NON-INCUMBENT JUDICIAL CANDIDATE EVALUATION SURVEY SURVEY RESULTS

Transcription

1 NON-INCUMBENT JUDICIAL CANDIDATE EVALUATION SURVEY SURVEY RESULTS APRIL 2012

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 PREFACE 5 NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S 6 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S 11 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS 11 GEORGE BRYAN COLLINS JR. (10E) 11 GALE M. ADAMS (12B) 11 JAMES DORNFRIED (14A) 12 MANNING A. CONNORS (18E) 12 JASON B. CRUMP (18E) 12 ROBERT ENOCHS (18E) 13 DAVID L. HALL (21B) 13 ANDREA DENISE EDWARDS (22A) 13 JULIA LYNN GULLETT (22A) 14 DUSTIN McCRARY (22A) 14 ALEXANDER MENDALOFF III (22A) 14 JOHN BRANTLEY OSTWALT JR. (22A) 15 PETER A. SMITH (22A) 16 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS DISTRICT 3A 16 BRIAN DeSOTO 16 FARIS CARNELL DIXON JR. 16 LISA OVERTON 17 JOHN WARNER WELLS II DISTRICT 6B 20 LUTHER B. CULPEPPER 20 VERSHENIA BALLANCE MOODY DISTRICT 8 21 ERICKA YOUNG JAMES 21 ANNETTE W. TURIK DISTRICT 9 22 AMANDA STEVENSON DISTRICT JAMES RONALD ANSLEY 23 DANIEL T. BARKER 23 CHARLES PHILLIPS GILLIAM 24 ERIN MULLIGAN GRABER 24 DAMION McCULLERS 24 STEVEN MANSBERY 25 DANIEL NAGLE 25 ANANDA BIKASH ROY DISTRICT NICOLLE T. PHAIR 26 MARY HOWARD WELLS 26 LeVONDA G. WOOD DISTRICT RITA COX 27 BRIAN HARRIS 27 LUIS OLIVERA 28 STEPHEN C. STOKES DISTRICT 3B 18 BERNARD BUSH 18 W. DAVID McFADYEN III 18 CLINTON ROWE 19 KIRBY SMITH DISTRICT W. RICHARD COX 29 PAULINE HANKINS 29 SHEILA K. McLAMB 30 CATHERINE HOWLETT RADFORD TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED DISTRICT 15A 31 JOHN P. PAISLEY JR. DISTRICT 16B 32 RODNEY OXENDINE DISTRICT DONALD BUIE 33 WILLIAM BOYD DAVIS 33 LINDA L. FALLS 34 JEWEL ANN FARLOW 34 TOMAKIO S. GAUSE 34 TABATHA HOLLIDAY 35 BRIAN TOMLIN 35 MICHAEL TROUTMAN DISTRICT 19B 36 BOBBY ELLIOTT McCROSKEY 36 JANE HUGHES REDDING DISTRICT 20A 37 JOHN R. NANCE DISTRICT 20C 38 ALTHEA RICHARDSON-TUCKER DISTRICT GARY HENDERSON 42 TRACY HANNA HEWETT 42 TOUSSAINT C. ROMAIN 43 CAMERON DAVIS SCOTT 43 GRANT SMITHSON 43 DAVID STRICKLAND 44 BEN S. THALHEIMER 44 JEFFREY COLIN THOMPSON 44 ALYSON G. TRAW 45 KARY CHURCH WATSON 45 ROY H. WIGGINS 45 RODERICK WRIGHT DISTRICT 27A 46 PENNIE M. THROWER DISTRICT 27B 47 GWYNN G. RADEKER DISTRICT 29B 48 ROBIN L. BOWEN 48 WILLIAM CATHEY 48 EMILY COWAN DISTRICT 20D 39 SHERRYL WEST DISTRICT AMY ALLRED 40 ROBERT WALL EWING 40 JERRY D. JORDAN 41 RICHARD ANDREW KEEVER 41 RICHARD D. RAMSEY 41 DAVID SIPPRELL TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 2

4 PREFACE INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Bar Association s (NCBA) Administration of Justice (AOJ) Committee is pleased to provide this report summarizing the results of its Non-Incumbent Judicial Candidate Evaluation Survey. The report contains evaluations of all non-incumbent candidates running for the trial court bench in The purpose of this report is to provide citizens with useful information to help them make informed decisions when voting in judicial elections. BACKGROUND The NCBA contracted with BDO USA, LLP, a national accounting firm with local offices in Raleigh, to conduct the survey. BDO USA served as gatekeeper throughout the survey process, ensuring that only persons meeting the survey requirements were allowed to participate and that those who did participate remained anonymous. The NCBA also employed statistician Larry Nelson, Ph.D., a well-respected member of the faculty at North Carolina State University, to evaluate the methodology to ensure that the survey would encourage the most participation possible and generate statistically valid results. SURVEY DETAILS The 2012 survey asked attorneys with an active North Carolina law license to rate each non-incumbent candidate with whom the attorney had sufficient professional contact to be able to evaluate the non-incumbent candidate s performance in six categories: 1. Candidate is fair to all persons, bases legal arguments on facts and law and refrains from inappropriate ex parte communications with the court; 2. Candidate demonstrates knowledge of law and rules of procedure and evidence; 3. Candidate is patient with opposing counsel and parties, is courteous to all and attentive to proceedings at hand, fulfills out-of-court professional duties and responsibilities, and upholds the dignity of the profession; 4. Candidate speaks clearly and understandably, prepares coherent papers for use in and out of court, and carefully reviews work prior to submission to the court or other persons; 5. Candidate is punctual and prepared, uses in and out of court time efficiently, meets court and other deadlines appropriately and demonstrates an organized approach to matters; and 6. Rate the candidate s overall performance as a lawyer. Each attorney was asked to rate the non-incumbent candidate s performance in each category, using a scale of 5 (Excellent), 4 (Good), 3 (Average), 2 (Below Average) and 1 (Poor). If the attorney felt that he or she had insufficient information to rate the qualities within a category for a particular non-incumbent, the attorney could indicate do not know for that category but rate the others. As a result, the number of responses for a single non-incumbent candidate may vary somewhat among the six categories. To identify those non-incumbent candidates seeking election in 2012, the AOJ Committee collected information from the North Carolina State Board of Elections. A total of 83 non-incumbent candidates 13 in Superior Court and 70 in District Court were included in the survey. A list was compiled of the more than 20,000 attorneys having an active North Carolina law license, and addresses for approximately 95% of those attorneys were obtained. Attorneys with addresses were able to participate in the survey online via an electronic invitation from BDO USA. The AOJ Committee recognized that some attorneys did not have addresses and some would not want to take the survey online. Accordingly, the AOJ Committee mailed the following groups a paper version of the survey: (a) attorneys working for the government, including judges, clerks of court, district attorneys and public defenders, (b) attorneys without addresses, and (c) members of the North Carolina Bar Association s Senior Lawyers Division. Paper surveys were also available upon request. On March 5, 2012, BDO USA distributed the survey electronically to each attorney with a known address. Paper surveys were mailed with an enclosed business reply envelope addressed to and returned directly to BDO USA, who had exclusive access to manage the survey. All of the survey responses were directed to BDO USA, which ensured that each respondent was an eligible attorney and safeguarded against the possibility of multiple responses from one individual. The survey was open for participation until March 23, BDO USA compiled the survey results for Dr. Nelson who conducted a statistical analysis. Dr. Nelson received anonymous raw data from the survey. Upon review of the data, Dr. Nelson reported that the results were statistically valid for each non-incumbent candidate included in the survey. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Two thousand six hundred and forty-nine unique attorney respondents provided more than 8,600 individual evaluations of nonincumbent candidates. The total number of responses per non-incumbent candidate varied, reflecting the total number of attorneys who practice in the particular county or judicial district in which the non-incumbent candidate is running. PREFACE PAGE 3

