General Election 2020 Analyses – Oklahoma Emphasis

Sample ballot link in Oklahoma

If you want to pull your own sample ballot go to http://ok.gov/elections and type in your name and birthdate as prompted.

Friends have been asking me for an election analysis this cycle and what to my wondering eyes did appear but an email from Gary Kilpatrick covering it all in detail. So reviewing it and agreeing on nearly everything, I called and asked his permission to publish for your review. He graciously gave me permission and updated his email to say he was now voting no on the judicial retentions he had previously said ‘your pick’ because of additional information he has found since the email.

That email from Gary is below with my comments in [brackets]:

=====

Many have asked me for my analysis of the upcoming ballot.  So here goes.
For candidates for office I look at three things, in order: (1) what have they done?; (2) what do they propose to do, often reflected in the party platforms?; and (3) what is their character and their worldview?  

The result is for me quite clear [me too!/sc]:


President/Vice President – Donald Trump and Mike Pence

Corporation Commissioner – Todd Hiett

Senator – Jim Inhoff

Representative – Kevin Hern

State Representative – Wendi Stearman


Judicial Retention

JUSTICES OF THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT

District 1 – Matthew John Kane, IV – VOTE YES 

District 1 is our district, and Judge Kane served as a district judge for the 10th Judicial District in Osage County since 2005.  He was appointed to the Supreme Court by Governor Stitt in September 2019. 

District 6 – Tom Colbert – VOTE NO 

[updated from email to recommend a NO Vote by Gary and by me/sc]

Judge Colbert was appointed to the court in 2004 by Gov. Brad Henry. He is the first black justice to sit on the supreme court. Between 1999 and 2004 he was a judge for the Oklahoma Court of Appeals and was appointed by Governor Keating.  

District 9 – Richard B. Darby – VOTE NO

[updated from email to recommend a NO Vote by Gary and by me/sc]

Judge Darby was appointed to the court in 2018 by Gov. Mary Fallin. He previously served as a district court judge in the 3rd Judicial District for 24 years. 

* I often hear that Oklahoma has a very liberal Supreme Court, and that may well be true since many, if not most, of the justices were appointed by liberal Democrat governors. I often hear they are pro-abortion.  So I read the 2015 case regarding Senate Bill 642 – a law that proponents argue “increased protections of women’s reproductive health.” It was a pro-life/anti-abortion bill that addressed consents for minors seeking abortions, provided revised protocols for rape investigations, added requirements for inspections of abortion facilities, and introduced new penalties for violation of existing abortion statutes.  The sticking point in SB 642 is that in our Oklahoma Constitution we have a provision that requires that “every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject.” The Supreme Court has argued that the purpose of the “single subject rule” is to prevent the Legislature from making a bill “veto proof” by appending unpopular legislation within popular bills. Unfortunately, when I read SB 642 I fail to see that simply calling the four provisions of the bill related since they address “women’s reproductive health” as not a very robust argument.  If I were a judge I might have agreed with the current justices that SB 642 did not pass the “single subject” smell test. I’m not a lawyer but if I were, my judicial philosophy would be that my job is to interpret the law as written and not insert my worldview into how I view the law.  I believe that is the legal philosophy of Judge Barrett, who is up for confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

 District 2 – Robert L. Hudson – VOTE YES

Hudson was appointed by Gov. Mary Fallin in 2015. Before that he served as a special district judge for Logan County.  He was the chief law enforcement officer for Payne and Logan counties previously.  Judge Hudson wrote the opinion reversing the Court’s finding of 31 years ago (see comments on Judge Lumpkin). I like it when people are willing to admit they are wrong (of course he was not on the Court 31 years ago). 

 District 3 – Gary L. Lumpkin – VOTE YES

Judge Lumpkin has served on the Court of Criminal Appeals since 1989, when he was appointed by Gov. Henry Bellmon. He previously served as an Oklahoma district court judge. 

 In 1989, when he was first appointed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge Lumpkin dissented on a finding of the Court. Just a couple of weeks ago the Court agreed with Judge Lumpkin’s dissent of 31 years ago and reversed itself. I read the opinion and quite frankly I don’t understand how the court got it wrong in 1989.  I like it when the truth finally wins out! 

JUDGES OF THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

District 1 – Office 2 – Jane P. Wiseman – VOTE NO!!

Judge Wiseman was appointed Gov. Brad Henry in 2005. Before that she was a special judge of Tulsa County and a district judge in District 14. She is definitely very liberal. 

District 2 – Office 1 – Deborah B. Barnes – VOTE NO!!

Barnes was appointed by Gov. Henry in 2008.  Prior to her appointment she was the vice president and associate general counsel for Oneok, Inc. She is definitely very liberal. 

District 2 – Office 2 – Keith Rapp – VOTE NO

Gov. George Nigh appointed Judge Rapp to the court in 1984.  Before that he was a judge on the 14th District Court. 

