The questionnaire, and how scores are calculated
Every candidate is asked the same 13 questions, and every response is scored against the same public rubric below. We're publishing the full methodology so both candidates and voters can see exactly how a score is derived.
Scoring weights
Scores are out of 100 points, weighted rather than averaged — greater weight is given to warrant requirements, facial recognition restrictions, and restrictions on data sharing with federal agencies, since these were judged the most consequential positions. Questions 6 and 9 are disclosure questions, not privacy-position questions: they score full credit for disclosing (contracts held, donations received) and zero for non-disclosure, regardless of what is disclosed.
| # | Question | Weight | Scoring rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Warrant required for footage access | 12 | Yes = full, Depends = half, No/blank = 0 |
| 2 | Retention period (numeric, days) | 10 | ≤7 days = full, 8–30 = half, >30/indefinite = 0 |
| 3 | Ban/restrict real-time facial recognition | 13 | Yes = full, Depends = half, No/blank = 0 |
| 4 | Public hearing/vote before vendor contract | 6 | Yes = full, Depends = half, No/blank = 0 |
| 5 | Restrict data sharing with other agencies (incl. ICE/CBP) absent felony warrant | 13 | Yes = full, Depends = half, No/blank = 0 |
| 6 | Disclosed existing vendor contracts | 4 | Disclosed = full, not disclosed = 0 (transparency, not a position) |
| 7 | Independent audit requirement | 8 | Yes = full, Depends = half, No/blank = 0 |
| 8 | Public surveillance registry | 6 | Yes = full, Depends = half, No/blank = 0 |
| 9 | Vendor/lobbyist donations disclosed | 4 | Disclosed = full, not disclosed = 0 (transparency, not a position) |
| 10 | Open comments | 0 | Not scored |
| 11 | Blanket ban on AI surveillance tech | 9 | Yes = full, Depends = half, No/blank = 0 |
| 12 | Restrict use to enumerated purposes (not open-ended "public safety") | 8 | Yes = full, Depends = half, No/blank = 0 |
| 13 | Require human verification before enforcement action on automated hit | 7 | Yes = full, Depends = half, No/blank = 0 |
Questions 12 and 13, and the numeric retention thresholds in Q2, were informed by the ACLU's model ALPR legislation and "Get the Flock Out" campaign materials, which recommend retention measured in hours or days rather than weeks or a month or more. Washington state's real-world compromise legislation — which moved from a 72-hour proposal to a 21-day compromise — is used here as a reference point for what "aggressive" vs. "compromise" retention limits look like in practice.
Non-response handling
A candidate who doesn't answer a question scores 0 for that question, the same as a "No" or non-privacy-protective answer — but non-responses are tracked separately from substantive answers, so published results can note "did not respond" rather than implying a candidate actively took an anti-privacy position.
Full questionnaire text
This is the exact questionnaire sent to every candidate.
- Do you support requiring a warrant before law enforcement can access footage from networked camera systems (e.g., Flock Safety, ALPR networks)? Yes / No / Depends — explain
- What is the maximum retention period you would support for footage/data collected by these systems? Enter a number of days, or "indefinite" if you do not support a limit.
- Do you support banning or restricting real-time facial recognition matching on public camera networks?
- Should local governments be required to hold a public hearing and vote before contracting with a surveillance vendor?
- Do you support restricting data sharing with other government agencies — including federal agencies like ICE or CBP — to cases where the requesting agency has a warrant for a felony crime recognized under state law?
- Have you (or your jurisdiction, if an incumbent) approved any contracts with camera/license-plate-reader vendors? Please list.
- Do you support an independent audit requirement for how collected data is used, including audits of company/vendor access?
- Should residents have a right to know what surveillance infrastructure exists in their community (a public registry)?
- Have you or your campaign received donations from surveillance technology companies or their lobbyists?
- Any additional comments on AI-connected surveillance policy?
- Do you support a blanket ban on AI-connected surveillance technology (e.g., networked cameras, automated license plate readers, facial recognition) in public spaces within your jurisdiction, regardless of retention or access safeguards? Yes / No / Depends — explain
- Do you support restricting the use of ALPR/camera networks to specifically enumerated purposes (e.g., felony investigations, missing persons cases, identifying unregistered/uninsured vehicles, toll collection) rather than open-ended "public safety" justifications?
- Do you support requiring human verification of an ALPR/camera match before any stop, detention, or enforcement action is taken based solely on an automated hit?