5 PREFACE, CONTINUED NAVIGATING THIS REPORT The information in this report is set out in two distinct sections. The first section sets forth the summary results for each non-incumbent candidate running for Superior Court and District Court evaluated in the survey. The information in this first section reports the average numerical rating given by attorneys for each of the six categories for which the non-incumbent candidate was evaluated. The second section provides individual results for each non-incumbent candidate running for Superior Court and District Court. The information in this section reports the total number of responses provided by attorneys for the non-incumbent candidate and a breakdown of the number of responses under each rating from 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Poor). In both sections, the non-incumbent candidates running for Superior Court are listed first and then the non-incumbent candidates running for District Court are listed. Both are listed in order by the number of his or her judicial district and in alphabetical order within the district for those districts with two or more non-incumbent candidates. SURVEY OF JUDGES A separate survey evaluating the qualifications of judges was conducted in May of 2011 by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee. It was released to the public in January of Those results, combined with the results in this report, are compiled in an online voter s guide that is available on the NCBA website at PREFACE PAGE 4

6 NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATES NAME (DISTRICT) INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE GEORGE BRYAN COLLINS JR. (10E) GALE M. ADAMS (12B) JAMES DORNFRIED (14A) MANNING A. CONNORS (18E) JASON B. CRUMP (18E) ROBERT ENOCHS (18E) DAVID L. HALL (21B) ANDREA DENISE EDWARDS (22A) JULIA LYNN GULLETT (22A) DUSTIN McCRARY (22A) ALEXANDER MENDALOFF III (22A) JOHN BRANTLEY OSTWALT JR. (22A) PETER A. SMITH (22A) NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 5

7 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE BRIAN DeSOTO FARIS CARNELL DIXON JR LISA OVERTON JOHN WARNER WELLS II JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE BERNARD BUSH W. DAVID McFADYEN III CLINTON ROWE KIRBY SMITH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE LUTHER B. CULPEPPER VERSHENIA BALLANCE MOODY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE ERICKA YOUNG JAMES ANNETTE W. TURIK JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE AMANDA STEVENSON NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 6

8 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S, CONTINUED JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE JAMES RONALD ANSLEY DANIEL T. BARKER CHARLES PHILLIPS GILLIAM ERIN MULLIGAN GRABER DAMION McCULLERS STEVEN MANSBERY DANIEL NAGLE ANANDA BIKASH ROY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE NICOLLE T. PHAIR MARY HOWARD WELLS LeVONDA G. WOOD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE RITA COX BRIAN HARRIS LUIS OLIVERA STEPHEN C. STOKES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE W. RICHARD COX PAULINE HANKINS SHEILA K. McLAMB CATHERINE HOWLETT RADFORD NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 7

9 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S, CONTINUED JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15A NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE JOHN P. PAISLEY JR JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE RODNEY OXENDINE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE DONALD BUIE WILLIAM BOYD DAVIS LINDA L. FALLS JEWEL ANN FARLOW TOMAKIO S. GAUSE TABATHA HOLLIDAY BRIAN TOMLIN MICHAEL TROUTMAN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 19B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE BOBBY ELLIOTT McCROSKEY JANE HUGHES REDDING JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20A NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE JOHN R. NANCE NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 8

10 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S, CONTINUED JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20C NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE ALTHEA RICHARDSON-TUCKER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20D NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE SHERRYL WEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE AMY ALLRED ROBERT WALL EWING JERRY D. JORDAN RICHARD ANDREW KEEVER RICHARD D. RAMSEY DAVID SIPPRELL JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE GARY HENDERSON TRACY HANNA HEWETT TOUSSAINT C. ROMAIN CAMERON DAVIS SCOTT GRANT SMITHSON DAVID STRICKLAND BEN S. THALHEIMER JEFFREY COLIN THOMPSON ALYSON G. TRAW KARY CHURCH WATSON ROY H. WIGGINS RODERICK WRIGHT NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 9

11 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S, CONTINUED JUDICIAL DISTRICT 27A NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE PENNIE M. THROWER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 27B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE GWYNN G. RADEKER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 29 B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE ROBIN L. BOWEN WILLIAM CATHEY EMILY COWAN NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 10

12 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS GEORGE BRYAN COLLINS JR. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10E (2) (79.0%) (12.7%) (5.7%) (1.3%) (1.3%) (72.8%) (19.6%) (5.5%) (0.8%) (1.3%) (78.4%) (13.7%) (5.9%) (1.0%) (1.0%) (68.0%) (21.9%) (7.9%) (1.1%) (1.1%) (69.2%) (20.9%) (5.9%) (2.0%) (2.0%) (72.7%) (18.8%) (6.1%) (0.8%) (1.6%) 4.60 GALE M. ADAMS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12B (2) (79.1%) (14.9%) (4.5%) (1.5%) (0.0%) (73.8%) (16.9%) (6.2%) (3.1%) (0.0%) (80.0%) (12.3%) (3.1%) (4.6%) (0.0%) (73.1%) (16.4%) (4.5%) (4.5%) (1.5%) (69.1%) (23.7%) (3.6%) (1.8%) (1.8%) (75.0%) (17.2%) (3.1%) (4.7%) (0.0%) 4.63 JAMES DORNFRIED JUDICIAL DISTRICT 14A (2) (11.3%) (19.8%) (19.8%) (20.8%) (28.3%) (14.9%) (37.6%) (30.7%) (9.9%) (6.9%) (10.3%) (14.0%) (25.2%) (22.4%) (28.1%) (8.6%) (22.8%) (30.5%) (16.2%) (21.9%) (13.8%) (12.7%) (31.0%) (21.8%) (20.7%) (8.6%) (18.1%) (22.9%) (28.5%) (21.9%) 2.63 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 11

