NON-INCUMBENT JUDICIAL CANDIDATE EVALUATION SURVEY SURVEY RESULTS

NON-INCUMBENT JUDICIAL CANDIDATE EVALUATION SURVEY SURVEY RESULTS APRIL 2012

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 10 23 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 11 26 NICOLLE T. PHAIR 26 MARY HOWARD WELLS 26 LeVONDA G. WOOD DISTRICT 12 27 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 13 29 W. RICHARD COX 29 PAULINE HANKINS 29 SHEILA K. McLAMB 30 CATHERINE HOWLETT RADFORD TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED DISTRICT 15A 31 JOHN P. PAISLEY JR. DISTRICT 16B 32 RODNEY OXENDINE DISTRICT 18 33 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 26 42 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 21 40 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

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 2012. 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 email addresses for approximately 95% of those attorneys were obtained. Attorneys with email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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, 2012. 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

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 2012. 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 http://judicialelections.ncbar.org. PREFACE PAGE 4

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) 4.67 4.62 4.67 4.55 4.54 4.60 GALE M. ADAMS (12B) 4.72 4.62 4.68 4.55 4.56 4.63 JAMES DORNFRIED (14A) 2.65 3.44 2.56 2.80 2.77 2.63 MANNING A. CONNORS (18E) 4.81 4.81 4.80 4.65 4.66 4.76 JASON B. CRUMP (18E) 4.22 4.00 4.15 3.97 3.81 4.03 ROBERT ENOCHS (18E) 4.08 3.86 3.97 3.88 3.81 3.90 DAVID L. HALL (21B) 4.34 4.41 4.35 4.28 4.22 4.34 ANDREA DENISE EDWARDS (22A) 4.14 4.04 4.23 4.01 4.00 3.96 JULIA LYNN GULLETT (22A) 4.57 4.36 4.62 4.43 4.28 4.40 DUSTIN McCRARY (22A) 3.56 2.82 3.28 2.88 3.28 2.93 ALEXANDER MENDALOFF III (22A) 3.80 3.78 3.83 3.81 3.81 3.75 JOHN BRANTLEY OSTWALT JR. (22A) 4.17 3.37 4.02 3.76 3.50 3.58 PETER A. SMITH (22A) 4.03 3.61 3.85 3.79 3.40 3.68 NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 5

NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE BRIAN DeSOTO 3.85 3.62 3.92 3.88 3.66 3.63 FARIS CARNELL DIXON JR. 4.67 4.29 4.61 4.32 4.05 4.35 LISA OVERTON 3.98 3.55 4.03 3.79 3.57 3.61 JOHN WARNER WELLS II 4.08 3.79 3.84 3.88 3.75 3.85 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE BERNARD BUSH 4.21 3.76 4.06 3.98 3.93 3.84 W. DAVID McFADYEN III 4.13 3.87 4.14 4.05 3.89 3.95 CLINTON ROWE 4.36 3.99 4.21 4.19 4.13 4.17 KIRBY SMITH 4.47 4.30 4.46 4.20 4.28 4.31 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE LUTHER B. CULPEPPER 4.60 4.36 4.69 4.47 4.50 4.57 VERSHENIA BALLANCE MOODY 3.85 3.97 3.81 3.88 3.89 3.85 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE ERICKA YOUNG JAMES 3.75 3.55 3.71 3.92 3.41 3.54 ANNETTE W. TURIK 4.43 4.16 4.49 4.31 4.24 4.27 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE AMANDA STEVENSON 3.95 3.59 3.80 3.73 3.58 3.73 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 6

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 4.30 3.74 4.23 4.11 3.78 3.93 DANIEL T. BARKER 4.40 4.08 4.38 4.28 4.17 4.28 CHARLES PHILLIPS GILLIAM 3.40 3.38 3.44 3.52 3.41 3.42 ERIN MULLIGAN GRABER 4.45 4.28 4.50 4.37 4.36 4.34 DAMION McCULLERS 4.09 3.76 4.04 3.83 3.74 3.92 STEVEN MANSBERY 4.18 4.31 4.24 4.28 4.21 4.13 DANIEL NAGLE 3.42 3.11 3.76 3.12 3.28 3.18 ANANDA BIKASH ROY 1.82 2.14 1.85 1.96 2.20 1.93 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE NICOLLE T. PHAIR 2.44 2.14 2.46 2.44 2.17 2.26 MARY HOWARD WELLS 3.67 3.32 3.67 3.45 3.33 3.38 LeVONDA G. WOOD 3.07 2.54 2.88 2.74 2.65 2.67 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE RITA COX 3.70 3.76 3.71 3.54 3.69 3.73 BRIAN HARRIS 3.94 3.58 3.77 3.67 3.27 3.70 LUIS OLIVERA 2.72 3.11 2.75 3.24 3.02 2.98 STEPHEN C. STOKES 3.96 3.81 4.02 3.83 3.76 3.90 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE W. RICHARD COX 4.10 3.49 4.05 3.75 3.67 3.67 PAULINE HANKINS 3.89 3.69 3.87 3.87 3.83 3.80 SHEILA K. McLAMB 2.93 3.08 2.78 2.87 3.15 2.85 CATHERINE HOWLETT RADFORD 4.56 4.35 4.39 4.30 4.39 4.41 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 7

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. 3.26 3.05 3.14 2.83 2.71 3.00 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE RODNEY OXENDINE 4.43 4.13 4.50 4.37 4.04 4.33 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE DONALD BUIE 4.00 3.53 4.07 3.74 3.76 3.70 WILLIAM BOYD DAVIS 4.34 4.42 4.41 4.19 4.21 4.30 LINDA L. FALLS 3.45 2.63 3.25 3.14 2.89 2.91 JEWEL ANN FARLOW 2.86 2.75 2.78 2.79 2.76 2.65 TOMAKIO S. GAUSE 3.55 3.03 3.55 3.28 3.09 3.21 TABATHA HOLLIDAY 3.59 3.34 3.46 3.49 3.40 3.42 BRIAN TOMLIN 4.47 4.27 4.35 4.27 4.16 4.29 MICHAEL TROUTMAN 4.50 4.25 4.40 4.36 4.20 4.31 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 19B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE BOBBY ELLIOTT McCROSKEY 4.05 3.99 3.96 3.93 3.76 4.00 JANE HUGHES REDDING 4.47 4.26 4.38 4.34 4.30 4.49 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20A NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE JOHN R. NANCE 2.82 2.37 2.68 2.44 2.41 2.60 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 8

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 2.69 1.80 2.39 2.08 2.15 2.00 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20D NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE SHERRYL WEST 3.74 3.14 3.39 3.12 3.38 3.25 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE AMY ALLRED 2.78 2.26 2.66 2.66 2.44 2.41 ROBERT WALL EWING 4.13 3.74 4.09 3.74 3.64 3.81 JERRY D. JORDAN 3.82 3.60 3.66 3.61 3.45 3.60 RICHARD ANDREW KEEVER 3.98 3.82 3.98 3.68 3.74 3.85 RICHARD D. RAMSEY 4.40 4.51 4.41 4.23 4.11 4.31 DAVID SIPPRELL 4.35 4.35 4.46 4.18 4.17 4.31 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE GARY HENDERSON 3.99 3.48 3.98 3.66 3.37 3.61 TRACY HANNA HEWETT 4.23 3.95 4.22 4.04 4.01 4.00 TOUSSAINT C. ROMAIN 2.91 3.09 2.71 3.11 2.75 2.81 CAMERON DAVIS SCOTT 3.67 3.40 3.58 3.53 3.32 3.51 GRANT SMITHSON 2.90 3.35 2.38 2.57 2.40 2.52 DAVID STRICKLAND 3.95 3.81 4.13 3.95 3.83 3.88 BEN S. THALHEIMER 3.72 3.41 3.67 3.48 3.43 3.47 JEFFREY COLIN THOMPSON 3.43 3.31 3.43 3.32 3.29 3.27 ALYSON G. TRAW 3.59 3.67 3.72 3.75 3.80 3.58 KARY CHURCH WATSON 4.10 4.47 4.03 4.21 4.24 4.18 ROY H. WIGGINS 4.50 4.39 4.57 4.42 4.32 4.47 RODERICK WRIGHT 3.04 2.96 3.02 2.98 2.73 2.94 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 9

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 4.22 3.97 4.24 4.12 4.19 4.05 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 27B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE GWYNN G. RADEKER 4.54 4.45 4.54 4.42 4.29 4.45 JUDICIAL DISTRICT 29 B NAME INTEGRITY & FAIRNESS LEGAL ABILITY PROFESSIONALISM COMMUNICATION ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS OVERALL PERFORMANCE ROBIN L. BOWEN 3.57 3.45 3.20 3.22 2.98 3.10 WILLIAM CATHEY 4.17 4.27 3.92 4.08 3.77 4.00 EMILY COWAN 3.57 3.64 3.73 3.87 3.84 3.62 NON-INCUMBENT DISTRICT COURT CANDIDATE CATEGORICAL S PAGE 10

INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS GEORGE BRYAN COLLINS JR. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10E (2) 386 305 49 22 5 5 (79.0%) (12.7%) (5.7%) (1.3%) (1.3%) 4.67 383 279 75 21 3 5 (72.8%) (19.6%) (5.5%) (0.8%) (1.3%) 4.62 388 304 53 23 4 4 (78.4%) (13.7%) (5.9%) (1.0%) (1.0%) 4.67 378 257 83 30 4 4 (68.0%) (21.9%) (7.9%) (1.1%) (1.1%) 4.55 306 212 64 18 6 6 (69.2%) (20.9%) (5.9%) (2.0%) (2.0%) 4.54 378 275 71 23 3 6 (72.7%) (18.8%) (6.1%) (0.8%) (1.6%) 4.60 GALE M. ADAMS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12B (2) 67 53 10 3 1 0 (79.1%) (14.9%) (4.5%) (1.5%) (0.0%) 4.72 65 48 11 4 2 0 (73.8%) (16.9%) (6.2%) (3.1%) (0.0%) 4.62 65 52 8 2 3 0 (80.0%) (12.3%) (3.1%) (4.6%) (0.0%) 4.68 67 49 11 3 3 1 (73.1%) (16.4%) (4.5%) (4.5%) (1.5%) 4.55 55 38 13 2 1 1 (69.1%) (23.7%) (3.6%) (1.8%) (1.8%) 4.56 64 48 11 2 3 0 (75.0%) (17.2%) (3.1%) (4.7%) (0.0%) 4.63 JAMES DORNFRIED JUDICIAL DISTRICT 14A (2) 106 12 21 21 22 30 (11.3%) (19.8%) (19.8%) (20.8%) (28.3%) 2.65 101 15 38 31 10 7 (14.9%) (37.6%) (30.7%) (9.9%) (6.9%) 3.44 107 11 15 27 24 30 (10.3%) (14.0%) (25.2%) (22.4%) (28.1%) 2.56 105 9 24 32 17 23 (8.6%) (22.8%) (30.5%) (16.2%) (21.9%) 2.80 87 12 11 27 19 18 (13.8%) (12.7%) (31.0%) (21.8%) (20.7%) 2.77 105 9 19 24 30 23 (8.6%) (18.1%) (22.9%) (28.5%) (21.9%) 2.63 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 11

INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS, CONTINUED MANNING A. CONNORS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18E (2) 206 182 15 5 1 3 (88.3%) (7.3%) (2.4%) (0.5%) (1.5%) 4.81 203 177 19 4 1 2 (87.2%) (9.4%) (1.9%) (0.5%) (1.0%) 4.81 204 181 15 2 3 3 (88.7%) (7.3%) (1.0%) (1.5%) (1.5%) 4.80 202 155 34 7 2 4 (76.7%) (16.8%) (3.5%) (1.0%) (2.0%) 4.65 162 122 31 5 2 2 (75.3%) (19.2%) (3.1%) (1.2%) (1.2%) 4.66 201 171 20 5 2 3 (85.1%) (9.9%) (2.5%) (1.0%) (1.5%) 4.76 JASON B. CRUMP JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18E (2) 110 61 27 12 5 5 (55.5%) (24.6%) (10.9%) (4.5%) (4.5%) 4.22 108 48 29 19 7 5 (44.4%) (26.9%) (17.6%) (6.5%) (4.6%) 4.00 107 55 29 13 4 6 (51.4%) (27.1%) (12.2%) (3.7%) (5.6%) 4.15 110 44 36 18 7 5 (40.0%) (32.7%) (16.4%) (6.4%) (4.5%) 3.97 84 31 22 22 2 7 (36.9%) (26.2%) (26.2%) (2.4%) (8.3%) 3.81 107 48 30 19 4 6 (44.9%) (28.0%) (17.8%) (3.7%) (5.6%) 4.03 ROBERT ENOCHS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18E (2) 147 63 47 28 4 5 (42.9%) (32.0%) (19.0%) (2.7%) (3.4%) 4.08 148 49 40 51 5 3 (33.1%) (27.0%) (34.5%) (3.4%) (2.0%) 3.86 147 59 42 34 7 5 (40.1%) (28.6%) (23.1%) (4.8%) (3.4%) 3.97 142 48 42 42 7 3 (33.8%) (29.6%) (29.6%) (4.9%) (2.1%) 3.88 118 40 31 35 9 3 (33.9%) (26.3%) (29.7%) (7.6%) (2.5%) 3.81 141 49 44 36 9 3 (34.8%) (31.2%) (25.5%) (6.4%) (2.1%) 3.90 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 12

INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS, CONTINUED DAVID L. HALL JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21B (2) 184 114 37 19 10 4 (62.0%) (20.1%) (10.3%) (5.4%) (2.2%) 4.34 185 107 54 17 6 1 (57.8%) (29.2%) (9.2%) (3.2%) (0.6%) 4.41 185 117 39 12 11 6 (63.3%) (21.1%) (6.5%) (5.9%) (3.2%) 4.35 184 93 63 17 9 2 (50.6%) (34.2%) (9.2%) (4.9%) (1.1%) 4.28 153 80 43 17 9 4 (52.3%) (28.1%) (11.1%) (5.9%) (2.6%) 4.22 179 103 47 17 11 1 (57.5%) (26.3%) (9.5%) (6.1%) (0.6%) 4.34 ANDREA DENISE EDWARDS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) 70 30 27 7 5 1 (42.9%) (38.6%) (10.0%) (7.1%) (1.4%) 4.14 71 26 29 9 7 0 (36.6%) (40.8%) (12.7%) (9.9%) (0.0%) 4.04 71 39 17 8 6 1 (54.9%) (23.9%) (11.3%) (8.5%) (1.4%) 4.23 71 29 21 16 3 2 (40.9%) (29.6%) (22.5%) (4.2%) (2.8%) 4.01 59 22 21 12 2 2 (37.3%) (35.6%) (20.3%) (3.4%) (3.4%) 4.00 70 25 25 13 6 1 (35.7%) (35.7%) (18.6%) (8.6%) (1.4%) 3.96 JULIA LYNN GULLETT JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) 108 76 21 9 1 1 (70.4%) (19.5%) (8.3%) (0.9%) (0.9%) 4.57 108 59 35 9 4 1 (54.6%) (32.5%) (8.3%) (3.7%) (0.9%) 4.36 109 81 19 6 2 1 (74.3%) (17.5%) (5.5%) (1.8%) (0.9%) 4.62 106 61 33 10 1 1 (57.5%) (31.1%) (9.4%) (1.0%) (1.0%) 4.43 90 46 28 12 3 1 (51.1%) (31.1%) (13.3%) (3.4%) (1.1%) 4.28 103 59 29 12 3 0 (57.3%) (28.2%) (11.6%) (2.9%) (0.0%) 4.40 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 13

INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS, CONTINUED DUSTIN McCRARY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) 55 15 14 18 3 5 (27.3%) (25.5%) (32.7%) (5.4%) (9.1%) 3.56 57 8 6 16 22 5 (14.0%) (10.5%) (28.1%) (38.6%) (8.8%) 2.82 57 12 12 19 8 6 (21.1%) (21.1%) (33.3%) (14.0%) (10.5%) 3.28 57 8 10 17 11 11 (14.0%) (17.6%) (29.8%) (19.3%) (19.3%) 2.88 43 11 8 12 6 6 (25.5%) (18.6%) (27.9%) (14.0%) (14.0%) 3.28 56 11 5 15 19 6 (19.7%) (8.9%) (26.8%) (33.9%) (10.7%) 2.93 ALEXANDER MENDALOFF III JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) 82 28 28 14 6 6 (34.1%) (34.1%) (17.2%) (7.3%) (7.3%) 3.80 83 22 32 18 11 0 (26.5%) (38.5%) (21.7%) (13.3%) (0.0%) 3.78 82 27 31 11 9 4 (32.9%) (37.8%) (13.4%) (11.0%) (4.9%) 3.83 84 29 25 20 5 5 (34.5%) (29.7%) (23.8%) (6.0%) (6.0%) 3.81 69 23 21 17 5 3 (33.3%) (30.4%) (24.6%) (7.3%) (4.4%) 3.81 83 27 25 18 9 4 (32.5%) (30.1%) (21.7%) (10.9%) (4.8%) 3.75 JOHN BRANTLEY OSTWALT JR. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) 54 22 22 8 1 1 (40.7%) (40.7%) (14.8%) (1.9%) (1.9%) 4.17 52 3 24 16 7 2 (5.8%) (46.1%) (30.8%) (13.5%) (3.8%) 3.37 53 19 21 9 3 1 (35.8%) (39.6%) (17.0%) (5.7%) (1.9%) 4.02 51 9 25 14 2 1 (17.6%) (49.0%) (27.5%) (3.9%) (2.0%) 3.76 44 8 17 11 5 3 (18.2%) (38.6%) (25.0%) (11.4%) (6.8%) 3.50 50 8 21 14 6 1 (16.0%) (42.0%) (28.0%) (12.0%) (2.0%) 3.58 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 14

INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS, CONTINUED PETER A. SMITH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A (2) 62 23 23 12 3 1 (37.1%) (37.1%) (19.4%) (4.8%) (1.6%) 4.03 62 9 26 22 4 1 (14.5%) (41.9%) (35.5%) (6.5%) (1.6%) 3.61 62 18 25 12 6 1 (29.0%) (40.3%) (19.4%) (9.7%) (1.6%) 3.85 62 16 23 17 6 0 (25.8%) (37.1%) (27.4%) (9.7%) (0.0%) 3.79 55 6 23 16 7 3 (10.9%) (41.8%) (29.1%) (12.7%) (5.5%) 3.40 60 12 23 19 6 0 (20.0%) (38.3%) (31.7%) (10.0%) (0.0%) 3.68 INDIVIDUAL NON-INCUMBENT SUPERIOR COURT CANDIDATE REPORTS PAGE 15

DISTRICT 3A BRIAN DeSOTO JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A (2) 68 30 16 11 4 7 (44.1%) (23.5%) (16.2%) (5.9%) (10.3%) 3.85 69 17 23 19 6 4 (24.7%) (33.3%) (27.5%) (8.7%) (5.8%) 3.62 71 31 16 15 5 4 (43.7%) (22.5%) (21.1%) (7.1%) (5.6%) 3.92 69 27 19 15 4 4 (39.1%) (27.5%) (21.8%) (5.8%) (5.8%) 3.88 53 15 18 12 3 5 (28.3%) (34.0%) (22.6%) (5.7%) (9.4%) 3.66 70 21 22 12 10 5 (30.0%) (31.4%) (17.2%) (14.3%) (7.1%) 3.63 FARIS CARNELL DIXON JR. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A (2) 93 71 14 7 1 0 (76.3%) (15.1%) (7.5%) (1.1%) (0.0%) 4.67 90 46 29 11 3 1 (51.2%) (32.2%) (12.2%) (3.3%) (1.1%) 4.29 92 69 13 8 1 1 (75.0%) (14.1%) (8.7%) (1.1%) (1.1%) 4.61 91 49 30 7 2 3 (53.8%) (33.0%) (7.7%) (2.2%) (3.3%) 4.32 79 34 25 12 6 2 (43.0%) (31.7%) (15.2%) (7.6%) (2.5%) 4.05 91 49 30 8 3 1 (53.8%) (33.0%) (8.8%) (3.3%) (1.1%) 4.35 LISA OVERTON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A (2) 62 29 16 8 5 4 (46.8%) (25.8%) (12.9%) (8.1%) (6.4%) 3.98 64 17 21 14 4 8 (26.6%) (32.8%) (21.9%) (6.2%) (12.5%) 3.55 68 33 17 10 3 5 (48.5%) (25.0%) (14.7%) (4.4%) (7.4%) 4.03 66 22 23 12 3 6 (33.3%) (34.8%) (18.2%) (4.6%) (9.1%) 3.79 51 13 16 14 3 5 (25.5%) (31.4%) (27.4%) (5.9%) (9.8%) 3.57 66 17 23 15 5 6 (25.8%) (34.8%) (22.7%) (7.6%) (9.1%) 3.61 PAGE 16

DISTRICT 3A, CONTINUED JOHN WARNER WELLS II JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3A (2) 84 43 18 14 5 4 (51.2%) (21.4%) (16.7%) (5.9%) (4.8%) 4.08 86 35 21 16 5 9 (40.7%) (24.4%) (18.6%) (5.8%) (10.5%) 3.79 89 42 17 11 12 7 (47.2%) (19.1%) (12.3%) (13.5%) (7.9%) 3.84 88 35 21 22 6 4 (39.8%) (23.9%) (25.0%) (6.8%) (4.5%) 3.88 65 26 13 15 6 5 (40.0%) (20.0%) (23.1%) (9.2%) (7.7%) 3.75 86 35 21 18 6 6 (40.7%) (24.4%) (20.9%) (7.0%) (7.0%) 3.85 PAGE 17

DISTRICT 3B BERNARD BUSH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B (2) 48 51 52 50 41 50 29 7 8 1 3 (60.4%) (14.6%) (16.7%) (2.1%) (6.2%) 21 8 14 5 3 52 (15.7%) (27.4%) (9.8%) (5.9%) 26 10 12 1 3 41 (19.2%) (23.1%) (1.9%) (5.8%) 22 12 10 5 1 (44.0%) (24.0%) (20.0%) (10.0%) (2.0%) 17 10 9 4 1 (41.5%) (24.4%) (21.9%) (9.8%) (2.4%) 21 9 13 5 2 (42.0%) (18.0%) (26.0%) (10.0%) (4.0%) 4.21 3.76 4.06 3.98 3.93 3.84 W. DAVID McFADYEN III JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B (2) 102 51 27 14 6 4 (50.0%) (26.5%) (13.7%) (5.9%) (3.9%) 4.13 104 42 26 20 12 4 (40.4%) (25.0%) (19.2%) (11.5%) (3.9%) 3.87 103 49 30 15 7 2 (47.6%) (29.1%) (14.6%) (6.8%) (1.9%) 4.14 102 45 30 16 9 2 (44.1%) (29.4%) (15.7%) (8.8%) (2.0%) 4.05 75 32 17 16 6 4 (42.7%) (22.7%) (21.3%) (8.0%) (5.3%) 3.89 100 42 29 16 8 5 (42.0%) (29.0%) (16.0%) (8.0%) (5.0%) 3.95 CLINTON ROWE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B (2) 69 46 12 5 2 4 (66.7%) (17.4%) (7.2%) (2.9%) (5.8%) 4.36 71 35 15 11 5 5 (49.3%) (21.2%) (15.5%) (7.0%) (7.0%) 3.99 73 41 17 8 3 4 (56.2%) (23.3%) (10.9%) (4.1%) (5.5%) 4.21 72 37 19 12 1 3 (51.4%) (26.4%) (16.6%) (1.4%) (4.2%) 4.19 60 31 17 6 1 5 (51.7%) (28.3%) (10.0%) (1.7%) (8.3%) 4.13 71 38 17 9 4 3 (53.5%) (24.0%) (12.7%) (5.6%) (4.2%) 4.17 PAGE 18

DISTRICT 3B, CONTINUED KIRBY SMITH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3B (2) 105 69 25 5 3 3 (65.7%) (23.8%) (4.7%) (2.9%) (2.9%) 4.47 104 58 27 13 4 2 (55.8%) (26.0%) (12.5%) (3.8%) (1.9%) 4.30 106 70 23 8 2 3 (66.0%) (21.7%) (7.6%) (1.9%) (2.8%) 4.46 105 53 30 14 6 2 (50.5%) (28.6%) (13.3%) (5.7%) (1.9%) 4.20 80 42 25 9 1 3 (52.5%) (31.2%) (11.2%) (1.3%) (3.8%) 4.28 102 56 32 7 4 3 (54.9%) (31.4%) (6.9%) (3.9%) (2.9%) 4.31 PAGE 19

DISTRICT 6B LUTHER B. CULPEPPER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6B (2) 35 25 8 1 0 1 (71.4%) (22.8%) (2.9%) (0.0%) (2.9%) 4.60 36 18 14 3 1 0 (50.0%) (38.9%) (8.3%) (2.8%) (0.0%) 4.36 36 28 5 3 0 0 (77.8%) (13.9%) (8.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 4.69 34 21 9 3 1 0 (61.8%) (26.5%) (8.8%) (2.9%) (0.0%) 4.47 30 17 11 2 0 0 (56.7%) (36.7%) (6.6%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 4.50 35 22 12 0 1 0 (62.8%) (34.3%) (0.0%) (2.9%) (0.0%) 4.57 VERSHENIA BALLANCE MOODY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6B (2) 34 13 9 8 2 2 (38.2%) (26.5%) (23.5%) (5.9%) (5.9%) 3.85 34 13 11 8 0 2 (38.2%) (32.4%) (23.5%) (0.0%) (5.9%) 3.97 36 13 11 7 2 3 (36.1%) (30.6%) (19.4%) (5.6%) (8.3%) 3.81 34 12 10 10 0 2 (35.3%) (29.4%) (29.4%) (0.0%) (5.9%) 3.88 27 11 8 4 2 2 (40.8%) (29.6%) (14.8%) (7.4%) (7.4%) 3.89 34 12 11 7 2 2 (35.2%) (32.4%) (20.6%) (5.9%) (5.9%) 3.85 PAGE 20