—- JUST A REMINDER.  YOUR VOTE ON THE JUSTICES IS NOT WORTH A PLUG NICKEL.  THEY WILL ALL BE RETAINED.  THE ONLY WAY YOUR VOTE WOULD COUNT WOULD BE IF THERE WERE A WELL-FUNDED RECALL INITIATIVE.  FOR THAT REASON, SOME PEOPLE VOTE NO ON EVERY JUDGE.  I DON’T SUBSCRIBE TO THAT PHILOSOPHY (ALTHOUGH I HAVE VOTED THAT WAY).  I WANT JUDGES WITH A CONSERVATIVE LEGAL PHILOSOPHY, AND WE HAVE A FEW OF THEM ON OUR COURTS NOW. I TRY TO GUESS WHO IS CONSERVATIVE AND WHO IS LIBERAL, AND VOTE NO ON THOSE I THINK LEAN TO THE LIBERAL VIEWPOINT, EITHER IN THEIR LEGAL PHILOSOPHY OR THEIR WORLDVIEW ——-

State Questions:


STATE QUESTION 805 – Criminal History in Sentencing – VOTE NO

 This is an initiative petition which amends the Oklahoma Constitution. Ballotpedia states: 

“yes” vote supports:prohibiting using a person’s past non-violent felony convictions to impose a greater (enhanced) sentence when sentencing a person convicted of a non-violent felony; andproviding for sentence modifications for eligible individuals serving or set to serve sentences that were enhanced based on past felony convictions.
“no” vote opposes the amendment, thereby maintaining that a person convicted of a non-violent felony can receive greater (enhanced) sentences based on past felony convictions. 

Those supporting SQ 805 include the ACLU of Oklahoma and Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform. They argue that our high incarceration rate is fueled in large part by harsh, extreme sentences that punish Oklahomans for previous mistakes. Another supporter of SQ 805 is the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. They have posted on their website several informative articles about this state question which I suggest you peruse.

https://www.ocpathink.org/search?q=state+question+805

Opponents of SQ 805 include Governor Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma district attorneys, Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, and Help in Crisis. Governor Stitt argued, “Trying to put this into our state’s constitution, it peels back enhancements for DUIs, human trafficking, domestic violence — some of the things I don’t think we need to put into our constitution.” Former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating stated: “This constitutional amendment is the ultimate gift to the career criminal and the insect crime wave of the lifetime repeat offender. … A person’s selfish and destructive long life of crime will be handled as one first offense after another. The fifteenth offense is the first offense as far as punishment goes.” Keating recently resigned from the board of OCPA, in part over his difference of opinion regarding SQ 805.It is important to note that the measure would not apply to those who have ever been convicted of a violent felony. The measure defines violent felony as any felony offense listed in Oklahoma Statutes Title 57 Section 571, which is available here. Such offenses include assault, battery, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, human trafficking, burglary, robbery, child abuse, rape, rioting, arson, terrorism, and more.

Where I stand.

If you have ever read any of my musings over past state questions then you know that I do not like amending our Constitution to insert details that should be handled by our legislature.  This is another case in point. Simply for this one reason, I should be voting No on SQ 805.

However, now that I have studied the issue, if I were a legislator, I would have been pushing reform in exactly this area.  It would have been high on my list of priorities for three reasons – (1) as a society we must find the right balance between punishment and prevention/restoration, both in terms of the sentencing discretion we give our district attorneys and the courts, but also the amount of money we allocate to prevention of crime and restoration from criminal conviction; (2) as the OCPA study suggests this proposal would save money in the penal system and hopefully if we get #1 right it will save more money in less repeat occurrences; and (3) it is moral to forgive past offenses duly paid for rather than using past offenses as an excuse to tack on more time for current crimes. It is important to remember that district attorneys/judges already have discretion to “enhance” a sentence via their authority to use the range of sentences prescribed by law for each crime rather than just imposing the maximum sentence from the get-go. Thus, I am in favor of the purpose of SQ 805, and I can make a good argument to vote Yes on SQ 805

Which way will I vote? Bottom line, this is a complex issue for which I doubt there is one right answer.  I have to say right up front – I do not agree with the arguments made by the district attorney association. We elect legislators to resolve issues like this – to study an issue, to debate it and then to act. It is wrong that they have not already acted in this area of the law. But two wrongs do not make a right, and I definitely do not believe that details like SQ 805 should be enshrined in our state Constitution.  Therefore, I will vote NO on SQ 805, and I will encourage my legislators to improve our incarceration sentencing guidelines. 

* There are a lot more facts about this issue than I have included in the above discussion. (You can find some of those facts in the OCPA blogs). The related issues of prevention and restoration are deeply complex.  They involve, for instance, related issues like education. What are we teaching in school about law and order, about crime, about moral law, about civics, about American History, etc. We cannot expect to have a moral society if we teach immoral ideas in our schools. There is no quick fix for this issue – no state question that will resolve the incarceration problems we face as a society.  And I do not believe the answer is just to throw up our arms and say “I give up.” We must continue to elect moral, hardworking, intelligent legislators to work through these issues and move us forward as a society, and that means moving us closer to God. And we must support them, encourage them, provide them with information and ideas, and confront them when we honestly disagree. Romans 13 requires believers to submit to the civil magistrate; but we must remember that in America “We the people” are, in essence, the civil magistrate.  We cannot simply argue Romans 13 requires us to do nothing but submit to unjust laws.  We must work for justice as defined by God, not by man.

