Good catch. From the methodology link, this is the only description of how the states in the article are ordered: We rate the states on livability factors

Good catch. From the methodology link, this is the only description of how the states in the article are ordered: We rate the states on livability factors like per capita crime rates, environmental quality, and health care. With studies showing that childcare is one of the main obstacles to employees entering the workforce, we consider the availability and affordability of qualified facilities. We look at worker protections including livable wage policies, paid leave, and rights to organize. We look at inclusiveness in state laws, including protections against discrimination of all kinds, as well as voting rights and secure election systems. And with surveys showing a sizeable percentage of younger workers would not live in a state that bans abortion, we factor reproductive rights in this category as well. Out of over ten metrics listed, only one or maybe two are quantitative analysis of what a resident might be exposed to. The rest are an analysis of the states' policies. From that methodology, the expected result would be a direct correlation to which political party dominates, regardless of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the parties' policies. The article is ranking which states employers should not consider moving to, and matching the political preferences of employees is well worth considering, but this is a very roundabout way of presenting it, and calling it a quality of life ranking is inaccurate. Also, the variation within a state can be significant, so any business looking to relocate would get much more useful information by comparing between cities or counties, regardless of the state.