DISTRICT 8 ERICKA YOUNG JAMES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 (2) 40 14 9 12 3 2 (35.0%) (22.5%) (30.0%) (7.5%) (5.0%) 3.75 40 10 12 12 2 4 (25.0%) (30.0%) (30.0%) (5.0%) (10.0%) 3.55 41 14 11 9 4 3 (34.1%) (26.8%) (22.0%) (9.8%) (7.3%) 3.71 39 16 9 11 1 2 (41.0%) (23.1%) (28.2%) (2.6%) (5.1%) 3.92 29 3 13 8 3 2 (10.3%) (44.9%) (27.6%) (10.3%) (6.9%) 3.41 41 11 11 11 5 3 (26.8%) (26.8%) (26.8%) (12.3%) (7.3%) 3.54 ANNETTE W. TURIK JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8 (2) 49 31 10 6 2 0 (63.3%) (20.4%) (12.2%) (4.1%) (0.0%) 4.43 49 21 16 11 1 0 (42.9%) (32.7%) (22.4%) (2.0%) (0.0%) 4.16 49 33 8 7 1 0 (67.4%) (16.3%) (14.3%) (2.0%) (0.0%) 4.49 49 25 14 10 0 0 (51.0%) (28.6%) (20.4%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 4.31 42 22 9 10 1 0 (52.4%) (21.4%) (23.8%) (2.4%) (0.0%) 4.24 51 27 13 9 2 0 (52.9%) (25.5%) (17.7%) (3.9%) (0.0%) 4.27 PAGE 21

DISTRICT 9 AMANDA STEVENSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9 (2) 40 16 15 4 1 4 (40.0%) (37.5%) (10.0%) (2.5%) (10.0%) 3.95 41 13 10 9 6 3 (31.7%) (24.4%) (22.0%) (14.6%) (7.3%) 3.59 41 17 10 7 3 4 (41.5%) (24.4%) (17.1%) (7.3%) (9.7%) 3.80 40 14 11 10 0 5 (35.0%) (27.5%) (25.0%) (0.0%) (12.5%) 3.73 36 14 7 6 4 5 (38.9%) (19.4%) (16.7%) (11.1%) (13.9%) 3.58 40 14 11 8 4 3 (35.0%) (27.5%) (20.0%) (10.0%) (7.5%) 3.73 PAGE 22

DISTRICT 10 JAMES RONALD ANSLEY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) 255 122 93 35 4 1 (47.8%) (36.5%) (13.7%) (1.6%) (0.4%) 4.30 253 59 93 80 18 3 (23.3%) (36.8%) (31.6%) (7.1%) (1.2%) 3.74 257 117 91 42 6 1 (45.5%) (35.4%) (16.4%) (2.3%) (0.4%) 4.23 255 105 86 54 8 2 (41.2%) (33.7%) (21.2%) (3.1%) (0.8%) 4.11 169 46 62 45 10 6 (27.2%) (36.7%) (26.6%) (5.9%) (3.6%) 3.78 253 74 103 62 13 1 (29.3%) (40.7%) (24.5%) (5.1%) (0.4%) 3.93 DANIEL T. BARKER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) 179 111 37 24 5 2 (62.0%) (20.7%) (13.4%) (2.8%) (1.1%) 4.40 179 78 52 38 8 3 (43.6%) (29.0%) (21.2%) (4.5%) (1.7%) 4.08 184 116 34 24 8 2 (63.0%) (18.5%) (13.0%) (4.4%) (1.1%) 4.38 178 96 46 28 6 2 (53.9%) (25.9%) (15.7%) (3.4%) (1.1%) 4.28 125 65 31 17 9 3 (52.0%) (24.8%) (13.6%) (7.2%) (2.4%) 4.17 177 98 41 30 5 3 (55.4%) (23.2%) (16.9%) (2.8%) (1.7%) 4.28 CHARLES PHILLIPS GILLIAM JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) 25 10 2 5 4 4 (40.0%) (8.0%) (20.0%) (16.0%) (16.0%) 3.40 24 9 2 5 5 3 (37.5%) (8.4%) (20.8%) (20.8%) (12.5%) 3.38 27 10 3 7 3 4 (37.1%) (11.1%) (25.9%) (11.1%) (14.8%) 3.44 23 9 2 7 2 3 (39.1%) (8.7%) (30.4%) (8.7%) (13.1%) 3.52 22 8 2 6 3 3 (36.4%) (9.1%) (27.3%) (13.6%) (13.6%) 3.41 24 9 2 6 4 3 (37.5%) (8.3%) (25.0%) (16.7%) (12.5%) 3.42 PAGE 23

DISTRICT 10, CONTINUED ERIN MULLIGAN GRABER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) 189 114 50 22 2 1 (60.3%) (26.5%) (11.6%) (1.1%) (0.5%) 4.45 193 104 52 26 9 2 (53.9%) (26.9%) (13.5%) (4.7%) (1.0%) 4.28 193 125 44 20 3 1 (64.8%) (22.8%) (10.4%) (1.5%) (0.5%) 4.50 193 110 53 24 4 2 (57.0%) (27.5%) (12.4%) (2.1%) (1.0%) 4.37 138 78 40 13 5 2 (56.5%) (29.0%) (9.4%) (3.6%) (1.5%) 4.36 189 103 54 27 4 1 (54.5%) (28.6%) (14.3%) (2.1%) (0.5%) 4.34 DAMION McCULLERS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) 156 66 50 31 6 3 (42.3%) (32.1%) (19.9%) (3.8%) (1.9%) 4.09 157 48 43 50 12 4 (30.6%) (27.4%) (31.8%) (7.6%) (2.6%) 3.76 158 65 48 35 6 4 (41.1%) (30.4%) (22.2%) (3.8%) (2.5%) 4.04 156 47 54 40 11 4 (30.1%) (34.6%) (25.6%) (7.1%) (2.6%) 3.83 117 35 34 34 10 4 (29.9%) (29.1%) (29.1%) (8.5%) (3.4%) 3.74 151 53 46 41 9 2 (35.1%) (30.5%) (27.1%) (6.0%) (1.3%) 3.92 STEVEN MANSBERY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) 99 53 21 18 4 3 (53.5%) (21.2%) (18.2%) (4.1%) (3.0%) 4.18 97 53 26 14 3 1 (54.7%) (26.8%) (14.4%) (3.1%) (1.0%) 4.31 100 57 22 12 6 3 (57.0%) (22.0%) (12.0%) (6.0%) (3.0%) 4.24 97 54 21 17 5 0 (55.7%) (21.6%) (17.5%) (5.2%) (0.0%) 4.28 75 40 16 16 1 2 (53.4%) (21.3%) (21.3%) (1.3%) (2.7%) 4.21 101 48 27 19 5 2 (47.5%) (26.7%) (18.8%) (5.0%) (2.0%) 4.13 PAGE 24

DISTRICT 10, CONTINUED DANIEL NAGLE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) 179 37 51 58 16 17 (20.7%) (28.5%) (32.4%) (8.9%) (9.5%) 3.42 178 19 46 66 29 18 (10.7%) (25.8%) (37.1%) (16.3%) (10.1%) 3.11 180 59 53 43 16 9 (32.8%) (29.4%) (23.9%) (8.9%) (5.0%) 3.76 182 22 49 61 29 21 (12.1%) (26.9%) (33.5%) (15.9%) (11.6%) 3.12 145 29 33 47 22 14 (20.0%) (22.8%) (32.4%) (15.2%) (9.6%) 3.28 175 19 48 63 35 10 (10.9%) (27.4%) (36.0%) (20.0%) (5.7%) 3.18 ANANDA BIKASH ROY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 (2) 34 2 1 5 7 19 (5.9%) (2.9%) (14.7%) (20.6%) (55.9%) 1.82 29 2 2 6 7 12 (6.9%) (6.9%) (20.7%) (24.1%) (41.4%) 2.14 33 1 3 5 5 19 (3.0%) (9.1%) (15.2%) (15.2%) (57.5%) 1.85 27 1 2 5 6 13 (3.7%) (7.4%) (18.5%) (22.2%) (48.2%) 1.96 20 0 3 6 3 8 (0.0%) (15.0%) (30.0%) (15.0%) (40.0%) 2.20 29 1 2 6 5 15 (3.5%) (6.9%) (20.7%) (17.2%) (51.7%) 1.93 PAGE 25