STATE QUESTION 814 – Fund Medicaid Program with Tobacco Settlement Endowment – VOTE YES

This change to the Oklahoma Constitution came from the Legislature. Ballotpedia states:

“yes” vote supports decreasing the percentage of money (from 75% to 25%) that is deposited to the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) Fund from funds the state receives from tobacco settlements and directing the state legislature to appropriate funds to secure federal matching funds for the state’s Medicaid program.
“no” vote opposes decreasing appropriations made to the state’s Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) Fund, thereby maintaining that 75% of the money the state receives from tobacco settlements will be deposited into the TSET Fund.

As of 2020, the average annual payment received by Oklahoma under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was around $75 million, of which, about $56.25 million was deposited into the TSET fund. Under State Question 814, the amount deposited into the TSET fund would be $18.75 million. The remaining $56.25 million would be deposited into the Tobacco Settlement Fund. Of that amount, 8.33% ($4.68 million) would be directed to the Attorney General’s office and the remaining 91.67% ($51.57 million) would be used to secure federal matching funds for the Medicaid program.

TSET is a wealthy endowment (~ $1.3 billion) which has been continually growing.  It will not be hurt by approval of SQ 814.

I will be voting YES for SQ 814.

=====

Above is the email received from Gary Kilpatrick on 9/29/20. I am in general agreement with this analysis and my special thanks to Gary for doing the research on this one!

Summary:

President/Vice President – Donald Trump and Mike Pence

Corporation Commissioner – Todd Hiett

Senator – Jim Inhoff

Representative – Kevin Hern

State Representative – Wendi Stearman

Oklahoma Supreme Court:

District 1 – Matthew John Kane, IV – VOTE YES 

District 6 – Tom Colbert – VOTE NO 

District 9 – Richard B. Darby – VOTE NO

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals:

District 2 – Robert L. Hudson – VOTE YES

District 3 – Gary L. Lumpkin – VOTE YES

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals:

District 1 – Office 2 – Jane P. Wiseman – VOTE NO!!

District 2 – Office 1 – Deborah B. Barnes – VOTE NO!!

District 2 – Office 2 – Keith Rapp – VOTE NO

State Questions:

STATE QUESTION 805 – Criminal History in Sentencing – VOTE NO

STATE QUESTION 814 – Fund Medicaid Program with Tobacco Settlement Endowment – VOTE YES

Sandra Crosnoe for Finding Gems & Sharing Them

Some additional links that may be of interest:

https://www.muskogeepolitico.com/2014/10/tulsa-beacon-dont-retain-judge-jane.html – some thoughts on Wiseman from a previous election cycle

https://www.ocpathink.org/search?q=state+question+805 OCPA on SQ805

https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_State_Question_805,Criminal_History_in_Sentencing_and_Sentence_Modification_Initiative(2020) quote on SQ805

https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_State_Question_814,Decrease_Tobacco_Settlement_Endowment_Trust_Fund_Deposits_and_Fund_Medicaid_Program_Amendment(2020) quote on SQ814

https://r3publican.wordpress.com/2020/09/23/what-has-he-done/ a list of Trump accomplishments

Kevin Buchanan (District Attorney in Washington County) KWON interview on SQ805

Sample Ballot for Washington County OK – General Election 2018 – Vote Nov 6th

Early voting dates here.

If you need a sample ballot for Washington County, here is a copy (in pdf downloadable format):

SampleBallot – GENERAL ELECTION November 06 2018 for WASHINGTON COUNTY – OK

If you are in another area here is an online voter tool to see yours (you will have to provide your name and birthdate).

As you can see the graphics are too small to see well here so you will need to download the pdf file to study closely.  In general, I plan to vote Republican, but cannot in good conscience vote for Leslie Osborne, Joy Hoffmeister, or Glen Mulready.  I don’t support people who vote to raise taxes and fail to work to live within our/their means.  I will leave these places blank and hope the Republicans nominate better people in the future.  I don’t see the Democrats doing any better (sadly) and can find no information on the Independents on the ballot.

Judicial Retention

I plan at this point to vote No on all the judicial retentions for their failure to stand for life and their support of fees / taxes on the people.  See this article on topic.