13 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS, CONTINUED MANNING A. CONNORS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18E (2) (88.3%) (7.3%) (2.4%) (0.5%) (1.5%) (87.2%) (9.4%) (1.9%) (0.5%) (1.0%) (88.7%) (7.3%) (1.0%) (1.5%) (1.5%) (76.7%) (16.8%) (3.5%) (1.0%) (2.0%) (75.3%) (19.2%) (3.1%) (1.2%) (1.2%) (85.1%) (9.9%) (2.5%) (1.0%) (1.5%) 4.76 JASON B. CRUMP JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18E (2) (55.5%) (24.6%) (10.9%) (4.5%) (4.5%) (44.4%) (26.9%) (17.6%) (6.5%) (4.6%) (51.4%) (27.1%) (12.2%) (3.7%) (5.6%) (40.0%) (32.7%) (16.4%) (6.4%) (4.5%) (36.9%) (26.2%) (26.2%) (2.4%) (8.3%) (44.9%) (28.0%) (17.8%) (3.7%) (5.6%) 4.03 ROBERT ENOCHS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18E (2) (42.9%) (32.0%) (19.0%) (2.7%) (3.4%) (33.1%) (27.0%) (34.5%) (3.4%) (2.0%) (40.1%) (28.6%) (23.1%) (4.8%) (3.4%) (33.8%) (29.6%) (29.6%) (4.9%) (2.1%) (33.9%) (26.3%) (29.7%) (7.6%) (2.5%) (34.8%) (31.2%) (25.5%) (6.4%) (2.1%) 3.90 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 12

14 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS, CONTINUED DAVID L. HALL JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21B (2) (62.0%) (20.1%) (10.3%) (5.4%) (2.2%) (57.8%) (29.2%) (9.2%) (3.2%) (0.6%) (63.3%) (21.1%) (6.5%) (5.9%) (3.2%) (50.6%) (34.2%) (9.2%) (4.9%) (1.1%) (52.3%) (28.1%) (11.1%) (5.9%) (2.6%) (57.5%) (26.3%) (9.5%) (6.1%) (0.6%) 4.34 ANDREA DENISE EDWARDS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) (42.9%) (38.6%) (10.0%) (7.1%) (1.4%) (36.6%) (40.8%) (12.7%) (9.9%) (0.0%) (54.9%) (23.9%) (11.3%) (8.5%) (1.4%) (40.9%) (29.6%) (22.5%) (4.2%) (2.8%) (37.3%) (35.6%) (20.3%) (3.4%) (3.4%) (35.7%) (35.7%) (18.6%) (8.6%) (1.4%) 3.96 JULIA LYNN GULLETT JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) (70.4%) (19.5%) (8.3%) (0.9%) (0.9%) (54.6%) (32.5%) (8.3%) (3.7%) (0.9%) (74.3%) (17.5%) (5.5%) (1.8%) (0.9%) (57.5%) (31.1%) (9.4%) (1.0%) (1.0%) (51.1%) (31.1%) (13.3%) (3.4%) (1.1%) (57.3%) (28.2%) (11.6%) (2.9%) (0.0%) 4.40 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 13

15 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS, CONTINUED DUSTIN McCRARY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) (27.3%) (25.5%) (32.7%) (5.4%) (9.1%) (14.0%) (10.5%) (28.1%) (38.6%) (8.8%) (21.1%) (21.1%) (33.3%) (14.0%) (10.5%) (14.0%) (17.6%) (29.8%) (19.3%) (19.3%) (25.5%) (18.6%) (27.9%) (14.0%) (14.0%) (19.7%) (8.9%) (26.8%) (33.9%) (10.7%) 2.93 ALEXANDER MENDALOFF III JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) (34.1%) (34.1%) (17.2%) (7.3%) (7.3%) (26.5%) (38.5%) (21.7%) (13.3%) (0.0%) (32.9%) (37.8%) (13.4%) (11.0%) (4.9%) (34.5%) (29.7%) (23.8%) (6.0%) (6.0%) (33.3%) (30.4%) (24.6%) (7.3%) (4.4%) (32.5%) (30.1%) (21.7%) (10.9%) (4.8%) 3.75 JOHN BRANTLEY OSTWALT JR. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) (40.7%) (40.7%) (14.8%) (1.9%) (1.9%) (5.8%) (46.1%) (30.8%) (13.5%) (3.8%) (35.8%) (39.6%) (17.0%) (5.7%) (1.9%) (17.6%) (49.0%) (27.5%) (3.9%) (2.0%) (18.2%) (38.6%) (25.0%) (11.4%) (6.8%) (16.0%) (42.0%) (28.0%) (12.0%) (2.0%) 3.58 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 14

16 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS, CONTINUED PETER A. SMITH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) (37.1%) (37.1%) (19.4%) (4.8%) (1.6%) (14.5%) (41.9%) (35.5%) (6.5%) (1.6%) (29.0%) (40.3%) (19.4%) (9.7%) (1.6%) (25.8%) (37.1%) (27.4%) (9.7%) (0.0%) (10.9%) (41.8%) (29.1%) (12.7%) (5.5%) (20.0%) (38.3%) (31.7%) (10.0%) (0.0%) 3.68 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 15

17 DISTRICT 3A BRIAN DeSOTO JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A (2) (44.1%) (23.5%) (16.2%) (5.9%) (10.3%) (24.7%) (33.3%) (27.5%) (8.7%) (5.8%) (43.7%) (22.5%) (21.1%) (7.1%) (5.6%) (39.1%) (27.5%) (21.8%) (5.8%) (5.8%) (28.3%) (34.0%) (22.6%) (5.7%) (9.4%) (30.0%) (31.4%) (17.2%) (14.3%) (7.1%) 3.63 FARIS CARNELL DIXON JR. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A (2) (76.3%) (15.1%) (7.5%) (1.1%) (0.0%) (51.2%) (32.2%) (12.2%) (3.3%) (1.1%) (75.0%) (14.1%) (8.7%) (1.1%) (1.1%) (53.8%) (33.0%) (7.7%) (2.2%) (3.3%) (43.0%) (31.7%) (15.2%) (7.6%) (2.5%) (53.8%) (33.0%) (8.8%) (3.3%) (1.1%) 4.35 LISA OVERTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A (2) (46.8%) (25.8%) (12.9%) (8.1%) (6.4%) (26.6%) (32.8%) (21.9%) (6.2%) (12.5%) (48.5%) (25.0%) (14.7%) (4.4%) (7.4%) (33.3%) (34.8%) (18.2%) (4.6%) (9.1%) (25.5%) (31.4%) (27.4%) (5.9%) (9.8%) (25.8%) (34.8%) (22.7%) (7.6%) (9.1%) 3.61 PAGE 16