DISTRICT 11 NICOLLE T. PHAIR JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 (2) 101 15 10 17 21 38 (14.9%) (9.9%) (16.8%) (20.8%) (37.6%) 2.44 105 7 10 15 32 41 (6.7%) (9.5%) (14.3%) (30.5%) (39.0%) 2.14 106 13 14 21 19 39 (12.3%) (13.2%) (19.8%) (17.9%) (36.8%) 2.46 106 11 10 27 25 33 (10.4%) (9.4%) (25.5%) (23.6%) (31.1%) 2.44 86 8 7 14 20 37 (9.3%) (8.1%) (16.3%) (23.3%) (43.0%) 2.17 104 13 8 14 27 42 (12.5%) (7.7%) (13.4%) (26.0%) (40.4%) 2.26 MARY HOWARD WELLS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 (2) 79 29 18 17 7 8 (23.3%) (36.8%) (31.6%) (7.1%) (1.2%) 3.67 78 21 17 18 10 12 (26.9%) (21.8%) (23.1%) (12.8%) (15.4%) 3.32 78 29 18 15 8 8 (37.2%) (23.0%) (19.2%) (10.3%) (10.3%) 3.67 76 25 15 17 7 12 (32.9%) (19.7%) (22.4%) (9.2%) (15.8%) 3.45 64 19 12 14 9 10 (29.7%) (18.7%) (21.9%) (14.1%) (15.6%) 3.33 77 23 16 16 11 11 (29.8%) (20.8%) (20.8%) (14.3%) (14.3%) 3.38 LeVONDA G. WOOD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 (2) 73 19 13 12 12 17 (26.1%) (17.8%) (16.4%) (16.4%) (23.3%) 3.07 78 12 12 12 12 30 (15.4%) (15.4%) (15.4%) (15.4%) (38.4%) 2.54 75 16 12 13 15 19 (21.3%) (16.0%) (17.3%) (20.0%) (25.4%) 2.88 78 14 15 9 17 23 (17.9%) (19.3%) (11.5%) (21.8%) (29.5%) 2.74 63 13 9 4 17 20 (20.6%) (14.3%) (6.4%) (27.0%) (31.7%) 2.65 78 14 10 13 18 23 (17.9%) (12.8%) (16.7%) (23.1%) (29.5%) 2.67 PAGE 26

DISTRICT 12 RITA COX JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 (2) 63 23 16 13 4 7 (36.5%) (25.4%) (20.7%) (6.3%) (11.1%) 3.70 63 22 20 10 6 5 (34.9%) (31.8%) (15.9%) (9.5%) (7.9%) 3.76 63 26 13 11 6 7 (41.3%) (20.6%) (17.5%) (9.5%) (11.1%) 3.71 63 18 18 15 4 8 (28.6%) (28.6%) (23.8%) (6.3%) (12.7%) 3.54 54 19 15 10 4 6 (35.2%) (27.8%) (18.5%) (7.4%) (11.1%) 3.69 60 22 16 12 4 6 (36.6%) (26.7%) (20.0%) (6.7%) (10.0%) 3.73 BRIAN HARRIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 (2) 47 17 17 7 5 1 (36.2%) (36.2%) (14.9%) (10.6%) (2.1%) 3.94 48 10 18 14 2 4 (20.8%) (37.5%) (29.2%) (4.2%) (8.3%) 3.58 48 13 19 11 2 3 (27.1%) (39.6%) (22.9%) (4.2%) (6.2%) 3.77 48 13 15 13 5 2 (27.1%) (31.2%) (27.1%) (10.4%) (4.2%) 3.67 37 6 12 9 6 4 (16.2%) (32.5%) (24.3%) (16.2%) (10.8%) 3.27 43 11 16 10 4 2 (25.6%) (37.2%) (23.3%) (9.3%) (4.6%) 3.70 LUIS OLIVERA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 (2) 64 14 4 15 12 19 (21.9%) (6.3%) (23.4%) (18.7%) (29.7%) 2.72 63 12 8 22 17 4 (19.0%) (12.7%) (34.9%) (27.0%) (6.4%) 3.11 63 12 5 15 17 14 (19.0%) (7.9%) (23.8%) (27.0%) (22.3%) 2.75 62 11 17 18 8 8 (17.8%) (27.4%) (29.0%) (12.9%) (12.9%) 3.24 52 10 5 20 10 7 (19.2%) (9.6%) (38.5%) (19.2%) (13.5%) 3.02 60 12 8 15 17 8 (20.0%) (13.3%) (25.0%) (28.4%) (13.3%) 2.98 PAGE 27

DISTRICT 12, CONTINUED STEPHEN C. STOKES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 12 (2) 53 25 11 10 4 3 (47.2%) (20.7%) (18.9%) (7.5%) (5.7%) 3.96 52 17 16 15 0 4 (32.7%) (30.8%) (28.8%) (0.0%) (7.7%) 3.81 53 31 4 10 4 4 (58.6%) (7.5%) (18.9%) (7.5%) (7.5%) 4.02 52 18 16 12 3 3 (34.5%) (30.8%) (23.1%) (5.8%) (5.8%) 3.83 41 13 12 11 3 2 (31.7%) (29.3%) (26.8%) (7.3%) (4.9%) 3.76 50 18 17 10 2 3 (36.0%) (34.0%) (20.0%) (4.0%) (6.0%) 3.90 PAGE 28

DISTRICT 13 W. RICHARD COX JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 (2) 42 16 17 7 1 1 (38.1%) (40.5%) (16.6%) (2.4%) (2.4%) 4.10 41 7 16 11 4 3 (17.1%) (39.0%) (26.8%) (9.8%) (7.3%) 3.49 41 14 19 5 2 1 (34.1%) (46.4%) (12.2%) (4.9%) (2.4%) 4.05 40 11 13 12 3 1 (27.5%) (32.5%) (30.0%) (7.5%) (2.5%) 3.75 33 9 9 12 1 2 (27.3%) (27.3%) (36.4%) (3.0%) (6.0%) 3.67 39 11 10 13 4 1 (28.2%) (25.6%) (33.3%) (10.3%) (2.6%) 3.67 PAULINE HANKINS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 (2) 62 23 19 12 6 2 (37.1%) (30.6%) (19.4%) (9.7%) (3.2%) 3.89 61 19 14 19 8 1 (31.1%) (23.0%) (31.1%) (13.1%) (1.7%) 3.69 63 21 22 14 3 3 (33.3%) (34.9%) (22.2%) (4.8%) (4.8%) 3.87 62 19 22 15 6 0 (30.6%) (35.5%) (24.2%) (9.7%) (0.0%) 3.87 53 16 18 14 4 1 (30.2%) (34.0%) (26.4%) (7.5%) (1.9%) 3.83 60 19 20 13 6 2 (31.7%) (33.3%) (21.7%) (10.0%) (3.3%) 3.80 SHEILA K. McLAMB JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 (2) 40 3 11 13 6 7 (7.5%) (27.5%) (32.5%) (15.0%) (17.5%) 2.93 40 5 8 16 7 4 (12.5%) (20.0%) (40.0%) (17.5%) (10.0%) 3.08 41 5 8 9 11 8 (12.2%) (19.5%) (22.0%) (26.8%) (19.5%) 2.78 39 5 5 15 8 6 (12.8%) (12.8%) (38.5%) (20.5%) (15.4%) 2.87 34 4 9 12 6 3 (11.8%) (26.5%) (35.3%) (17.6%) (8.8%) 3.15 41 5 6 14 10 6 (12.2%) (14.6%) (34.2%) (24.4%) (14.6%) 2.85 PAGE 29

DISTRICT 13, CONTINUED CATHERINE HOWLETT RADFORD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 13 (2) 64 44 14 5 0 1 (68.7%) (21.9%) (7.8%) (0.0%) (1.6%) 4.56 63 36 16 9 1 1 (57.1%) (25.4%) (14.3%) (1.6%) (1.6%) 4.35 64 39 15 8 0 2 (60.9%) (23.5%) (12.5%) (0.0%) (3.1%) 4.39 64 37 14 10 1 2 (57.8%) (21.9%) (15.6%) (1.6%) (3.1%) 4.30 57 38 9 6 2 2 (66.7%) (15.8%) (10.5%) (3.5%) (3.5%) 4.39 61 38 13 8 1 1 (62.3%) (21.3%) (13.2%) (1.6%) (1.6%) 4.41 PAGE 30

DISTRICT 15A JOHN P. PAISLEY JR. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15A (2) 43 15 4 9 7 8 (34.9%) (9.3%) (20.9%) (16.3%) (18.6%) 3.26 43 10 7 11 5 10 (23.3%) (16.2%) (25.6%) (11.6%) (23.3%) 3.05 43 14 4 9 6 10 (32.6%) (9.3%) (20.9%) (13.9%) (23.3%) 3.14 42 9 4 11 7 11 (21.4%) (9.5%) (26.2%) (16.7%) (26.2%) 2.83 34 8 2 6 8 10 (23.5%) (5.9%) (17.7%) (23.5%) (29.4%) 2.71 43 12 3 11 7 10 (27.8%) (7.0%) (25.6%) (16.3%) (23.3%) 3.00 PAGE 31

