STATE PENSION FUNDS
This table shows the percentage of pro-ESG and anti-ESG shareholder proposals that each state’s pension funds supported in 2023, according to data from their investment managers. The states denoted with asterisks have disclosed their own proxy voting records for the state’s directly owned equities. States are ranked 1-50 with #1 signifying lowest pro-ESG average and highest anti-ESG average.
2023 Proxy Voting Rankings
| State | Pro-ESG Avg. | Rank | Anti-ESG Avg. | Rank | State Voting Avg. | Rank | 2022 ESG Avg | 2022 ESG Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 49.5% | 47 | ||||||
| Alaska | 11.7% | 6 | 1.2% | 35 | 30.8% | 8 | ||
| Arizona | 16.3% | 17 | 0.9% | 46 | 43.1% | 35 | ||
| Arkansas | 27.5% | 42 | 1.8% | 12 | 43.2% | 37 | ||
| California* | 24.9% | 37 | 1.7% | 15 | 54% | 12 | 38.8% | 21 |
| Colorado* | 29.4% | 44 | 1.5% | 23 | 36% | 6 | 48.8% | 46 |
| Connecticut* | 12.2% | 8 | 1.2% | 35 | 58% | 13 | 41.1% | 30 |
| Delaware | 6% | 1 | 0.8% | 47 | 23.3% | 2 | ||
| Florida* | 17.8% | 21 | 6.8% | 1 | 17.8% | 2 | 43.1% | 35 |
| Georgia | 7.9% | 4 | 1.3% | 29 | 25.6% | 3 | ||
| Hawaii | 22% | 29 | 1.5% | 23 | 37.4% | 20 | ||
| Idaho | 31.9% | 46 | 1.9% | 11 | 47.7% | 44 | ||
| Illinois* | 17.9% | 24 | 2.4% | 5 | 35% | 5 | 37.1% | 19 |
| Indiana | 17.6% | 20 | 1.4% | 28 | 40.2% | 27 | ||
| Iowa | 24.8% | 35 | 1.2% | 35 | 39.3% | 26 | ||
| Kansas | 13.1% | 10 | 1.3% | 29 | 36.2% | 16 | ||
| Kentucky | 28.5% | 43 | 1.6% | 19 | 47.9% | 45 | ||
| Louisiana | 18.6% | 25 | 1.3% | 29 | 36.7% | 17 | ||
| Maine* | 22% | 29 | 1.7% | 15 | 37% | 7 | 39.0% | 24 |
| Maryland* | 13% | 9 | 1% | 45 | 45% | 10 | 28.9% | 4 |
| Massachusetts | 26.5% | 40 | 1.1% | 42 | 44.1% | 38 | ||
| Michigan | 20% | 26 | 1.3% | 29 | 34.2% | 10 | ||
| Minnesota* | 17.4% | 19 | 1.2% | 35 | 82% | 15 | 31.7% | 9 |
| Mississippi | 32.1% | 47 | 2% | 10 | 47.1% | 42 | ||
| Missouri | 29.4% | 44 | 1.5% | 23 | 45.0% | 40 | ||
| Montana | 24.8% | 35 | 1.6% | 19 | 47.3% | 43 | ||
| Nebraska* | 16.1% | 16 | 1.8% | 12 | 39.2% | 25 | ||
| Nevada | 7.5% | 3 | 1.6% | 19 | 30.3% | 6 | ||
| New Hampshire | 15.9% | 14 | 2.3% | 6 | 35.8% | 14 | ||
| New Jersey* | 42% | 48 | 2.1% | 9 | 86% | 16 | 59.6% | 49 |
| New Mexico* | 25.9% | 39 | 1.7% | 15 | 47% | 11 | 44.7% | 39 |
| New York* | 23.1% | 32 | 1.5% | 23 | 80.50% | 14 | 40.5% | 29 |
| North Carolina* | 27% | 41 | 2.2% | 8 | 23% | 3 | 41.9% | 31 |
| North Dakota | 24.7% | 34 | 3% | 3 | 42.4% | 32 | ||
| Ohio | 25.6% | 38 | 1.7% | 15 | 45.3% | 41 | ||
| Oklahoma | 16% | 15 | 1.2% | 35 | 35.8% | 14 | ||
| Oregon* | 17.8% | 21 | 1.3% | 29 | 38.9% | 22 | ||
| Pennsylvania* | 16.4% | 18 | 2.3% | 6 | 23% | 3 | 36.7% | 17 |
| Rhode Island* | 14.1% | 12 | 1.3% | 29 | 96% | 17 | 29.8% | 5 |
| South Carolina | 7.9% | 4 | 1.2% | 35 | 34.7% | 12 | ||
| South Dakota | 14.2% | 13 | 1.1% | 42 | 19.4% | 1 | ||
| Tennessee | 20.2% | 27 | 0.5% | 48 | 56.6% | 48 | ||
| Texas* | 23.5% | 33 | 1.6% | 19 | 17% | 1 | 43.0% | 34 |
| Utah | 6.7% | 2 | 1.2% | 35 | 30.3% | 6 | ||
| Vermont | 17.8% | 21 | 1.8% | 12 | 35.4% | 13 | ||
| Virginia | 23% | 31 | 2.8% | 4 | 42.6% | 33 | ||
| Washington* | 13.7% | 11 | 1.1% | 42 | 43% | 9 | 40.2% | 27 |
| West Virginia | 21.5% | 28 | 1.5% | 23 | 38.9% | 22 | ||
| Wisconsin* | 84.3% | 49 | 5.6% | 2 | 42% | 8 | 59.6% | 49 |
| Wyoming | 11.8% | 7 | 0% | 49 | 34.4% | 11 |
*State publicly discloses its proxy voting record for securities that it directly owns through its pension fund portfolio. States also own shares indirectly via index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, etc.
**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.