State Questions

I will also be voting to turn down all the state questions on this ballot.  I considered writing a detail explanation on all of them.  However, you need to study them on your own and make your own decisions.  Here is a brief summary of why I am a NO on each one:

SQ793 (eye care in retail mercantile establishment) seems to rather obscurely include more licensing/requirements and was the only one I briefly considered voting for since in one respect it seems to “open up” new markets, but at the same time it adds constraints on the market that I would rather not see. [More info on this one here via Batesline taking no side on the question]

SQ794 (also known as Marsy’s law) this question on the surface might sound good to you however, it was proposed by a fellow in California (enough said?) and looks to me like it will add judicial overhead to do something already being done well.  The most egregious line in the whole thing says “Victims would no longer have a constitutional right to know the defendant’s location…” [More info on this one here via Batesline taking a pro side on the question]

SQ798 (Governor and Lt Gov combined ballot) consolidation of power is NEVER a good idea.

SQ800 (creating a new trust fund) NOT ANOTHER ONE

SQ801 (expanding permissible use of ad valorem tax revenue) since they are already misspending what they have, I certainly wouldn’t give them more ways to misspend what they have so we the taxpayers can continue to bail them out.

Bartlesville City Council

I don’t know the candidates in Ward 2.

If I lived in Ward 4, I’d be pleased to vote for Joel Rabin.  He is consistently bringing to light issues of importance to the whole community and standing up for the rights of the people in Ward 4 specifically and Bartlesville in general.  We need more men and women of courage like Joel on our city council.  He has the ability, the insight, and the temperament to stand against all odds as is needed in this city at this time.

Posted with prayers for all the candidates and all the voters.  

May we see things the way He sees things and love our neighbors even as we vote!

Finding Gems & Sharing Them – Sample Ballot for Washington County OK – General Election 2018

To Retain or Not to Retain…

For several days now I have been wanting to do a post on judicial retention in Oklahoma. Sadly, I was never able to find the information that I wanted to do a post I would have been satisfied with. It is election eve and many of you have already voted in early voting. I apologize for that, but this is all that I have found. My summary version on how I plan to vote is that at the moment of writing this Hudson is the only one I plan to vote to retain. My general philosophy is “When in doubt, vote them out.” Hudson was the only one I could find any philosophical reasons to support him.  OCPAC article said,

“He was recently appointed by Gov. Fallin to the Criminal Court of Appeals. Hudson appears to be a serious Christian, and everyone consulted gave him very high marks.”

You can often tell a little about the judicial slots by who appointed them and that tells you a little about the current problems we face (that information on appointments is documented in the Sooner Politics article referenced below.

The best article I found was published by OCPAC. The section on judges is reprinted here:bad-judges

OCPAC recommendations on judicial retention

SECTION 3 – JUDGING JUSTICES & JUDGES
Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices: Vote NO on Justices James Winchester and Donald Combs. They are not just. Overall, our State Supreme Court is progressive and activist. It sometimes disregards our state constitution, and its opinions are inconsistent. These two justices voted incorrectly on five out of six key votes, yielding a score of only 16.5%.

In the last few years, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has banned the Ten Commandments (Prescott v. Okla. Capitol Preservation Committee, 2015 OK 54), protected child rapists (Burns v. Cline, 2016 OK 99), protected abortionists (Burns v. Cline, 2014 OK 90), and protected sex offenders (Hendricks v. Jones ex rel. State ex rel. Okla. Dept. of Corr., 2013 OK 71). Download this Judging Justices Flyer and give a copy to everybody at church.
Charlie Meadows provides the following recommendations on appellate judges based on his off the record discussions with attorneys, prosecutors, and lower court judges.

Judge Clancy Smith (State Court of Criminal Appeals): Vote NO – Sources tell us that this Brad Henry appointee is very smart, but ideologically progressive to her core and way too nit-picky with jury decisions.

Judge Robert Hudson (State Court of Criminal Appeals): Vote YES – Hudson is fairly new on the court. He was appointed Payne county District Attorney by Frank Keating, replacing a corrupt DA. Eventually he became chief of staff for Scott Pruitt. He was recently appointed by Gov. Fallin to the Criminal Court of Appeals. Hudson appears to be a serious Christian, and everyone consulted gave him very high marks.

Judge Thomas Thornbrugh (State Court of Civil Appeals): YOUR CHOICE – The Court of Civil Appeals is the most difficult to evaluate because they do not settle many high profile cases. Thornbrugh was the only judge on the court with whom some sources were not fully satisfied.

Judge John Fischer (State Court of Civil Appeals): Vote YES.

Judge Larry Joplin (State Court of Civil Appeals): Vote YES.

Charlie Meadows did a flyer on a couple of the slots which has been circulated statewide:vote-no-on-winchester-and-combs2
combs

winchesterwinchester

Graphic memes from a friend on facebook.

In another article by Sooner Politics, David Van Risseghem reported this (summarized below / complete article here:

Seven judges are seeking another term on our statewide oversight courts. A couple of them are worth keeping. Far more are needing to go. Perhaps the finest judge is retiring.
Steven Taylor has shown a strong and independent library of case opinions. He has sometimes dissented alone. Even then he has boldly declared his clear intellect and respect for the state’s constitutional language.
The editorial review being published here, is a work subject to further consideration. Comments are especially welcome. But we have gathered enough data to begin the discussion and tip our hand as to which judges we do and do not support for a whole new term.

