Make the evidence easy to check.

Start with official sources and direct statements

We start with the source closest to the information:

• Partisan races: Official ballots and election listings for candidates; candidate websites and VOTE411 responses for stated positions; legislative records for votes.
• Judicial races: Court biographies, appointment announcements and published opinions for experience and records; bar associations for their dated evaluations.
• School and college boards: Official district or college information for the office; candidate statements and questionnaires for priorities.
• Ballot proposals: The ballot wording for what Yes and No mean, tax rates and dates; official fiscal explanations for costs and tax rules.
• Endorsements: The endorsing organization’s own published list. These are that organization’s choices, not GuruG recommendations.

Candidate statements tell us what a candidate says; they do not independently prove results. Reputable reporting can add context.

Separate positions from actions

• Position: What a candidate says they support or plan to do.
• Action: A documented vote, decision or other action, with its date and source.
• A historical action does not automatically establish a current position.
• A missing record is a research gap, not evidence for or against a candidate.

Use the same standards for everyone

• Ask candidates the same questions on shared topics.
• Use neutral language and the same evidence standards.
• Do not infer a candidate’s views from their party.
• Clearly attribute endorsements and arguments.

Make information easy to verify

• Link to the sources behind summaries.
• Show source dates and review dates where available.
• Label missing or conflicting information and exclude unconfirmed positions.
• Separate sourced facts from analysis.

Browse our sources · Report an error or something missing

Review before sharing

A person will check each summary against its sources before it appears as researched content.