DISTRICT 16B RODNEY OXENDINE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B (2) 30 18 8 3 1 0 (60.0%) (26.7%) (10.0%) (3.3%) (0.0%) 4.43 30 12 12 4 2 0 (40.0%) (40.0%) (13.3%) (6.7%) (0.0%) 4.13 30 18 10 1 1 0 (60.0%) (33.4%) (3.3%) (3.3%) (0.0%) 4.50 30 14 14 1 1 0 (46.7%) (46.7%) (3.3%) (3.3%) (0.0%) 4.37 24 9 10 3 1 1 (37.5%) (41.6%) (12.5%) (4.2%) (4.2%) 4.04 30 15 11 3 1 0 (50.0%) (36.7%) (10.0%) (3.3%) (0.0%) 4.33 PAGE 32

DISTRICT 18 DONALD BUIE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) 54 22 17 10 3 2 (40.7%) (31.5%) (18.5%) (5.6%) (3.7%) 4.00 55 14 12 21 5 3 (25.4%) (21.8%) (38.2%) (9.1%) (5.5%) 3.53 54 23 16 11 4 0 (42.6%) (29.6%) (20.4%) (7.4%) (0.0%) 4.07 54 16 14 18 6 0 (29.6%) (25.9%) (33.4%) (11.1%) (0.0%) 3.74 38 11 12 12 1 2 (28.9%) (31.6%) (31.6%) (2.6%) (5.3%) 3.76 54 14 17 17 5 1 (25.9%) (31.5%) (31.5%) (9.3%) (1.8%) 3.70 WILLIAM BOYD DAVIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) 97 61 15 16 3 2 (62.9%) (15.4%) (16.5%) (3.1%) (2.1%) 4.34 96 60 21 11 3 1 (62.5%) (21.9%) (11.5%) (3.1%) (1.0%) 4.42 97 59 24 11 1 2 (60.8%) (24.8%) (11.3%) (1.0%) (2.1%) 4.41 97 46 30 16 3 2 (47.4%) (30.9%) (16.5%) (3.1%) (2.1%) 4.19 87 43 24 17 1 2 (49.4%) (27.6%) (19.5%) (1.2%) (2.3%) 4.21 97 53 25 15 3 1 (54.6%) (25.8%) (15.5%) (3.1%) (1.0%) 4.30 LINDA L. FALLS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) 174 45 48 43 16 22 (25.9%) (27.6%) (24.7%) (9.2%) (12.6%) 3.45 171 20 23 49 31 48 (11.7%) (13.4%) (28.7%) (18.1%) (28.1%) 2.63 170 33 43 50 21 23 (19.4%) (25.3%) (29.4%) (12.4%) (13.5%) 3.25 169 31 40 44 29 25 (18.3%) (23.7%) (26.0%) (17.2%) (14.8%) 3.14 148 22 23 47 29 27 (14.9%) (15.5%) (31.8%) (19.6%) (18.2%) 2.89 172 24 35 45 38 30 (14.0%) (20.3%) (26.2%) (22.1%) (17.4%) 2.91 PAGE 33

DISTRICT 18, CONTINUED JEWEL ANN FARLOW JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) 155 26 27 35 34 33 (16.8%) (17.4%) (22.6%) (21.9%) (21.3%) 2.86 156 21 16 54 33 32 (13.5%) (10.3%) (34.6%) (21.1%) (20.5%) 2.75 153 23 20 42 36 32 (15.0%) (13.1%) (27.5%) (23.5%) (20.9%) 2.78 148 17 28 39 35 29 (11.5%) (18.9%) (26.4%) (23.6%) (19.6%) 2.79 114 14 17 38 18 27 (12.3%) (14.9%) (33.3%) (15.8%) (23.7%) 2.76 158 18 20 41 46 33 (11.4%) (12.7%) (25.9%) (29.1%) (20.9%) 2.65 TOMAKIO S. GAUSE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) 73 20 21 19 5 8 (27.4%) (28.8%) (26.0%) (6.8%) (11.0%) 3.55 73 7 20 23 14 9 (9.6%) (27.4%) (31.5%) (19.2%) (12.3%) 3.03 73 21 19 17 11 5 (28.8%) (26.0%) (23.3%) (15.1%) (6.8%) 3.55 75 13 19 27 8 8 (17.3%) (25.3%) (36.0%) (10.7%) (10.7%) 3.28 56 9 11 19 10 7 (16.1%) (19.6%) (33.9%) (17.9%) (12.5%) 3.09 72 9 22 24 9 8 (12.5%) (30.6%) (33.3%) (12.5%) (11.1%) 3.21 TABATHA HOLLIDAY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) 98 24 32 28 6 8 (24.5%) (32.6%) (28.6%) (6.1%) (8.2%) 3.59 97 13 32 35 9 8 (13.4%) (33.0%) (36.1%) (9.3%) (8.2%) 3.34 99 23 31 24 11 10 (23.2%) (31.3%) (24.3%) (11.1%) (10.1%) 3.46 98 19 37 23 11 8 (19.4%) (37.7%) (23.5%) (11.2%) (8.2%) 3.49 80 17 24 22 8 9 (21.2%) (30.0%) (27.5%) (10.0%) (11.3%) 3.40 98 18 35 24 12 9 (18.4%) (35.7%) (24.5%) (12.2%) (9.2%) 3.42 PAGE 34

DISTRICT 18, CONTINUED BRIAN TOMLIN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) 133 81 37 13 1 1 (60.9%) (27.8%) (9.7%) (0.8%) (0.8%) 4.47 133 63 46 22 1 1 (47.3%) (34.6%) (16.5%) (0.8%) (0.8%) 4.27 133 78 31 19 3 2 (58.6%) (23.3%) (14.3%) (2.3%) (1.5%) 4.35 132 57 57 16 1 1 (43.2%) (43.2%) (12.0%) (0.8%) (0.8%) 4.27 107 37 54 13 2 1 (34.6%) (50.5%) (12.1%) (1.9%) (0.9%) 4.16 130 60 51 17 1 1 (46.1%) (39.2%) (13.1%) (0.8%) (0.8%) 4.29 MICHAEL TROUTMAN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 18 (2) 131 83 36 8 2 2 (63.4%) (27.5%) (6.1%) (1.5%) (1.5%) 4.50 129 60 47 18 2 2 (46.5%) (36.4%) (13.9%) (1.6%) (1.6%) 4.25 131 80 35 8 4 4 (61.0%) (26.7%) (6.1%) (3.1%) (3.1%) 4.40 130 69 45 12 2 2 (53.1%) (34.6%) (9.3%) (1.5%) (1.5%) 4.36 103 48 35 15 3 2 (46.6%) (34.0%) (14.6%) (2.9%) (1.9%) 4.20 128 68 40 15 2 3 (53.1%) (31.3%) (11.7%) (1.6%) (2.3%) 4.31 PAGE 35

DISTRICT 19B BOBBY ELLIOTT McCROSKEY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 19B (2) 74 43 14 3 6 8 (58.1%) (18.9%) (4.1%) (8.1%) (10.8%) 4.05 74 37 17 8 6 6 (50.0%) (23.0%) (10.8%) (8.1%) (8.1%) 3.99 74 42 12 5 5 10 (56.7%) (16.2%) (6.8%) (6.8%) (13.5%) 3.96 74 35 19 8 4 8 (47.3%) (25.7%) (10.8%) (5.4%) (10.8%) 3.93 62 26 17 6 4 9 (41.9%) (27.4%) (9.7%) (6.5%) (14.5%) 3.76 72 39 14 7 4 8 (54.2%) (19.4%) (9.7%) (5.6%) (11.1%) 4.00 JANE HUGHES REDDING JUDICIAL DISTRICT 19B (2) 53 39 7 2 3 2 (73.5%) (13.2%) (3.8%) (5.7%) (3.8%) 4.47 53 34 8 4 5 2 (64.2%) (15.1%) (7.5%) (9.4%) (3.8%) 4.26 53 35 10 3 3 2 (66.0%) (18.8%) (5.7%) (5.7%) (3.8%) 4.38 53 32 14 2 3 2 (60.3%) (26.4%) (3.8%) (5.7%) (3.8%) 4.34 50 31 11 2 4 2 (62.0%) (22.0%) (4.0%) (8.0%) (4.0%) 4.30 53 38 9 2 2 2 (71.7%) (16.9%) (3.8%) (3.8%) (3.8%) 4.49 PAGE 36

