The guide compares candidates against the same issue headings without requiring their websites or campaign styles to mirror one another. It uses dated campaign statements, public forums, questionnaires, and endorsement statements as attributed sources.
What counts as a fact
Biographical facts, office status, dated events, stated proposal amounts, and arithmetic are checked for consistency across the source record. A proposal is attributed to the candidate making it. An endorsement is attributed to the organization issuing it.
Predictions about what a policy will accomplish are labeled as forecasts or arguments. The guide does not convert campaign confidence into a verified result. When an opponent or advocacy organization disputes a forecast, the disagreement is described without treating either side’s prediction as settled.
How fiscal comparisons are checked
The guide keeps baselines, additions, cuts, and resulting budgets separate. For the sheriff-health debate, that means distinguishing the current $18.4 million sheriff operating baseline from the separate $1.8 million expansion request, and distinguishing both from the current $12.6 million county-health baseline.
Candidate totals are recomputed from their stated components. Service consequences are placed beside the arithmetic so a resulting budget is not presented without the operational change the candidate accepts.
Source dates and updates
The sources register lists the principal campaign pages consulted and the review date. A material correction receives a dated entry in the corrections log. Silent changes are limited to spelling, punctuation, or formatting that does not alter meaning.
This is an independent, nongovernmental publication. It does not score candidates, endorse a preferred platform, collect voter information, or provide official election administration.