18 DISTRICT 3A, CONTINUED JOHN WARNER WELLS II JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A (2) (51.2%) (21.4%) (16.7%) (5.9%) (4.8%) (40.7%) (24.4%) (18.6%) (5.8%) (10.5%) (47.2%) (19.1%) (12.3%) (13.5%) (7.9%) (39.8%) (23.9%) (25.0%) (6.8%) (4.5%) (40.0%) (20.0%) (23.1%) (9.2%) (7.7%) (40.7%) (24.4%) (20.9%) (7.0%) (7.0%) 3.85 PAGE 17

19 DISTRICT 3B BERNARD BUSH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B (2) (60.4%) (14.6%) (16.7%) (2.1%) (6.2%) (15.7%) (27.4%) (9.8%) (5.9%) (19.2%) (23.1%) (1.9%) (5.8%) (44.0%) (24.0%) (20.0%) (10.0%) (2.0%) (41.5%) (24.4%) (21.9%) (9.8%) (2.4%) (42.0%) (18.0%) (26.0%) (10.0%) (4.0%) W. DAVID McFADYEN III JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B (2) (50.0%) (26.5%) (13.7%) (5.9%) (3.9%) (40.4%) (25.0%) (19.2%) (11.5%) (3.9%) (47.6%) (29.1%) (14.6%) (6.8%) (1.9%) (44.1%) (29.4%) (15.7%) (8.8%) (2.0%) (42.7%) (22.7%) (21.3%) (8.0%) (5.3%) (42.0%) (29.0%) (16.0%) (8.0%) (5.0%) 3.95 CLINTON ROWE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B (2) (66.7%) (17.4%) (7.2%) (2.9%) (5.8%) (49.3%) (21.2%) (15.5%) (7.0%) (7.0%) (56.2%) (23.3%) (10.9%) (4.1%) (5.5%) (51.4%) (26.4%) (16.6%) (1.4%) (4.2%) (51.7%) (28.3%) (10.0%) (1.7%) (8.3%) (53.5%) (24.0%) (12.7%) (5.6%) (4.2%) 4.17 PAGE 18

20 DISTRICT 3B, CONTINUED KIRBY SMITH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B (2) (65.7%) (23.8%) (4.7%) (2.9%) (2.9%) (55.8%) (26.0%) (12.5%) (3.8%) (1.9%) (66.0%) (21.7%) (7.6%) (1.9%) (2.8%) (50.5%) (28.6%) (13.3%) (5.7%) (1.9%) (52.5%) (31.2%) (11.2%) (1.3%) (3.8%) (54.9%) (31.4%) (6.9%) (3.9%) (2.9%) 4.31 PAGE 19

21 DISTRICT 6B LUTHER B. CULPEPPER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6B (2) (71.4%) (22.8%) (2.9%) (0.0%) (2.9%) (50.0%) (38.9%) (8.3%) (2.8%) (0.0%) (77.8%) (13.9%) (8.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (61.8%) (26.5%) (8.8%) (2.9%) (0.0%) (56.7%) (36.7%) (6.6%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (62.8%) (34.3%) (0.0%) (2.9%) (0.0%) 4.57 VERSHENIA BALLANCE MOODY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6B (2) (38.2%) (26.5%) (23.5%) (5.9%) (5.9%) (38.2%) (32.4%) (23.5%) (0.0%) (5.9%) (36.1%) (30.6%) (19.4%) (5.6%) (8.3%) (35.3%) (29.4%) (29.4%) (0.0%) (5.9%) (40.8%) (29.6%) (14.8%) (7.4%) (7.4%) (35.2%) (32.4%) (20.6%) (5.9%) (5.9%) 3.85 PAGE 20

22 DISTRICT 8 ERICKA YOUNG JAMES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 (2) (35.0%) (22.5%) (30.0%) (7.5%) (5.0%) (25.0%) (30.0%) (30.0%) (5.0%) (10.0%) (34.1%) (26.8%) (22.0%) (9.8%) (7.3%) (41.0%) (23.1%) (28.2%) (2.6%) (5.1%) (10.3%) (44.9%) (27.6%) (10.3%) (6.9%) (26.8%) (26.8%) (26.8%) (12.3%) (7.3%) 3.54 ANNETTE W. TURIK JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 (2) (63.3%) (20.4%) (12.2%) (4.1%) (0.0%) (42.9%) (32.7%) (22.4%) (2.0%) (0.0%) (67.4%) (16.3%) (14.3%) (2.0%) (0.0%) (51.0%) (28.6%) (20.4%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (52.4%) (21.4%) (23.8%) (2.4%) (0.0%) (52.9%) (25.5%) (17.7%) (3.9%) (0.0%) 4.27 PAGE 21

23 DISTRICT 9 AMANDA STEVENSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9 (2) (40.0%) (37.5%) (10.0%) (2.5%) (10.0%) (31.7%) (24.4%) (22.0%) (14.6%) (7.3%) (41.5%) (24.4%) (17.1%) (7.3%) (9.7%) (35.0%) (27.5%) (25.0%) (0.0%) (12.5%) (38.9%) (19.4%) (16.7%) (11.1%) (13.9%) (35.0%) (27.5%) (20.0%) (10.0%) (7.5%) 3.73 PAGE 22

24 DISTRICT 10 JAMES RONALD ANSLEY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) (47.8%) (36.5%) (13.7%) (1.6%) (0.4%) (23.3%) (36.8%) (31.6%) (7.1%) (1.2%) (45.5%) (35.4%) (16.4%) (2.3%) (0.4%) (41.2%) (33.7%) (21.2%) (3.1%) (0.8%) (27.2%) (36.7%) (26.6%) (5.9%) (3.6%) (29.3%) (40.7%) (24.5%) (5.1%) (0.4%) 3.93 DANIEL T. BARKER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) (62.0%) (20.7%) (13.4%) (2.8%) (1.1%) (43.6%) (29.0%) (21.2%) (4.5%) (1.7%) (63.0%) (18.5%) (13.0%) (4.4%) (1.1%) (53.9%) (25.9%) (15.7%) (3.4%) (1.1%) (52.0%) (24.8%) (13.6%) (7.2%) (2.4%) (55.4%) (23.2%) (16.9%) (2.8%) (1.7%) 4.28 CHARLES PHILLIPS GILLIAM JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) (40.0%) (8.0%) (20.0%) (16.0%) (16.0%) (37.5%) (8.4%) (20.8%) (20.8%) (12.5%) (37.1%) (11.1%) (25.9%) (11.1%) (14.8%) (39.1%) (8.7%) (30.4%) (8.7%) (13.1%) (36.4%) (9.1%) (27.3%) (13.6%) (13.6%) (37.5%) (8.3%) (25.0%) (16.7%) (12.5%) 3.42 PAGE 23