DISTRICT 20A JOHN R. NANCE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20A (2) 38 7 7 10 0 14 (18.4%) (18.4%) (26.3%) (0.0%) (36.9%) 2.82 38 1 9 8 5 15 (2.6%) (23.7%) (21.0%) (13.2%) (39.5%) 2.37 38 4 11 5 5 13 (10.5%) (28.9%) (13.2%) (13.2%) (34.2%) 2.68 39 4 8 6 4 17 (10.3%) (20.5%) (15.4%) (10.2%) (43.6%) 2.44 34 4 5 6 5 14 (11.8%) (14.7%) (17.6%) (14.7%) (41.2%) 2.41 40 5 10 4 6 15 (12.5%) (25.0%) (10.0%) (15.0%) (37.5%) 2.60 PAGE 37

DISTRICT 20C ALTHEA RICHARDSON-TUCKER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20C (2) 45 4 5 19 7 10 (8.9%) (11.1%) (42.2%) (15.6%) (22.2%) 2.69 51 3 1 5 16 26 (5.9%) (2.0%) (9.8%) (31.3%) (51.0%) 1.80 51 3 5 15 14 14 (5.9%) (9.7%) (29.4%) (27.5%) (27.5%) 2.39 51 3 1 16 8 23 (5.9%) (2.0%) (31.3%) (15.7%) (45.1%) 2.08 39 3 1 12 6 17 (7.7%) (2.6%) (30.7%) (15.4%) (43.6%) 2.15 52 4 1 8 17 22 (7.7%) (1.9%) (15.4%) (32.7%) (42.3%) 2.00 PAGE 38

DISTRICT 20D SHERRYL WEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 20D (2) 46 22 6 8 4 6 (47.9%) (13.0%) (17.4%) (8.7%) (13.0%) 3.74 51 12 11 10 8 10 (23.5%) (21.6%) (19.6%) (15.7%) (19.6%) 3.14 49 13 13 11 4 8 (26.5%) (26.5%) (22.5%) (8.2%) (16.3%) 3.39 52 11 13 10 7 11 (21.2%) (25.0%) (19.1%) (13.5%) (21.2%) 3.12 42 12 12 6 4 8 (28.6%) (28.6%) (14.3%) (9.5%) (19.0%) 3.38 52 13 14 7 9 9 (25.0%) (26.9%) (13.5%) (17.3%) (17.3%) 3.25 PAGE 39

DISTRICT 21 AMY ALLRED JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) 123 10 28 32 31 22 (8.1%) (22.8%) (26.0%) (25.2%) (17.9%) 2.78 125 4 12 36 34 39 (3.2%) (9.6%) (28.8%) (27.2%) (31.2%) 2.26 123 12 18 33 36 24 (9.8%) (14.6%) (26.8%) (29.3%) (19.5%) 2.66 122 6 20 43 33 20 (4.9%) (16.4%) (35.2%) (27.1%) (16.4%) 2.66 98 7 8 31 27 25 (7.1%) (8.2%) (31.6%) (27.6%) (25.5%) 2.44 123 6 13 35 40 29 (4.9%) (10.6%) (28.4%) (32.5%) (23.6%) 2.41 ROBERT WALL EWING JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) 112 50 35 23 0 4 (44.6%) (31.3%) (20.5%) (0.0%) (3.6%) 4.13 112 30 39 33 4 6 (26.7%) (34.8%) (29.5%) (3.6%) (5.4%) 3.74 114 49 36 22 4 3 (43.0%) (31.6%) (19.3%) (3.5%) (2.6%) 4.09 109 26 45 27 6 5 (23.8%) (41.3%) (24.8%) (5.5%) (4.6%) 3.74 89 24 28 26 3 8 (27.0%) (31.4%) (29.2%) (3.4%) (9.0%) 3.64 112 33 39 31 4 5 (29.4%) (34.8%) (27.7%) (3.6%) (4.5%) 3.81 JERRY D. JORDAN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) 125 38 46 26 10 5 (30.4%) (36.8%) (20.8%) (8.0%) (4.0%) 3.82 124 26 44 38 10 6 (21.0%) (35.5%) (30.6%) (8.1%) (4.8%) 3.60 125 32 46 25 16 6 (25.6%) (36.8%) (20.0%) (12.8%) (4.8%) 3.66 123 25 42 41 13 2 (20.3%) (34.2%) (33.3%) (10.6%) (1.6%) 3.61 93 15 30 35 8 5 (16.1%) (32.3%) (37.6%) (8.6%) (5.4%) 3.45 124 25 45 38 12 4 (20.2%) (36.3%) (30.6%) (9.7%) (3.2%) 3.60 PAGE 40

DISTRICT 21, CONTINUED RICHARD ANDREW KEEVER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) 90 40 26 13 4 7 (44.5%) (28.9%) (14.4%) (4.4%) (7.8%) 3.98 91 34 29 14 6 8 (37.3%) (31.9%) (15.4%) (6.6%) (8.8%) 3.82 93 42 25 15 4 7 (45.2%) (26.9%) (16.1%) (4.3%) (7.5%) 3.98 90 28 26 22 7 7 (31.1%) (28.9%) (24.4%) (7.8%) (7.8%) 3.68 74 26 21 17 2 8 (35.1%) (28.4%) (23.0%) (2.7%) (10.8%) 3.74 91 32 29 21 2 7 (35.1%) (31.9%) (23.1%) (2.2%) (7.7%) 3.85 RICHARD D. RAMSEY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) 161 92 46 20 2 1 (57.2%) (28.6%) (12.4%) (1.2%) (0.6%) 4.40 162 108 34 16 2 2 (66.7%) (21.0%) (9.9%) (1.2%) (1.2%) 4.51 162 95 43 20 3 1 (58.6%) (26.5%) (12.4%) (1.9%) (0.6%) 4.41 158 72 55 28 2 1 (45.6%) (34.8%) (17.7%) (1.3%) (0.6%) 4.23 123 52 40 25 5 1 (42.3%) (32.5%) (20.3%) (4.1%) (0.8%) 4.11 159 83 46 28 1 1 (52.2%) (29.0%) (17.6%) (0.6%) (0.6%) 4.31 DAVID SIPPRELL JUDICIAL DISTRICT 21 (2) 136 85 30 11 3 7 (62.5%) (22.1%) (8.1%) (2.2%) (5.1%) 4.35 136 81 36 10 3 6 (59.6%) (26.5%) (7.3%) (2.2%) (4.4%) 4.35 136 96 22 9 2 7 (70.6%) (16.2%) (6.6%) (1.5%) (5.1%) 4.46 136 65 50 9 5 7 (47.8%) (36.8%) (6.6%) (3.7%) (5.1%) 4.18 117 56 40 12 3 6 (47.9%) (34.2%) (10.3%) (2.5%) (5.1%) 4.17 136 77 39 11 3 6 (56.6%) (28.7%) (8.1%) (2.2%) (4.4%) 4.31 PAGE 41

DISTRICT 26 GARY HENDERSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 132 58 33 29 6 6 (44.0%) (25.0%) (22.0%) (4.5%) (4.5%) 3.99 132 25 43 43 12 9 (18.9%) (32.6%) (32.6%) (9.1%) (6.8%) 3.48 132 52 43 25 7 5 (39.4%) (32.6%) (18.9%) (5.3%) (3.8%) 3.98 130 33 47 29 15 6 (25.4%) (36.2%) (22.3%) (11.5%) (4.6%) 3.66 110 23 31 33 10 13 (20.9%) (28.2%) (30.0%) (9.1%) (11.8%) 3.37 130 34 37 39 14 6 (26.1%) (28.5%) (30.0%) (10.8%) (4.6%) 3.61 TRACY HANNA HEWETT JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 136 79 27 19 4 7 (58.1%) (19.9%) (14.0%) (2.9%) (5.1%) 4.23 138 53 44 29 5 7 (38.4%) (31.9%) (21.0%) (3.6%) (5.1%) 3.95 139 75 38 15 3 8 (54.0%) (27.3%) (10.8%) (2.2%) (5.7%) 4.22 139 69 31 24 5 10 (49.6%) (22.3%) (17.3%) (3.6%) (7.2%) 4.04 117 54 32 18 4 9 (46.2%) (27.3%) (15.4%) (3.4%) (7.7%) 4.01 138 59 42 23 6 8 (42.8%) (30.4%) (16.7%) (4.3%) (5.8%) 4.00 TOUSSAINT C. ROMAIN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 165 40 21 33 26 45 (24.2%) (12.7%) (20.0%) (15.8%) (27.3%) 2.91 162 34 30 43 27 28 (21.0%) (18.5%) (26.5%) (16.7%) (17.3%) 3.09 166 35 16 31 34 50 (21.1%) (9.6%) (18.7%) (20.5%) (30.1%) 2.71 158 37 29 40 18 34 (23.4%) (18.4%) (25.3%) (11.4%) (21.5%) 3.11 125 22 19 26 22 36 (17.6%) (15.2%) (20.8%) (17.6%) (28.8%) 2.75 162 29 26 34 32 41 (17.9%) (16.0%) (21.0%) (19.8%) (25.3%) 2.81 PAGE 42