Oklahoma Supreme Court
As we mentioned above, Steven Taylor is retiring and we call upon the appointed committees to find a set of candidates worthy to sit in his seat.
We did not use the Ten Commandments ruling in this review. It is our opinion that the constitution is clearly flawed in the so-called “Blaine Amendment” section. The justices were duty-bound to maintain a strict-constructionist ruling on this case. The correct remedy is to change the constitution (which we are doing with state question 790). A failure to pass this reform could result in the Oklahoma National Guard to go without chaplain care during deployment in war.

For Retention: None

Against Retention: Winchester & Combs
James Winchester has consistently disappointing the legislature and been a foot dragging the process of reforming Oklahoma law. His continued selective use of the “One subject” argument is unacceptable. Winchester also ignored the plain language of the constitution 2 years ago when he voted to allow a legislator to run for District Attorney, even though the language of the constitution barred him from being elected until after his legislative term had expired. (Justice Taylor scolded the majority for this ruling)
Douglas Combs is a clear case of ‘lame duck’ abuse of power. Three days after Republican, Mary Fallin defeated Jeri Askin to succeed Brad Henry as Oklahoma Governor; Henry decided his fellow Shawnee Democrat should get this last-minute appointment. Henry has stacked the high court more successfully than any other governor since 1908. Five of the 9 justices are Brad Henry’s appointees. If Combs wants to continues serving he should be removed by the voters and then seek a new appointment untainted by lame duck shenanigans.

Court of Criminal Appeals
For Retention: Hudson

Against Retention: Smith

Court of Civil Appeals
This court reviews all civil suits and has the power to adjust or reverse the decisions of lower courts. The Oklahoma Chamber and other large corporate interests have greatly stepped up their interest in this court. One pro-business group of the Oklahoma Chamber, Oklahoma Civil Justice Council; hasreviewed the decisions of the judges and scored their “pro business” dispositions. While there have been abuses of the courts for ridiculous judgments based upon frivolous “damages”, There have also been scores of folks who are further damaged by a legal system stacked against the people of limited means or other severe impediments.

For Retention: Thomas Thornbrugh
Thornbrugh scored a moderate rating with a slight edge away from the pro-business group’s preference. He is the brother of a former Tulsa legislator and from a historically active Republican family. His previous district court legacy is also a stellar one.

Against Retention: Larry Joplin
Joplin has been rated a vastly pro big business. His extreme legacy is worth a recall. His appointment was also a lame duck abuse by David Walters. Joplin had been a political appointee in the Walters administration and the court appointment was just another of Walters legacy of burdening the Keating administration with an inability to exercise the full duties of the governor’s office.

Not decided: John Fischer

Please vote prayerfully!

Sandra Crosnoe

 

Finding Gems & Sharing Them – To Retain or Not to Retain…

My Sample Ballot in Washington County for the General Election on November 8 2016

vote-2016

washington-county-sample-ballot-p1washington-county-sample-ballot-p2

washington-county-general-election-ballot-2016 (pdf version of ballot – downloadable)

This is my sample ballot for general election ballot for Washington County.

Election to be held November 8, 2016.

Here is an online tool to get your personal sample ballot which may differ depending on where you live.  It is also always available as a top tab item on OKGrassroots.com

Additional information on the state questions is coming soon!

Judicial Retention Decisions to make (to retain or not):
James R. Winchester – Oklahoma Supreme Court District 5,
Douglas L. Combs – Oklahoma Supreme Court District 8,
Clancy Smith – Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals District 1,
Robert L. Hudson – Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals District 2,
Thomas Thornbrugh – Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals District 3 – Office 1,
John F. Fischer – Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals District 3 – Office 2
Larry Joplin – Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals District  – Office 2
.

Congratulations Oklahoma Winners — Actions will Validate Campaign Promises — Oklahoma General Election Results 2012

Oklahoma Election Results 2012 Summary version:

Romney wins Oklahoma but Obama is reelected President of the United States in a very close election.

Bridenstine wins Oklahoma CD01 Congressional Seat replacing Sullivan (who he beat in the primary election).

Oklahoma passes all six state questions and retains all judges listed on the ballot.

Here are the more detailed Oklahoma election results:

http://www.ok.gov/elections/support/ok_results_seb.html (for latest results)