25 DISTRICT 10, CONTINUED ERIN MULLIGAN GRABER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) (60.3%) (26.5%) (11.6%) (1.1%) (0.5%) (53.9%) (26.9%) (13.5%) (4.7%) (1.0%) (64.8%) (22.8%) (10.4%) (1.5%) (0.5%) (57.0%) (27.5%) (12.4%) (2.1%) (1.0%) (56.5%) (29.0%) (9.4%) (3.6%) (1.5%) (54.5%) (28.6%) (14.3%) (2.1%) (0.5%) 4.34 DAMION McCULLERS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) (42.3%) (32.1%) (19.9%) (3.8%) (1.9%) (30.6%) (27.4%) (31.8%) (7.6%) (2.6%) (41.1%) (30.4%) (22.2%) (3.8%) (2.5%) (30.1%) (34.6%) (25.6%) (7.1%) (2.6%) (29.9%) (29.1%) (29.1%) (8.5%) (3.4%) (35.1%) (30.5%) (27.1%) (6.0%) (1.3%) 3.92 STEVEN MANSBERY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) (53.5%) (21.2%) (18.2%) (4.1%) (3.0%) (54.7%) (26.8%) (14.4%) (3.1%) (1.0%) (57.0%) (22.0%) (12.0%) (6.0%) (3.0%) (55.7%) (21.6%) (17.5%) (5.2%) (0.0%) (53.4%) (21.3%) (21.3%) (1.3%) (2.7%) (47.5%) (26.7%) (18.8%) (5.0%) (2.0%) 4.13 PAGE 24

26 DISTRICT 10, CONTINUED DANIEL NAGLE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) (20.7%) (28.5%) (32.4%) (8.9%) (9.5%) (10.7%) (25.8%) (37.1%) (16.3%) (10.1%) (32.8%) (29.4%) (23.9%) (8.9%) (5.0%) (12.1%) (26.9%) (33.5%) (15.9%) (11.6%) (20.0%) (22.8%) (32.4%) (15.2%) (9.6%) (10.9%) (27.4%) (36.0%) (20.0%) (5.7%) 3.18 ANANDA BIKASH ROY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) (5.9%) (2.9%) (14.7%) (20.6%) (55.9%) (6.9%) (6.9%) (20.7%) (24.1%) (41.4%) (3.0%) (9.1%) (15.2%) (15.2%) (57.5%) (3.7%) (7.4%) (18.5%) (22.2%) (48.2%) (0.0%) (15.0%) (30.0%) (15.0%) (40.0%) (3.5%) (6.9%) (20.7%) (17.2%) (51.7%) 1.93 PAGE 25

27 DISTRICT 11 NICOLLE T. PHAIR JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 (2) (14.9%) (9.9%) (16.8%) (20.8%) (37.6%) (6.7%) (9.5%) (14.3%) (30.5%) (39.0%) (12.3%) (13.2%) (19.8%) (17.9%) (36.8%) (10.4%) (9.4%) (25.5%) (23.6%) (31.1%) (9.3%) (8.1%) (16.3%) (23.3%) (43.0%) (12.5%) (7.7%) (13.4%) (26.0%) (40.4%) 2.26 MARY HOWARD WELLS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 (2) (23.3%) (36.8%) (31.6%) (7.1%) (1.2%) (26.9%) (21.8%) (23.1%) (12.8%) (15.4%) (37.2%) (23.0%) (19.2%) (10.3%) (10.3%) (32.9%) (19.7%) (22.4%) (9.2%) (15.8%) (29.7%) (18.7%) (21.9%) (14.1%) (15.6%) (29.8%) (20.8%) (20.8%) (14.3%) (14.3%) 3.38 LeVONDA G. WOOD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 (2) (26.1%) (17.8%) (16.4%) (16.4%) (23.3%) (15.4%) (15.4%) (15.4%) (15.4%) (38.4%) (21.3%) (16.0%) (17.3%) (20.0%) (25.4%) (17.9%) (19.3%) (11.5%) (21.8%) (29.5%) (20.6%) (14.3%) (6.4%) (27.0%) (31.7%) (17.9%) (12.8%) (16.7%) (23.1%) (29.5%) 2.67 PAGE 26

28 DISTRICT 12 RITA COX JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 (2) (36.5%) (25.4%) (20.7%) (6.3%) (11.1%) (34.9%) (31.8%) (15.9%) (9.5%) (7.9%) (41.3%) (20.6%) (17.5%) (9.5%) (11.1%) (28.6%) (28.6%) (23.8%) (6.3%) (12.7%) (35.2%) (27.8%) (18.5%) (7.4%) (11.1%) (36.6%) (26.7%) (20.0%) (6.7%) (10.0%) 3.73 BRIAN HARRIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 (2) (36.2%) (36.2%) (14.9%) (10.6%) (2.1%) (20.8%) (37.5%) (29.2%) (4.2%) (8.3%) (27.1%) (39.6%) (22.9%) (4.2%) (6.2%) (27.1%) (31.2%) (27.1%) (10.4%) (4.2%) (16.2%) (32.5%) (24.3%) (16.2%) (10.8%) (25.6%) (37.2%) (23.3%) (9.3%) (4.6%) 3.70 LUIS OLIVERA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 (2) (21.9%) (6.3%) (23.4%) (18.7%) (29.7%) (19.0%) (12.7%) (34.9%) (27.0%) (6.4%) (19.0%) (7.9%) (23.8%) (27.0%) (22.3%) (17.8%) (27.4%) (29.0%) (12.9%) (12.9%) (19.2%) (9.6%) (38.5%) (19.2%) (13.5%) (20.0%) (13.3%) (25.0%) (28.4%) (13.3%) 2.98 PAGE 27

29 DISTRICT 12, CONTINUED STEPHEN C. STOKES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 (2) (47.2%) (20.7%) (18.9%) (7.5%) (5.7%) (32.7%) (30.8%) (28.8%) (0.0%) (7.7%) (58.6%) (7.5%) (18.9%) (7.5%) (7.5%) (34.5%) (30.8%) (23.1%) (5.8%) (5.8%) (31.7%) (29.3%) (26.8%) (7.3%) (4.9%) (36.0%) (34.0%) (20.0%) (4.0%) (6.0%) 3.90 PAGE 28

