by Brandon Burley and The Redemption Project
Comparing candidates is simple when they have held the same office, voted on the same bills and governed under the same conditions.
That is not the race Tennessee has.
The 2026 governor’s race includes candidates who have served in different levels of government, and some who have not held comparable legislative office at all. That makes comparison harder, but not impossible. It simply means the standards have to be clear before conclusions are drawn.
A U.S. senator does not vote on the same legislation as a state representative. A member of Congress does not vote on the same bills as a city council member. A candidate without legislative service may still have a public platform, professional record or policy proposals, but those are not the same thing as recorded votes.
Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. That said, I believe civic knowledge should remain accessible, so this article will unlock for all readers in 24 hours. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.
So this voter guide is built around one principle: compare the closest available public record, but label the evidence honestly.
A roll-call vote will be identified as a vote. A sponsored bill will be identified as sponsorship. A campaign statement will be identified as a statement. A public platform will be identified as a platform. If no comparable record exists, the guide will say that instead of pretending otherwise.
A vote shows what a candidate did when legislation came before them. It does not always tell the entire story, because bills can be broad, amended, bundled or procedural. But a vote is still an official act.
A bill sponsorship shows what a candidate chose to publicly support. Sponsorship is not the same as passage, but it is stronger evidence than a general campaign promise.
A public statement shows what a candidate says they believe or would do. That matters, especially for candidates who have not held office. But it should not be treated as carrying the same weight as a legislative vote.
A campaign platform shows priorities. It tells voters what a candidate wants emphasized. But platforms are written to persuade, not simply document.
That is why this project separates evidence type from policy direction.
On each issue, the guide asks four basic questions: What public record exists? What did the candidate do or say? What did the bill or policy actually do? And how directly does that record compare to the other candidates?
Sometimes the comparison is strong. Federal candidates voting on the same legislation can often be compared directly. Sometimes the comparison is partial. A federal vote on education policy is not the same as a Tennessee House vote on school vouchers, but both may still show how a candidate approaches school choice, parental rights or public education funding.
Sometimes the comparison is limited. A city council member may not have a direct vote on abortion, vouchers or federal tax policy. That does not mean the candidate has “no record.” It means the guide must rely more heavily on public statements, local actions or campaign platform language instead.
That is not a flaw in the comparison. It is the honest way to do it.
The guide also does not treat advocacy scorecards as final authority.
Ratings from conservative, liberal, business, labor, gun rights, abortion rights, environmental or civil liberties organizations can help identify legislation. But those groups are not neutral referees. They rate votes through the lens of their own priorities. A “good” score often means a candidate aligned with that organization’s position. It does not automatically mean the legislation itself was good public policy.
For that reason, scorecards may help locate relevant votes, but the guide relies primarily on the underlying legislation, official vote records, public statements and campaign platform language whenever possible.
The guide also avoids “favorable” and “unfavorable” labels. Those terms belong to advocates. This project is not designed to tell voters which side to support. It is designed to show voters what candidates have done or said and why it matters.
The same standard applies to public controversies.
A formal complaint is not the same as a finding. A dismissed complaint is not the same as a conviction. A campaign attack is not the same as public corruption. A policy disagreement is not the same as misconduct.
When controversies are included, the guide will separate allegations, official outcomes, campaign rhetoric and verified public records. Voters can decide how much weight each issue deserves, but they should not be asked to treat all criticism as equal.
Before publication, campaigns are being given the opportunity to dispute, clarify or correct summaries used in the guide. That does not mean campaigns control the final product. They do not. But fairness requires giving candidates the opportunity to identify missing context, incorrect wording, overlooked votes or relevant public statements.
If a campaign disputes a summary, it is being asked to provide the specific statement being challenged along with supporting evidence such as bill numbers, vote records, campaign materials, public statements or official documents. If no response is received by the stated deadline, the guide will proceed using the best available public record.
That is the process.
The purpose of this project is not to make every candidate appear equal. They are not equal on every issue. Some have long legislative records. Some have detailed policy platforms. Some have limited public records in certain areas. Some have taken clear positions. Others have not.
The purpose is also not to flatten real differences. If two candidates hold opposing positions, the guide should show that. If one candidate has a legislative vote and another has only a public statement, the guide should show that too. If no comparable record exists, the guide should not fill the silence with assumptions.
Voters deserve more than campaign slogans. They also deserve more than partisan shorthand.
They deserve to understand the difference between a federal vote and a state vote, between a platform and a record, between a complaint and a finding, between a policy disagreement and a scandal.
That is what this guide is designed to provide.
Not a scorecard.
Not an endorsement.
Not a debate-stage zinger disguised as analysis.
A structured comparison built on the best available public record, with the limits of that record made clear.
The judgment belongs to the voter.
I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.