Results as of: 11/7/2012 5:42:44 AM
Line
PRESIDENT
FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
BARACK OBAMA (DEM) 19,328 43,121 380,338 442,787 33.2%
MITT ROMNEY (REP) 44,617 68,596 776,497 889,710 66.8%
Total 63,945 111,717 1,156,835 1,332,497
Line
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE
FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 01
327 of 327 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JOHN OLSON (DEM) 4,118 6,287 80,905 91,310 32.0%
JIM BRIDENSTINE (REP) 8,980 7,541 164,365 180,886 63.5%
CRAIG ALLEN (IND) 510 451 11,825 12,786 4.5%
Total 13,608 14,279 257,095 284,982
FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 02
530 of 530 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
ROB WALLACE (DEM) 2,995 10,983 81,953 95,931 38.3%
MARKWAYNE MULLIN (REP) 5,672 16,836 121,009 143,517 57.3%
MICHAEL G. FULKS (IND) 400 1,045 9,364 10,809 4.3%
Total 9,067 28,864 212,326 250,257
FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 03
481 of 481 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
TIMOTHY RAY MURRAY (DEM) 2,308 6,251 44,736 53,295 20.0%
FRANK D. LUCAS (REP) 8,921 21,954 170,088 200,963 75.3%
WILLIAM M. SANDERS (IND) 524 1,135 11,087 12,746 4.8%
Total 11,753 29,340 225,911 267,004
FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 04
350 of 350 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
DONNA MARIE BEBO (DEM) 3,370 7,814 60,571 71,755 27.6%
TOM COLE (REP) 8,728 13,999 153,834 176,561 67.9%
RJ HARRIS (IND) 531 732 10,462 11,725 4.5%
Total 12,629 22,545 224,867 260,041
FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 05
273 of 273 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
TOM GUILD (DEM) 4,598 9,577 83,184 97,359 37.3%
JAMES LANKFORD (REP) 10,737 6,117 136,567 153,421 58.7%
PAT MARTIN (IND) 195 213 4,972 5,380 2.1%
ROBERT T. MURPHY (IND) 223 182 4,757 5,162 2.0%
Total 15,753 16,089 229,480 261,322
Line
STATE SENATOR
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 3
47 of 47 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JIM BYNUM (DEM) 593 932 9,737 11,262 45.7%
WAYNE SHAW (REP) 697 1,131 11,555 13,383 54.3%
Total 1,290 2,063 21,292 24,645
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 5
85 of 85 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JERRY ELLIS (DEM) 389 1,418 14,111 15,918 66.5%
HOWARD HOUCHEN (REP) 330 953 6,724 8,007 33.5%
Total 719 2,371 20,835 23,925
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 7
76 of 76 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
J. PAUL LANE (DEM) 442 1,208 10,490 12,140 46.2%
LARRY BOGGS (REP) 559 1,353 12,248 14,160 53.8%
Total 1,001 2,561 22,738 26,300
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 9
32 of 32 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
EARL GARRISON (DEM) 486 3,172 13,518 17,176 69.7%
BARNEY S TAYLOR (REP) 301 1,313 5,855 7,469 30.3%
Total 787 4,485 19,373 24,645
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 11
36 of 36 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JABAR SHUMATE (DEM) 740 1,881 12,573 15,194 76.0%
DAVE BELL (REP) 183 168 3,056 3,407 17.0%
CURTIS J. MULLINS (IND) 39 78 1,284 1,401 7.0%
Total 962 2,127 16,913 20,002
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 13
51 of 51 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
SUSAN PADDACK (DEM) 600 2,419 16,789 19,808 75.9%
FRED E SMITH (REP) 288 755 5,263 6,306 24.1%
Total 888 3,174 22,052 26,114
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 15
31 of 31 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
CLAUDIA GRIFFITH (DEM) 623 1,149 9,950 11,722 38.4%
ROB STANDRIDGE (REP) 1,128 1,135 16,503 18,766 61.6%
Total 1,751 2,284 26,453 30,488
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 27
77 of 77 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
A. BRYCE MARLATT (REP) 1,126 3,254 18,808 23,188 84.5%
TOMMY W. NICHOLSON (IND) 201 589 3,470 4,260 15.5%
Total 1,327 3,843 22,278 27,448
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 31
53 of 53 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
TONY TERRILL (DEM) 274 1,073 6,156 7,503 32.2%
DON BARRINGTON (REP) 607 1,842 13,348 15,797 67.8%
Total 881 2,915 19,504 23,300
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 39
39 of 39 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JULIE HALL (DEM) 787 628 12,960 14,375 43.1%
BRIAN A. CRAIN (REP) 1,166 599 17,228 18,993 56.9%
Total 1,953 1,227 30,188 33,368
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 41
29 of 29 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
CLARK JOLLEY (REP) 2,295 1,026 24,059 27,380 79.4%
RICHARD PRAWDZIENSKI (IND) 437 404 6,262 7,103 20.6%
Total 2,732 1,430 30,321 34,483
FOR STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 43
54 of 54 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
MIKE FULLERTON (DEM) 311 682 7,721 8,714 29.3%
COREY BROOKS (REP) 942 1,683 18,384 21,009 70.7%
Total 1,253 2,365 26,105 29,723
Line
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 2
21 of 21 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
RICK AGENT (DEM) 178 650 4,608 5,436 46.3%
JOHN R. BENNETT (REP) 217 790 5,307 6,314 53.7%