30 DISTRICT 13 W. RICHARD COX JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 (2) (38.1%) (40.5%) (16.6%) (2.4%) (2.4%) (17.1%) (39.0%) (26.8%) (9.8%) (7.3%) (34.1%) (46.4%) (12.2%) (4.9%) (2.4%) (27.5%) (32.5%) (30.0%) (7.5%) (2.5%) (27.3%) (27.3%) (36.4%) (3.0%) (6.0%) (28.2%) (25.6%) (33.3%) (10.3%) (2.6%) 3.67 PAULINE HANKINS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 (2) (37.1%) (30.6%) (19.4%) (9.7%) (3.2%) (31.1%) (23.0%) (31.1%) (13.1%) (1.7%) (33.3%) (34.9%) (22.2%) (4.8%) (4.8%) (30.6%) (35.5%) (24.2%) (9.7%) (0.0%) (30.2%) (34.0%) (26.4%) (7.5%) (1.9%) (31.7%) (33.3%) (21.7%) (10.0%) (3.3%) 3.80 SHEILA K. McLAMB JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 (2) (7.5%) (27.5%) (32.5%) (15.0%) (17.5%) (12.5%) (20.0%) (40.0%) (17.5%) (10.0%) (12.2%) (19.5%) (22.0%) (26.8%) (19.5%) (12.8%) (12.8%) (38.5%) (20.5%) (15.4%) (11.8%) (26.5%) (35.3%) (17.6%) (8.8%) (12.2%) (14.6%) (34.2%) (24.4%) (14.6%) 2.85 PAGE 29

31 DISTRICT 13, CONTINUED CATHERINE HOWLETT RADFORD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 (2) (68.7%) (21.9%) (7.8%) (0.0%) (1.6%) (57.1%) (25.4%) (14.3%) (1.6%) (1.6%) (60.9%) (23.5%) (12.5%) (0.0%) (3.1%) (57.8%) (21.9%) (15.6%) (1.6%) (3.1%) (66.7%) (15.8%) (10.5%) (3.5%) (3.5%) (62.3%) (21.3%) (13.2%) (1.6%) (1.6%) 4.41 PAGE 30

32 DISTRICT 15A JOHN P. PAISLEY JR. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15A (2) (34.9%) (9.3%) (20.9%) (16.3%) (18.6%) (23.3%) (16.2%) (25.6%) (11.6%) (23.3%) (32.6%) (9.3%) (20.9%) (13.9%) (23.3%) (21.4%) (9.5%) (26.2%) (16.7%) (26.2%) (23.5%) (5.9%) (17.7%) (23.5%) (29.4%) (27.8%) (7.0%) (25.6%) (16.3%) (23.3%) 3.00 PAGE 31

33 DISTRICT 16B RODNEY OXENDINE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B (2) (60.0%) (26.7%) (10.0%) (3.3%) (0.0%) (40.0%) (40.0%) (13.3%) (6.7%) (0.0%) (60.0%) (33.4%) (3.3%) (3.3%) (0.0%) (46.7%) (46.7%) (3.3%) (3.3%) (0.0%) (37.5%) (41.6%) (12.5%) (4.2%) (4.2%) (50.0%) (36.7%) (10.0%) (3.3%) (0.0%) 4.33 PAGE 32

34 DISTRICT 18 DONALD BUIE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) (40.7%) (31.5%) (18.5%) (5.6%) (3.7%) (25.4%) (21.8%) (38.2%) (9.1%) (5.5%) (42.6%) (29.6%) (20.4%) (7.4%) (0.0%) (29.6%) (25.9%) (33.4%) (11.1%) (0.0%) (28.9%) (31.6%) (31.6%) (2.6%) (5.3%) (25.9%) (31.5%) (31.5%) (9.3%) (1.8%) 3.70 WILLIAM BOYD DAVIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) (62.9%) (15.4%) (16.5%) (3.1%) (2.1%) (62.5%) (21.9%) (11.5%) (3.1%) (1.0%) (60.8%) (24.8%) (11.3%) (1.0%) (2.1%) (47.4%) (30.9%) (16.5%) (3.1%) (2.1%) (49.4%) (27.6%) (19.5%) (1.2%) (2.3%) (54.6%) (25.8%) (15.5%) (3.1%) (1.0%) 4.30 LINDA L. FALLS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) (25.9%) (27.6%) (24.7%) (9.2%) (12.6%) (11.7%) (13.4%) (28.7%) (18.1%) (28.1%) (19.4%) (25.3%) (29.4%) (12.4%) (13.5%) (18.3%) (23.7%) (26.0%) (17.2%) (14.8%) (14.9%) (15.5%) (31.8%) (19.6%) (18.2%) (14.0%) (20.3%) (26.2%) (22.1%) (17.4%) 2.91 PAGE 33

35 DISTRICT 18, CONTINUED JEWEL ANN FARLOW JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) (16.8%) (17.4%) (22.6%) (21.9%) (21.3%) (13.5%) (10.3%) (34.6%) (21.1%) (20.5%) (15.0%) (13.1%) (27.5%) (23.5%) (20.9%) (11.5%) (18.9%) (26.4%) (23.6%) (19.6%) (12.3%) (14.9%) (33.3%) (15.8%) (23.7%) (11.4%) (12.7%) (25.9%) (29.1%) (20.9%) 2.65 TOMAKIO S. GAUSE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) (27.4%) (28.8%) (26.0%) (6.8%) (11.0%) (9.6%) (27.4%) (31.5%) (19.2%) (12.3%) (28.8%) (26.0%) (23.3%) (15.1%) (6.8%) (17.3%) (25.3%) (36.0%) (10.7%) (10.7%) (16.1%) (19.6%) (33.9%) (17.9%) (12.5%) (12.5%) (30.6%) (33.3%) (12.5%) (11.1%) 3.21 TABATHA HOLLIDAY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) (24.5%) (32.6%) (28.6%) (6.1%) (8.2%) (13.4%) (33.0%) (36.1%) (9.3%) (8.2%) (23.2%) (31.3%) (24.3%) (11.1%) (10.1%) (19.4%) (37.7%) (23.5%) (11.2%) (8.2%) (21.2%) (30.0%) (27.5%) (10.0%) (11.3%) (18.4%) (35.7%) (24.5%) (12.2%) (9.2%) 3.42 PAGE 34

36 DISTRICT 18, CONTINUED BRIAN TOMLIN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) (60.9%) (27.8%) (9.7%) (0.8%) (0.8%) (47.3%) (34.6%) (16.5%) (0.8%) (0.8%) (58.6%) (23.3%) (14.3%) (2.3%) (1.5%) (43.2%) (43.2%) (12.0%) (0.8%) (0.8%) (34.6%) (50.5%) (12.1%) (1.9%) (0.9%) (46.1%) (39.2%) (13.1%) (0.8%) (0.8%) 4.29 MICHAEL TROUTMAN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) (63.4%) (27.5%) (6.1%) (1.5%) (1.5%) (46.5%) (36.4%) (13.9%) (1.6%) (1.6%) (61.0%) (26.7%) (6.1%) (3.1%) (3.1%) (53.1%) (34.6%) (9.3%) (1.5%) (1.5%) (46.6%) (34.0%) (14.6%) (2.9%) (1.9%) (53.1%) (31.3%) (11.7%) (1.6%) (2.3%) 4.31 PAGE 35

