special report WELCOME TO THE FIRST-EVER FOCUS® MID-SOUTH SHELBY COUNTY CANDIDATE SURVEY SPECIAL PULL-OUT POSTER FORMAT! Back in early June, we invited every candidate (per the Shelby County Election Commission’s Certified Candidate list) who will appear on the <strong>Aug</strong>ust 2, <strong>2018</strong> Shelby County ballot to participate in the survey. We wanted to give them a chance to answer questions about LGBT+ equality issues. A little more than half of the candidates who were invited participated in the survey and we sincerely thank all those who did. Sadly, there were some who chose not to participate in this 14-minute survey. The questions we asked were designed to be answered in a yes/no format. We did not want to have to interpret lengthy, written responses. We did, however, offer candidates an opportunity to give a brief explanation of their yes/no answer. The yes/no answers they gave are here in print. Candidates’ written responses are available to view online at focusmidsouth.com. Note that some of the questions that we asked the candidates will never come up for them to vote on. We asked them all the same questions anyway because if elected, they will be influencers. We feel that it’s important to know what they think. CONTACT THE CANDIDATES! See the emails by the candidates’ names? If you see that your favorite candidate didn’t respond at all, contact them DIRECTLY at the email provided. It’s up to you, the voter, to be sure that your representatives are fully engaged. For those who did respond, we cannot explain their answers, but they can. Email them with questions about their survey responses. What’s next for you to do? Carefully pull the page out, review the responses, mark your favorites, and take the guide to the polls. Consider yourself an informed voter—and an empowered one! <strong>Focus</strong> magazine does not endorse any candidate. We do encourage all citizens to get out and vote. ABOUT THE FOCUS® MID-SOUTH CANDIDATE SURVEY Goal: To offer our LGBT+ readers and allies a look into the attitudes towards, and commitment to, LGBT+ equality among the candidates for local, state and federal offices. Methodology: A list of certified candidates who will appear on the <strong>Aug</strong>ust 2, <strong>2018</strong> ballot was requested from the Shelby County Election Commission. The SCEC issued an Excel spreadsheet with the qualified candidates to date as of May 31, <strong>2018</strong>. <strong>Focus</strong> staff formulated a list of questions that were relevant to current concerns in the LGBT+ community. Explanatory text about the survey itself accompanied the questions. Both were uploaded to the internet using the Surveymonkey.com interface. The SCEC list of candidate emails was then uploaded to surveymonkey.com. The first invitation to participate in the survey was sent to certified candidates on May 31, <strong>2018</strong>. When an email was found to be incorrect or missing altogether, every attempt was made to contact the candidate in question to obtain a working email address. Reminder emails were sent to candidates who did not respond to the invitation or who had submitted the survey before all questions were answered. To further ensure each candidate had ample opportunity to respond to the survey, the survey team made daily phone calls to candidates who had not yet answered the questions. In the event that a candidate was called and there was no answer, messages were left, and those efforts were documented. If candidates were reached, a new survey link was offered to them, or the candidate was asked to return to a survey already in progress to answer the remainder of the questions. If a technical problem was uncovered, it was addressed and rectified. Not all candidates were reached. In a few cases, the email address we received from the SCEC was incomplete or incorrect, and a working email address could not be found. In several instances, the candidate neither answered our calls nor returned our voicemail messages. In the case of judges, law requires that they not participate in surveys such as this. Please see the TN code that pertains to this law by the judges’ names. The questions: For considerations of space, fairness and clarity, the questions were asked so that a yes or no answer was appropriate. Answers to open-ended questions would have required far more space than afforded by the column-style pull-out ballot we have included in this issue of the magazine. Furthermore, constructed responses would have required some analysis on the part of magazine staff to ascertain support on a particular issue (or the lack thereof). Though the answers that appear here reflect the polar nature of the survey, it is the most accurate and fair representation of the candidates’ support of issues important to the LGBT+ community. We did offer candidates space to explain their yes-no answers if they so desired. That text (and the full survey) is available online at focusmidsouth.com. Understanding the answers: Following each name on the ballot is the candidate’s answers to the questions posed on the survey. In the absence of answers, an explanation is given for the status of each candidate’s survey invitation (e.g. the survey was left unanswered, accessed but not completed, or the candidate declined to participate). Upon signing into the survey, and again when contact was made via phone or email by a representative of the magazine, candidates were made aware that skipped questions would be reported as such. All candidates were also informed that text explanations of their yes-no answers would only appear online. Page 26 / focusmidsouth.com / JUL+AUG <strong>2018</strong> / Splash
SPECIAL PULL-OUT POSTER! Note: questions have been abbreviated here for space. See the full question text online at focusmidsouth.com SHELBY COUNTY ELE <strong>Focus</strong>® <strong>Mid</strong>-<strong>South</strong> magazine does not endorse any candidate.
Change language