or “Strongly Agree.” They were given 18 words to further
explain their responses. They were also given 18 words to list
their top three policy priorities.
Some of the issues included the restriction of sexually explicit
material on the Internet, the funding of international population
control organizations that involve the promotion of abortion,
the availability of contraception to teenagers in public schools,
and a state-wide ban of nude dance in public areas. While these
issues might be expected, I did not expect to see so few questions
concerning health care, social security, and education. Also,
questions that did concern these issues were addressed in extreme
manners. For example, federal candidates were asked the question,
"Would you support universal healthcare?" while smaller
initiatives were not mentioned.
Krista Kimmel
Graduate Assistant, Institute for Rural Journalism and Community
Issues; T eaching Assistant, Department of Communication,
University of Kentucky
North Carolina Family Policy Council
The council issued two different voter guides, one
for U.S. House and Senate candidates and one for state candidates,
including races for governor, the N.C. General Assembly and the
judiciary. The Family Policy Council is a conservative group “dedicated
to the preservation of the family and traditional family values,”
but it is not expressly religious.
The response rate across the board was about 30 percent, with
no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Judicial races
in North Carolina are non-partisan.
The congressional guide asked candidates 15 questions covering
the typical issues of concern for the Christian right, including
abortion, gay rights, gambling and pornography, while also touching
on immigration policy and the war in Iraq. While the choice of
issues is clearly, and understandably, tilted towards cultural
issues, the actual text of the questions is quite even-handed,
which might explain the even split among respondents.
The guide is most notable, in fact, for what is not there. The
typical cultural conservative buzzwords – homosexual, gay,
pornography – are nowhere to be found. The question on gay
marriage, for example, asks, “Should the United States Constitution
be amended to define marriage as the union of one man and one
woman?” Another question asks about federal benefits for
“domestic partners.” The only question directly dealing
with abortion asks, “Should federal funds be used to pay
for abortion?” In short, throughout the federal guide the
language seems neutral, or even, dare I say, politically correct.
In many ways, the first 14 questions are merely a prelude to
the final question. It asks, “Should an individual’s
personal religious beliefs influence the decisions he or she makes
while serving in public office?” This, of course, is the
fundamental issue that voters consulting the FPC guide will want
to know. It is also one that is spectacularly ill-suited for a
yes/no answer. It is hard to imagine any Bible Belt candidate
believing, much less admitting, that religious beliefs play absolutely
no role in his or her decision-making (and in fact no major candidate
does). The question is how do those beliefs influence
their decision, and that is not a question that can be answered
in one word.
The FPC’s state-level guide is longer (17 questions) and
a bit edgier. The second question, for example, asks “Should
homosexuals have the right to adopt children?” Not openly
slanted, but also not as neutral as the federal guide. Five of
the 17 questions deal with abortion, birth control or stem cell
research (versus two of 15 for the federal guide), reflecting,
it seems, the FPC’s belief that these battles will be fought
at the state level, not in Congress. The final question on the
state guide is the same as the federal guide.
In contrast to many voters guides from culturally conservative
groups go, the FPC’s guides do seem designed to educate
a range of voters rather than to divide them.
Eric M. David, Graduate student
School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