37 DISTRICT 19B BOBBY ELLIOTT McCROSKEY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 19B (2) (58.1%) (18.9%) (4.1%) (8.1%) (10.8%) (50.0%) (23.0%) (10.8%) (8.1%) (8.1%) (56.7%) (16.2%) (6.8%) (6.8%) (13.5%) (47.3%) (25.7%) (10.8%) (5.4%) (10.8%) (41.9%) (27.4%) (9.7%) (6.5%) (14.5%) (54.2%) (19.4%) (9.7%) (5.6%) (11.1%) 4.00 JANE HUGHES REDDING JUDICIAL DISTRICT 19B (2) (73.5%) (13.2%) (3.8%) (5.7%) (3.8%) (64.2%) (15.1%) (7.5%) (9.4%) (3.8%) (66.0%) (18.8%) (5.7%) (5.7%) (3.8%) (60.3%) (26.4%) (3.8%) (5.7%) (3.8%) (62.0%) (22.0%) (4.0%) (8.0%) (4.0%) (71.7%) (16.9%) (3.8%) (3.8%) (3.8%) 4.49 PAGE 36

38 DISTRICT 20A JOHN R. NANCE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20A (2) (18.4%) (18.4%) (26.3%) (0.0%) (36.9%) (2.6%) (23.7%) (21.0%) (13.2%) (39.5%) (10.5%) (28.9%) (13.2%) (13.2%) (34.2%) (10.3%) (20.5%) (15.4%) (10.2%) (43.6%) (11.8%) (14.7%) (17.6%) (14.7%) (41.2%) (12.5%) (25.0%) (10.0%) (15.0%) (37.5%) 2.60 PAGE 37

39 DISTRICT 20C ALTHEA RICHARDSON-TUCKER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20C (2) (8.9%) (11.1%) (42.2%) (15.6%) (22.2%) (5.9%) (2.0%) (9.8%) (31.3%) (51.0%) (5.9%) (9.7%) (29.4%) (27.5%) (27.5%) (5.9%) (2.0%) (31.3%) (15.7%) (45.1%) (7.7%) (2.6%) (30.7%) (15.4%) (43.6%) (7.7%) (1.9%) (15.4%) (32.7%) (42.3%) 2.00 PAGE 38

40 DISTRICT 20D SHERRYL WEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20D (2) (47.9%) (13.0%) (17.4%) (8.7%) (13.0%) (23.5%) (21.6%) (19.6%) (15.7%) (19.6%) (26.5%) (26.5%) (22.5%) (8.2%) (16.3%) (21.2%) (25.0%) (19.1%) (13.5%) (21.2%) (28.6%) (28.6%) (14.3%) (9.5%) (19.0%) (25.0%) (26.9%) (13.5%) (17.3%) (17.3%) 3.25 PAGE 39

41 DISTRICT 21 AMY ALLRED JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) (8.1%) (22.8%) (26.0%) (25.2%) (17.9%) (3.2%) (9.6%) (28.8%) (27.2%) (31.2%) (9.8%) (14.6%) (26.8%) (29.3%) (19.5%) (4.9%) (16.4%) (35.2%) (27.1%) (16.4%) (7.1%) (8.2%) (31.6%) (27.6%) (25.5%) (4.9%) (10.6%) (28.4%) (32.5%) (23.6%) 2.41 ROBERT WALL EWING JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) (44.6%) (31.3%) (20.5%) (0.0%) (3.6%) (26.7%) (34.8%) (29.5%) (3.6%) (5.4%) (43.0%) (31.6%) (19.3%) (3.5%) (2.6%) (23.8%) (41.3%) (24.8%) (5.5%) (4.6%) (27.0%) (31.4%) (29.2%) (3.4%) (9.0%) (29.4%) (34.8%) (27.7%) (3.6%) (4.5%) 3.81 JERRY D. JORDAN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) (30.4%) (36.8%) (20.8%) (8.0%) (4.0%) (21.0%) (35.5%) (30.6%) (8.1%) (4.8%) (25.6%) (36.8%) (20.0%) (12.8%) (4.8%) (20.3%) (34.2%) (33.3%) (10.6%) (1.6%) (16.1%) (32.3%) (37.6%) (8.6%) (5.4%) (20.2%) (36.3%) (30.6%) (9.7%) (3.2%) 3.60 PAGE 40

42 DISTRICT 21, CONTINUED RICHARD ANDREW KEEVER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) (44.5%) (28.9%) (14.4%) (4.4%) (7.8%) (37.3%) (31.9%) (15.4%) (6.6%) (8.8%) (45.2%) (26.9%) (16.1%) (4.3%) (7.5%) (31.1%) (28.9%) (24.4%) (7.8%) (7.8%) (35.1%) (28.4%) (23.0%) (2.7%) (10.8%) (35.1%) (31.9%) (23.1%) (2.2%) (7.7%) 3.85 RICHARD D. RAMSEY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) (57.2%) (28.6%) (12.4%) (1.2%) (0.6%) (66.7%) (21.0%) (9.9%) (1.2%) (1.2%) (58.6%) (26.5%) (12.4%) (1.9%) (0.6%) (45.6%) (34.8%) (17.7%) (1.3%) (0.6%) (42.3%) (32.5%) (20.3%) (4.1%) (0.8%) (52.2%) (29.0%) (17.6%) (0.6%) (0.6%) 4.31 DAVID SIPPRELL JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) (62.5%) (22.1%) (8.1%) (2.2%) (5.1%) (59.6%) (26.5%) (7.3%) (2.2%) (4.4%) (70.6%) (16.2%) (6.6%) (1.5%) (5.1%) (47.8%) (36.8%) (6.6%) (3.7%) (5.1%) (47.9%) (34.2%) (10.3%) (2.5%) (5.1%) (56.6%) (28.7%) (8.1%) (2.2%) (4.4%) 4.31 PAGE 41

