The vote-selection process involves researching and evaluating votes on bills that were introduced in each two-year Congress and every annual or biannual state legislative session from January 1 to December 31. When selecting votes, we focus on key issues. We ask the following important questions: Does the legislation serve the legitimate, constitutional purposes of government? What is the cost to taxpayers? How much of a long-lasting effect will it have? After the preliminary vote-selection process has been completed, we narrow the list of possible votes to use. Final selection involves choosing 10 votes to include in the Freedom Index and six votes to feature on the Congressional and state Legislative Scorecards.

Votes are not selected to make any legislator look “good” or “bad.” The same set of votes are used for every legislator in their respective chamber, regardless of their political party or ideology. The text of the bills, legislative journals, committee hearings, fiscal notes, and local media reports are all taken into consideration.

While the Freedom Index and Scorecards do not cover a lawmaker’s entire voting history, which may amount to hundreds of votes, they do provide a user-friendly summary that is designed to be representative of a lawmaker’s overall voting record. The reality is that some votes are more significant than others concerning the role, size, and cost of government. Our aim is to reveal whether lawmakers are voting consistently for or against the principles of constitutional, limited government.

The actual cost-per-household is calculated by dividing the actual (or estimated) cost of the legislation by the total number of households (at the national or state level). We rely on data from official sources, such as the Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Final votes are generally used since it is the final vote that decides if the bill is to pass. Besides, final votes on appropriation bills confirm how much money was spent on government programs. There is also less of an excuse for a lawmaker who fails to vote during a final vote. Still, amendments and other preliminary votes do shape the final version or outcome of legislation and may be used if pertinent, especially when there is no final vote.

Legislation is often the result of compromise, and there are votes on less than “clean” bills that contain a mix of “good” and “bad” provisions. However, it is necessary to keep in mind that the American Founders established the U.S. Constitution to “form a more perfect Union.” While the Constitution remains the best framework of government the world has ever seen, it depends on the people. At times, the will of the “constitutional majority” does not prevail, and legislation may be flawed. The question becomes: Did the legislator vote on principle by considering the whole bill, not simply one or more of its parts, in relation to the weightier matters of the law? Strict obedience to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important duties of a good legislator. Yet, the Declaration of Independence tells us that the laws of necessity, of self-preservation, and of saving our country are of higher obligation. Legislation that better protects our “unalienable Rights” (e.g., life, liberty, and property) is a positive step toward restoring constitutional government and keeping the American Republic.

The Progressive-Era 16th and 17th Amendments are blatant violations of property rights and federalism, and therefore ought to be repealed. Our Founding Fathers never would have agreed to the income tax or the direct election of U.S. Senators. We unequivocally deny the argument that any existing or proposed amendment to the Constitution, no matter how much it undermines the ideas of the American Founding, can be justified merely because it was ratified using the Article V process. The Constitution is a covenant “of the people, by the people, for the people,” not a “suicide pact.” To lose “life, liberty, or property” due to a scrupulous observance of the written law would be to lose the law itself, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.

We oppose any and all efforts by the federal judiciary to misapply the Bill of Rights, which protects each person’s God-given “unalienable Rights.”

As early as 1833, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Barron v Baltimore held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. Yet, this view conflicts with previous statements made by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison when they argued in favor of adding the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. For instance, in 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison that “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular.” Moreover, in 1789, Jefferson clarified that while the Bill of Rights would be “the text whereby [the States] will try all the acts of the federal government,” it is “necessary to the federal government also: as by the same text they may try the opposition of the [States].”

Jefferson helped convince James Madison that the Bill of Rights would reinforce his vision of a “double security” for the rights of the people “in the compound republic of America.” As a result, Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in Congress in 1789, warning that “some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper.” He introduced the Bill of Rights as a series of clauses to be inserted into various articles of the Constitution, including Article I, Section 10 (i.e., powers denied to the States). Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights is comprised of 10 separate end-document amendments, each of which was ratified by the States.

In recent years, the modern U.S. Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has led to an inconsistent and selective “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights against the States, inverting the Framers’ intent behind the First and Second Amendments, in particular.

According to its preamble, the Bill of Rights (see the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress) added “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” to the U.S. Constitution. When reading the First Amendment, we notice a “restrictive” emphasis. It begins with the phrase, “Congress shall make no law.” It’s a restriction addressed exclusively to “Congress,” prohibiting the federal government from intruding on inviolable areas of state sovereignty. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, has a “declaratory” emphasis. It begins with the phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” It declares the necessity of a citizen “Militia,” which consists of the whole body of the people in each of the several States, thereby enshrining a specific individual right. The Bill of Rights, when properly interpreted, aligns with James Madison’s observation in The Federalist, No. 39, that the Constitution “is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.”

Today, the Supreme Court thwarts a federal application of the First Amendment by ignoring the text and imposing a secular “content-neutral” requirement nationwide, regardless of any state or local laws. Similarly, the Court counteracts the Second Amendment’s national application by allowing every State, along with the federal government, to implement “gun control” laws.

The 14th Amendment was ratified to guarantee Fifth Amendment protections to former slaves, not to rewrite the entire Bill of Rights. The federal judiciary’s misapplication of the Bill of Rights, now based on an erroneous interpretation of 14th Amendment, weakens federalism, and permits the Supreme Court to be the “final arbiter” of our Constitution rather than letting American Founders be the true spokesman for its original meaning.

The state Legislative Scorecards do not evaluate state legislators based on their state’s constitution, since state constitutions frequently contain provisions that violate the U.S. Constitution and America’s founding principles. Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that the U.S. Constitution, not the state constitutions, shall be the “supreme Law of the Land,” and that “the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Thus, state constitutions and state laws must be in conformity with the U.S. Constitution.

At present, there is not a single state constitution that does not expand government far beyond its legitimate, God-given role. For example, every state constitution mandates a government-education system, and many include provisions on organized labor, welfare, the environment, and positive “rights” that compel tyrannical, big-government action. Additionally, they often contain provisions implementing democracy (e.g., direct democracy) and technocracy (e.g., various boards and commissions), despite the fact that Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Meanwhile, multiple state constitutions either have watered-down protections of the right to keep and bear arms or lack them entirely. That said, if a state constitutional provision is consistent with the U.S. Constitution and America’s founding principles, it may be cited on a case-by-case basis.

We have consistently warned against calls for a “Convention of States” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. A federal constitutional convention (Con-Con) must be opposed, as it would have the ability to make major changes to the U.S. Constitution, or even completely rewrite it. Instead of failing to uphold their oath of office and risking the danger of a runaway convention — which could act as a “Trojan horse” to destroy many of the Constitution’s limitations on government power — federal and state lawmakers should put an end all unconstitutional acts. In this sense, the problem is not the Constitution, but legislators’ failure to follow it. Article V was designed to correct potential errors or defects in the Constitution, not to “misconstrue or abuse its powers.” Whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, in violation of the 10th Amendment, nullification of such lawlessness by the States is the proper remedy. “We the People” need to use Article VI to enforce the Constitution, rather than use Article V to alter or abolish it.