Total 395 1,440 9,915 11,750
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 3
21 of 21 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JAMES H LOCKHART (DEM) 210 756 6,045 7,011 59.8%
ROGER MATTOX (REP) 161 673 3,883 4,717 40.2%
Total 371 1,429 9,928 11,728
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 12
18 of 18 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
WADE ROUSSELOT (DEM) 203 799 6,323 7,325 53.9%
DAVID TACKETT (REP) 268 564 5,424 6,256 46.1%
Total 471 1,363 11,747 13,581
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 14
15 of 15 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JERRY RAINS (DEM) 183 789 4,690 5,662 45.1%
ARTHUR HULBERT (REP) 271 993 5,616 6,880 54.9%
Total 454 1,782 10,306 12,542
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 16
29 of 29 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JERRY SHOEMAKE (DEM) 187 687 6,656 7,530 61.0%
JAMES DELSO (REP) 202 339 4,277 4,818 39.0%
Total 389 1,026 10,933 12,348
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 20
22 of 22 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
MATT BRANSTETTER (DEM) 176 278 3,815 4,269 33.5%
BOBBY CLEVELAND (REP) 452 538 7,471 8,461 66.5%
Total 628 816 11,286 12,730
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 21
17 of 17 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JERRY L. TOMLINSON (DEM) 98 453 3,564 4,115 36.0%
DUSTIN ROBERTS (REP) 190 885 6,232 7,307 64.0%
Total 288 1,338 9,796 11,422
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 22
32 of 32 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
DORIS ANNE ROW (DEM) 198 900 5,391 6,489 49.1%
CHARLES A McCALL (REP) 230 1,031 5,460 6,721 50.9%
Total 428 1,931 10,851 13,210
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 23
14 of 14 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
SHAWNA KELLER (DEM) 123 197 4,080 4,400 41.5%
TERRY O’DONNELL (REP) 227 239 5,730 6,196 58.5%
Total 350 436 9,810 10,596
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 26
13 of 13 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
PATTY SUE WAGSTAFF (DEM) 210 693 3,944 4,847 39.4%
JUSTIN FREELAND WOOD (REP) 284 1,027 6,144 7,455 60.6%
Total 494 1,720 10,088 12,302
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 27
17 of 17 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
RANDY R GILBERT (DEM) 172 320 4,466 4,958 38.1%
JOSH COCKROFT (REP) 400 544 7,117 8,061 61.9%
Total 572 864 11,583 13,019
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 28
17 of 17 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
MARILYN RAINWATER (DEM) 107 381 3,711 4,199 37.2%
TOM NEWELL (REP) 280 535 6,275 7,090 62.8%
Total 387 916 9,986 11,289
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 29
21 of 21 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
DAVID W NARCOMEY (DEM) 101 294 2,826 3,221 23.6%
SKYE McNIEL (REP) 298 860 9,242 10,400 76.4%
Total 399 1,154 12,068 13,621
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 32
23 of 23 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
KEITH KINNAMON (DEM) 183 556 5,115 5,854 42.8%
JASON SMALLEY (REP) 277 693 6,844 7,814 57.2%
Total 460 1,249 11,959 13,668
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 36
20 of 20 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JIM MASSEY (DEM) 217 160 4,425 4,802 34.6%
SEAN ROBERTS (REP) 435 240 8,399 9,074 65.4%
Total 652 400 12,824 13,876
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 37
23 of 23 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
NANCY L. NIEMANN (DEM) 211 356 4,756 5,323 40.9%
STEVEN E. VAUGHAN (REP) 417 605 6,685 7,707 59.1%
Total 628 961 11,441 13,030
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 42
24 of 24 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
STEVEN VINES (DEM) 123 282 2,308 2,713 20.2%
LISA J. BILLY (REP) 417 1,140 9,146 10,703 79.8%
Total 540 1,422 11,454 13,416
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 45
11 of 11 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
PAULA ROBERTS (DEM) 348 755 5,665 6,768 49.9%
AARON STILES (REP) 389 553 5,844 6,786 50.1%
Total 737 1,308 11,509 13,554
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 47
14 of 14 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
LEON A PIVINSKI (DEM) 178 252 2,725 3,155 20.4%
LESLIE KATHRYN OSBORN (REP) 808 898 10,604 12,310 79.6%
Total 986 1,150 13,329 15,465
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 48
20 of 20 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
BRIAN SPENCER (DEM) 153 413 3,059 3,625 28.0%
PATRICK OWNBEY (REP) 368 1,033 7,904 9,305 72.0%
Total 521 1,446 10,963 12,930
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 51
23 of 23 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
STEWART MEYER (DEM) 174 382 4,559 5,115 35.7%
SCOTT R. BIGGS (REP) 436 670 8,119 9,225 64.3%
Total 610 1,052 12,678 14,340
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 56
29 of 29 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
DAVID L PERRYMAN (DEM) 211 766 5,110 6,087 50.5%
CHUCK UTSLER (REP) 243 656 5,059 5,958 49.5%
Total 454 1,422 10,169 12,045
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 60