43 DISTRICT 26 GARY HENDERSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (44.0%) (25.0%) (22.0%) (4.5%) (4.5%) (18.9%) (32.6%) (32.6%) (9.1%) (6.8%) (39.4%) (32.6%) (18.9%) (5.3%) (3.8%) (25.4%) (36.2%) (22.3%) (11.5%) (4.6%) (20.9%) (28.2%) (30.0%) (9.1%) (11.8%) (26.1%) (28.5%) (30.0%) (10.8%) (4.6%) 3.61 TRACY HANNA HEWETT JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (58.1%) (19.9%) (14.0%) (2.9%) (5.1%) (38.4%) (31.9%) (21.0%) (3.6%) (5.1%) (54.0%) (27.3%) (10.8%) (2.2%) (5.7%) (49.6%) (22.3%) (17.3%) (3.6%) (7.2%) (46.2%) (27.3%) (15.4%) (3.4%) (7.7%) (42.8%) (30.4%) (16.7%) (4.3%) (5.8%) 4.00 TOUSSAINT C. ROMAIN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (24.2%) (12.7%) (20.0%) (15.8%) (27.3%) (21.0%) (18.5%) (26.5%) (16.7%) (17.3%) (21.1%) (9.6%) (18.7%) (20.5%) (30.1%) (23.4%) (18.4%) (25.3%) (11.4%) (21.5%) (17.6%) (15.2%) (20.8%) (17.6%) (28.8%) (17.9%) (16.0%) (21.0%) (19.8%) (25.3%) 2.81 PAGE 42

44 DISTRICT 26, CONTINUED CAMERON DAVIS SCOTT JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (35.0%) (24.6%) (24.6%) (3.5%) (12.3%) (19.0%) (32.7%) (29.3%) (6.9%) (12.1%) (32.2%) (25.4%) (22.0%) (8.5%) (11.9%) (25.4%) (30.5%) (27.1%) (5.1%) (11.9%) (18.0%) (36.0%) (22.0%) (8.0%) (16.0%) (24.6%) (31.6%) (26.3%) (5.2%) (12.3%) 3.51 GRANT SMITHSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (14.3%) (20.2%) (28.1%) (16.2%) (21.2%) (25.1%) (28.0%) (20.3%) (9.7%) (16.9%) (10.7%) (8.7%) (23.3%) (22.3%) (35.0%) (9.4%) (15.3%) (25.1%) (23.1%) (27.1%) (7.2%) (13.7%) (23.5%) (22.9%) (32.7%) (8.6%) (12.6%) (25.8%) (27.8%) (25.2%) 2.52 DAVID STRICKLAND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (42.5%) (28.4%) (16.5%) (7.1%) (5.5%) (35.9%) (28.9%) (21.9%) (7.0%) (6.3%) (50.0%) (25.8%) (14.8%) (5.5%) (3.9%) (38.1%) (34.1%) (17.5%) (5.5%) (4.8%) (35.6%) (28.8%) (24.0%) (5.8%) (5.8%) (35.7%) (32.5%) (19.9%) (7.9%) (4.0%) 3.88 PAGE 43

45 DISTRICT 26, CONTINUED BEN S. THALHEIMER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (35.3%) (27.4%) (20.3%) (8.5%) (8.5%) (24.6%) (26.8%) (24.6%) (13.3%) (10.7%) (33.6%) (25.0%) (24.6%) (8.2%) (8.6%) (24.5%) (30.4%) (22.7%) (13.6%) (8.8%) (24.2%) (30.1%) (21.0%) (13.7%) (11.0%) (26.4%) (27.1%) (23.1%) (13.9%) (9.5%) 3.47 JEFFREY COLIN THOMPSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (28.2%) (23.3%) (25.2%) (9.7%) (13.6%) (24.8%) (22.8%) (25.7%) (12.4%) (14.3%) (25.7%) (21.9%) (33.4%) (7.6%) (11.4%) (21.2%) (21.2%) (38.4%) (6.7%) (12.5%) (18.6%) (25.6%) (36.0%) (5.8%) (14.0%) (18.7%) (26.2%) (29.9%) (14.0%) (11.2%) 3.27 ALYSON G. TRAW JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (33.7%) (25.5%) (17.3%) (13.3%) (10.2%) (34.7%) (27.7%) (16.8%) (11.9%) (8.9%) (44.0%) (19.0%) (13.0%) (13.0%) (11.0%) (38.2%) (26.8%) (17.5%) (7.2%) (10.3%) (42.1%) (22.7%) (19.3%) (4.5%) (11.4%) (31.3%) (26.3%) (21.2%) (11.1%) (10.1%) 3.58 PAGE 44

46 DISTRICT 26, CONTINUED KARY CHURCH WATSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (50.4%) (27.8%) (10.5%) (3.8%) (7.5%) (68.4%) (19.5%) (6.0%) (2.3%) (3.8%) (51.9%) (23.3%) (9.8%) (6.0%) (9.0%) (51.9%) (25.6%) (18.0%) (0.7%) (3.8%) (56.4%) (21.8%) (14.6%) (3.6%) (3.6%) (55.6%) (22.2%) (11.8%) (5.2%) (5.2%) 4.18 ROY H. WIGGINS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (65.5%) (22.5%) (9.1%) (2.4%) (0.5%) (56.3%) (29.6%) (11.2%) (2.9%) (0.0%) (69.6%) (20.3%) (7.7%) (1.9%) (0.5%) (55.9%) (32.3%) (9.8%) (2.0%) (0.0%) (49.7%) (35.3%) (12.7%) (1.7%) (0.6%) (59.5%) (30.2%) (8.3%) (2.0%) (0.0%) 4.47 RODERICK WRIGHT JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) (13.7%) (23.7%) (28.8%) (20.1%) (13.7%) (14.8%) (19.7%) (26.1%) (25.3%) (14.1%) (16.1%) (21.0%) (28.6%) (17.5%) (16.8%) (12.6%) (22.4%) (30.7%) (18.9%) (15.4%) (10.2%) (19.4%) (21.3%) (31.5%) (17.6%) (9.9%) (24.8%) (29.1%) (22.0%) (14.2%) 2.94 PAGE 45

47 DISTRICT 27A PENNIE M. THROWER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 27A (2) (60.4%) (15.5%) (12.1%) (10.3%) (1.7%) (46.6%) (20.7%) (19.0%) (10.3%) (3.4%) (62.1%) (13.8%) (10.3%) (13.8%) (0.0%) (56.1%) (15.8%) (17.5%) (5.3%) (5.3%) (55.3%) (21.2%) (14.9%) (4.3%) (4.3%) (54.2%) (15.3%) (15.3%) (11.8%) (3.4%) 4.05 PAGE 46

48 DISTRICT 27B GWYNN G. RADEKER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 27B (2) (74.5%) (16.0%) (3.2%) (2.1%) (4.2%) (67.7%) (21.5%) (4.3%) (1.1%) (5.4%) (76.9%) (12.1%) (3.3%) (3.3%) (4.4%) (67.8%) (18.9%) (6.7%) (1.1%) (5.5%) (53.7%) (33.8%) (5.0%) (2.5%) (5.0%) (71.0%) (16.1%) (4.3%) (4.3%) (4.3%) 4.45 PAGE 47