STATE PENSION FUNDS
This table shows the percentage of ESG and anti-ESG resolutions that each state’s pension funds supported in 2022, according to data from their investment managers. The 19 states denoted with asterisks have disclosed their own proxy voting records for their directly owned equities, and these state pages contain that additional data. For a more detailed breakdown of each state’s voting across 18 ESG-related categories, click on any state name. Anti-ESG votes comprise only a few dozen votes, compared to hundreds of Pro-ESG votes. These averages are therefore more volatile than Pro-ESG averages. States are ranked 1-50 with #1 signifying lowest pro-ESG average and highest anti-ESG average.
We strongly encourage all public officials entrusted with protecting pensioners’ retirement savings to strictly uphold their fiduciary duty to maximize returns and protect against politicized portfolios, by voting against harmful ESG agendas. State legislators should pass laws to protect pension funds and take control of proxy voting. Additionally, retirement systems should reconsider their current contracts with proxy advisory firms and asset management firms that make decisions for ideological reasons.
2022 Proxy Voting Rankings
| Pro-ESG Avg. | Rank | Anti-ESG Avg. | Rank | State Voting Avg. | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 49.5% | 47 | 12.5% | 2 | N/A | |
| Alaska | 30.8% | 8 | 2.9% | 49 | N/A | |
| Arizona | 43.1% | 35 | 6.2% | 19 | N/A | |
| Arkansas | 43.2% | 37 | 6.2% | 19 | N/A | |
| California* | 38.8% | 21 | 4.7% | 35 | 56% | 13 |
| Colorado* | 48.8% | 46 | 6.2% | 19 | 41% | 8 |
| Connecticut* | 41.1% | 30 | 3.5% | 45 | 75% | 16 |
| Delaware | 23.3% | 2 | 3.2% | 47 | N/A | |
| Florida* | 43.1% | 35 | 4.2% | 42 | 31% | 5 |
| Georgia | 25.6% | 3 | 2.1% | 50 | N/A | |
| Hawaii | 37.4% | 20 | 5.0% | 30 | N/A | |
| Idaho | 47.7% | 44 | 7.6% | 6 | N/A | |
| Illinois* | 37.1% | 19 | 4.4% | 38 | 30% | 3 |
| Indiana | 40.2% | 27 | 4.4% | 38 | N/A | |
| Iowa | 39.3% | 26 | 5.6% | 27 | N/A | |
| Kansas | 36.2% | 16 | 4.3% | 41 | N/A | |
| Kentucky | 47.9% | 45 | 6.3% | 16 | N/A | |
| Louisiana | 36.7% | 17 | 4.8% | 34 | N/A | |
| Maine* | 39.0% | 24 | 6.2% | 19 | 33% | 6 |
| Maryland* | 28.9% | 4 | 4.9% | 32 | 52% | 12 |
| Massachusetts | 44.1% | 38 | 6.4% | 15 | N/A | |
| Michigan | 34.2% | 10 | 4.4% | 38 | N/A | |
| Minnesota* | 31.7% | 9 | 3.9% | 43 | 78% | 17 |
| Mississippi | 47.1% | 42 | 8.1% | 4 | N/A | |
| Missouri | 45.0% | 40 | 7.5% | 7 | N/A | |
| Montana | 47.3% | 43 | 6.9% | 10 | N/A | |
| Nebraska | 39.2% | 25 | 5.8% | 25 | N/A | |
| Nevada | 30.3% | 6 | 3.5% | 45 | N/A | |
| New Hampshire | 35.8% | 14 | 6.2% | 19 | N/A | |
| New Jersey* | 59.6% | 49 | 6.7% | 13 | 74% | 15 |
| New Mexico* | 44.7% | 39 | 6.6% | 14 | 49% | 10 |
| New York* | 40.5% | 29 | 6.3% | 16 | 68% | 14 |
| North Carolina* | 41.9% | 31 | 6.0% | 24 | 7% | 1 |
| North Dakota | 42.4% | 32 | 7.8% | 5 | N/A | |
| Ohio* | 45.3% | 41 | 6.8% | 11 | 30% | 4 |
| Oklahoma | 35.8% | 14 | 5.4% | 28 | N/A | |
| Oregon | 38.9% | 22 | 5.8% | 25 | N/A | |
| Pennsylvania* | 36.7% | 17 | 4.5% | 37 | 28% | 2 |
| Rhode Island* | 29.8% | 5 | 3.2% | 47 | 84% | 19 |
| South Carolina | 34.7% | 12 | 4.9% | 32 | N/A | |
| South Dakota | 19.4% | 1 | 9.4% | 3 | N/A | |
| Tennessee | 56.6% | 48 | 7.4% | 8 | N/A | |
| Texas* | 43.0% | 34 | 6.8% | 11 | 39% | 7 |
| Utah | 30.3% | 6 | 4.7% | 35 | N/A | |
| Vermont* | 35.4% | 13 | 3.7% | 44 | 79% | 18 |
| Virginia | 42.6% | 33 | 5.0% | 30 | N/A | |
| Washington* | 40.2% | 27 | 5.1% | 29 | 45% | 9 |
| West Virginia | 38.9% | 22 | 6.3% | 16 | N/A | |
| Wisconsin* | 59.6% | 49 | 7.1% | 9 | 50% | 11 |
| Wyoming | 34.4% | 11 | 22.2% | 1 | N/A |
**The Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) has denied that State Street invests equities or casts proxy votes for the State. RSA has yet to publish its proxy voting records or disclose its investment managers. RSA’s public records list State Street a custodial bank and as a fund manager. No other investment managers are named in RSA public records, which is what is reported on the 1792 Exchange Proxy Database. RSA claims that Glass Lewis conducts its proxy voting. 1792 Exchange encourages RSA to publish these voting records in order that these records might be updated on this page. 1792 Exchange also encourages RSA to retain authority over proxy voting for ESG resolutions and not entrust these duties to Glass Lewis, a firm the Attorney General of Alabama has investigated for promoting ESG priorities at the expense of fiduciary responsibility.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this report, ‘Proxy Voting,’ is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Click here for the full disclaimer.