DISTRICT 26, CONTINUED CAMERON DAVIS SCOTT JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 57 20 14 14 2 7 (35.0%) (24.6%) (24.6%) (3.5%) (12.3%) 3.67 58 11 19 17 4 7 (19.0%) (32.7%) (29.3%) (6.9%) (12.1%) 3.40 59 19 15 13 5 7 (32.2%) (25.4%) (22.0%) (8.5%) (11.9%) 3.58 59 15 18 16 3 7 (25.4%) (30.5%) (27.1%) (5.1%) (11.9%) 3.53 50 9 18 11 4 8 (18.0%) (36.0%) (22.0%) (8.0%) (16.0%) 3.32 57 14 18 15 3 7 (24.6%) (31.6%) (26.3%) (5.2%) (12.3%) 3.51 GRANT SMITHSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 203 29 41 57 33 43 (14.3%) (20.2%) (28.1%) (16.2%) (21.2%) 2.90 207 52 58 42 20 35 (25.1%) (28.0%) (20.3%) (9.7%) (16.9%) 3.35 206 22 18 48 46 72 (10.7%) (8.7%) (23.3%) (22.3%) (35.0%) 2.38 203 19 31 51 47 55 (9.4%) (15.3%) (25.1%) (23.1%) (27.1%) 2.57 153 11 21 36 35 50 (7.2%) (13.7%) (23.5%) (22.9%) (32.7%) 2.40 198 17 25 51 55 50 (8.6%) (12.6%) (25.8%) (27.8%) (25.2%) 2.52 DAVID STRICKLAND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 127 54 36 21 9 7 (42.5%) (28.4%) (16.5%) (7.1%) (5.5%) 3.95 128 46 37 28 9 8 (35.9%) (28.9%) (21.9%) (7.0%) (6.3%) 3.81 128 64 33 19 7 5 (50.0%) (25.8%) (14.8%) (5.5%) (3.9%) 4.13 126 48 43 22 7 6 (38.1%) (34.1%) (17.5%) (5.5%) (4.8%) 3.95 104 37 30 25 6 6 (35.6%) (28.8%) (24.0%) (5.8%) (5.8%) 3.83 126 45 41 25 10 5 (35.7%) (32.5%) (19.9%) (7.9%) (4.0%) 3.88 PAGE 43

DISTRICT 26, CONTINUED BEN S. THALHEIMER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 281 99 77 57 24 24 (35.3%) (27.4%) (20.3%) (8.5%) (8.5%) 3.72 280 69 75 69 37 30 (24.6%) (26.8%) (24.6%) (13.3%) (10.7%) 3.41 280 94 70 69 23 24 (33.6%) (25.0%) (24.6%) (8.2%) (8.6%) 3.67 273 67 83 62 37 24 (24.5%) (30.4%) (22.7%) (13.6%) (8.8%) 3.48 219 53 66 46 30 24 (24.2%) (30.1%) (21.0%) (13.7%) (11.0%) 3.43 273 72 74 63 38 26 (26.4%) (27.1%) (23.1%) (13.9%) (9.5%) 3.47 JEFFREY COLIN THOMPSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 103 29 24 26 10 14 (28.2%) (23.3%) (25.2%) (9.7%) (13.6%) 3.43 105 26 24 27 13 15 (24.8%) (22.8%) (25.7%) (12.4%) (14.3%) 3.31 105 27 23 35 8 12 (25.7%) (21.9%) (33.4%) (7.6%) (11.4%) 3.43 104 22 22 40 7 13 (21.2%) (21.2%) (38.4%) (6.7%) (12.5%) 3.32 86 16 22 31 5 12 (18.6%) (25.6%) (36.0%) (5.8%) (14.0%) 3.29 107 20 28 32 15 12 (18.7%) (26.2%) (29.9%) (14.0%) (11.2%) 3.27 ALYSON G. TRAW JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 98 33 25 17 13 10 (33.7%) (25.5%) (17.3%) (13.3%) (10.2%) 3.59 101 35 28 17 12 9 (34.7%) (27.7%) (16.8%) (11.9%) (8.9%) 3.67 100 44 19 13 13 11 (44.0%) (19.0%) (13.0%) (13.0%) (11.0%) 3.72 97 37 26 17 7 10 (38.2%) (26.8%) (17.5%) (7.2%) (10.3%) 3.75 88 37 20 17 4 10 (42.1%) (22.7%) (19.3%) (4.5%) (11.4%) 3.80 99 31 26 21 11 10 (31.3%) (26.3%) (21.2%) (11.1%) (10.1%) 3.58 PAGE 44

DISTRICT 26, CONTINUED KARY CHURCH WATSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 133 67 37 14 5 10 (50.4%) (27.8%) (10.5%) (3.8%) (7.5%) 4.10 133 91 26 8 3 5 (68.4%) (19.5%) (6.0%) (2.3%) (3.8%) 4.47 133 69 31 13 8 12 (51.9%) (23.3%) (9.8%) (6.0%) (9.0%) 4.03 133 69 34 24 1 5 (51.9%) (25.6%) (18.0%) (0.7%) (3.8%) 4.21 110 62 24 16 4 4 (56.4%) (21.8%) (14.6%) (3.6%) (3.6%) 4.24 135 75 30 16 7 7 (55.6%) (22.2%) (11.8%) (5.2%) (5.2%) 4.18 ROY H. WIGGINS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 209 137 47 19 5 1 (65.5%) (22.5%) (9.1%) (2.4%) (0.5%) 4.50 206 116 61 23 6 0 (56.3%) (29.6%) (11.2%) (2.9%) (0.0%) 4.39 207 144 42 16 4 1 (69.6%) (20.3%) (7.7%) (1.9%) (0.5%) 4.57 204 114 66 20 4 0 (55.9%) (32.3%) (9.8%) (2.0%) (0.0%) 4.42 173 86 61 22 3 1 (49.7%) (35.3%) (12.7%) (1.7%) (0.6%) 4.32 205 122 62 17 4 0 (59.5%) (30.2%) (8.3%) (2.0%) (0.0%) 4.47 RODERICK WRIGHT JUDICIAL DISTRICT 26 (2) 139 19 33 40 28 19 (13.7%) (23.7%) (28.8%) (20.1%) (13.7%) 3.04 142 21 28 37 36 20 (14.8%) (19.7%) (26.1%) (25.3%) (14.1%) 2.96 143 23 30 41 25 24 (16.1%) (21.0%) (28.6%) (17.5%) (16.8%) 3.02 143 18 32 44 27 22 (12.6%) (22.4%) (30.7%) (18.9%) (15.4%) 2.98 108 11 21 23 34 19 (10.2%) (19.4%) (21.3%) (31.5%) (17.6%) 2.73 141 14 35 41 31 20 (9.9%) (24.8%) (29.1%) (22.0%) (14.2%) 2.94 PAGE 45

DISTRICT 27A PENNIE M. THROWER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 27A (2) 58 35 9 7 6 1 (60.4%) (15.5%) (12.1%) (10.3%) (1.7%) 4.22 58 27 12 11 6 2 (46.6%) (20.7%) (19.0%) (10.3%) (3.4%) 3.97 58 36 8 6 8 0 (62.1%) (13.8%) (10.3%) (13.8%) (0.0%) 4.24 57 32 9 10 3 3 (56.1%) (15.8%) (17.5%) (5.3%) (5.3%) 4.12 47 26 10 7 2 2 (55.3%) (21.2%) (14.9%) (4.3%) (4.3%) 4.19 59 32 9 9 7 2 (54.2%) (15.3%) (15.3%) (11.8%) (3.4%) 4.05 PAGE 46

DISTRICT 27B GWYNN G. RADEKER JUDICIAL DISTRICT 27B (2) 94 70 15 3 2 4 (74.5%) (16.0%) (3.2%) (2.1%) (4.2%) 4.54 93 63 20 4 1 5 (67.7%) (21.5%) (4.3%) (1.1%) (5.4%) 4.45 91 70 11 3 3 4 (76.9%) (12.1%) (3.3%) (3.3%) (4.4%) 4.54 90 61 17 6 1 5 (67.8%) (18.9%) (6.7%) (1.1%) (5.5%) 4.42 80 43 27 4 2 4 (53.7%) (33.8%) (5.0%) (2.5%) (5.0%) 4.29 93 66 15 4 4 4 (71.0%) (16.1%) (4.3%) (4.3%) (4.3%) 4.45 PAGE 47