I'm not a big fan of the whole endorsement rat maze that advocacy groups run candidates through, and there are plenty of examples of organizations endorsing the candidate they know to be worse on their issues, simply due to political expediency. (Hence the occasional Republican who gets a labor endorsement.) But some voters do pay close attention to some key endorsements, so it's best to be clear who endorsed whom.
"It is unfortunate to have the NARAL information listed under an “Endorsed” heading," NARAL Pro-Choice WA communications and public policy director Alison Mondi responded via email, "but it is true that we listed him as a 100% pro-choice candidate in our voter guide."
When asked for comment, Cann responded "Yikes!"
"This wasn't done intentionally to mis-lead voters. I completely respect the fact that my opponent was endorsed by the NARAL organization, he earned that," wrote Cann. "We thought that by adding '100% Pro-Choice Rating' it would make enough of a distinction. It's my fault for signing off on it and not checking with NARAL staff first."
Fair enough. Just be clear, if it makes a difference to you, and you want to vote for the NARAL endorsed candidate, it's Pollet.