19 of 19 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
KENDRA MENZ-KIMBLE (DEM) 168 450 4,095 4,713 37.7%
DAN FISHER (REP) 345 677 6,763 7,785 62.3%
Total 513 1,127 10,858 12,498
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 66
17 of 17 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
DAVID C. PHILLIPS, III (DEM) 186 222 3,975 4,383 33.2%
JADINE NOLLAN (REP) 331 259 8,246 8,836 66.8%
Total 517 481 12,221 13,219
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 71
16 of 16 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
DAN ARTHRELL (DEM) 367 409 5,685 6,461 46.8%
KATIE HENKE (REP) 492 302 6,563 7,357 53.2%
Total 859 711 12,248 13,818
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 72
19 of 19 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
SENECA SCOTT (DEM) 181 455 5,350 5,986 72.7%
RANDALL L. REESE (REP) 78 80 2,087 2,245 27.3%
Total 259 535 7,437 8,231
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 76
13 of 13 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
GLENDA K. PUETT (DEM) 177 218 4,700 5,095 32.3%
DAVID BRUMBAUGH (REP) 551 235 9,880 10,666 67.7%
Total 728 453 14,580 15,761
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 78
21 of 21 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
JEANNIE McDANIEL (DEM) 422 394 7,988 8,804 61.4%
PAUL CATALANO (REP) 226 167 5,134 5,527 38.6%
Total 648 561 13,122 14,331
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 83
18 of 18 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
ED HOLZBERGER (DEM) 360 661 4,876 5,897 34.9%
RANDY McDANIEL (REP) 1,085 409 9,491 10,985 65.1%
Total 1,445 1,070 14,367 16,882
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 86
25 of 25 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
WILL FOURKILLER (DEM) 440 566 6,322 7,328 68.7%
RUSSELL DON TURNER (REP) 180 268 2,890 3,338 31.3%
Total 620 834 9,212 10,666
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 87
13 of 13 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
NICK SINGER (DEM) 243 357 5,082 5,682 44.6%
JASON NELSON (REP) 461 174 6,413 7,048 55.4%
Total 704 531 11,495 12,730
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 88
13 of 13 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
KAY FLOYD (DEM) 266 419 6,774 7,459 69.2%
AARON KASPEREIT (REP) 181 112 3,032 3,325 30.8%
Total 447 531 9,806 10,784
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 99
16 of 16 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
ANASTASIA A. PITTMAN (DEM) 408 1,841 8,379 10,628 83.5%
WILLARD LINZY (REP) 123 157 1,819 2,099 16.5%
Total 531 1,998 10,198 12,727
FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 101
19 of 19 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
STEPHEN E COVERT (DEM) 242 287 4,586 5,115 32.4%
GARY BANZ (REP) 575 181 9,908 10,664 67.6%
Total 817 468 14,494 15,779
Line
JUDICIAL RETENTION
SUPREME COURT – NOMA D. GURICH
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 33,377 65,638 689,311 788,326 66.5%
NO 17,255 33,167 347,457 397,879 33.5%
Total 50,632 98,805 1,036,768 1,186,205
SUPREME COURT – YVONNE KAUGER
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 32,610 64,499 676,471 773,580 65.6%
NO 17,880 33,639 353,262 404,781 34.4%
Total 50,490 98,138 1,029,733 1,178,361
SUPREME COURT – JAMES E. EDMONDSON
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 33,166 65,843 691,763 790,772 66.9%
NO 17,485 32,677 341,080 391,242 33.1%
Total 50,651 98,520 1,032,843 1,182,014
SUPREME COURT – DOUGLAS L. COMBS
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 32,770 65,101 684,656 782,527 66.4%
NO 17,424 33,149 345,280 395,853 33.6%
Total 50,194 98,250 1,029,936 1,178,380
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS – CLANCY SMITH
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 32,591 63,777 674,548 770,916 65.8%
NO 17,268 33,882 349,323 400,473 34.2%
Total 49,859 97,659 1,023,871 1,171,389
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS – ARLENE JOHNSON
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 32,822 65,084 680,298 778,204 66.6%
NO 17,036 32,473 341,290 390,799 33.4%
Total 49,858 97,557 1,021,588 1,169,003
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS – DAVID B. LEWIS
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 32,973 64,784 684,056 781,813 67.0%
NO 16,741 32,577 335,978 385,296 33.0%
Total 49,714 97,361 1,020,034 1,167,109
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – P. THOMAS THORNBRUGH
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 33,353 64,193 687,579 785,125 67.3%
NO 16,398 33,030 331,764 381,192 32.7%
Total 49,751 97,223 1,019,343 1,166,317
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – WILLIAM C. HETHERINGTON, JR.
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 32,377 63,358 666,257 761,992 65.6%
NO 17,186 33,485 348,188 398,859 34.4%
Total 49,563 96,843 1,014,445 1,160,851
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – KENNETH L. BUETTNER
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 33,067 63,719 683,415 780,201 67.3%
NO 16,424 32,978 330,189 379,591 32.7%
Total 49,491 96,697 1,013,604 1,159,792
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – ROBERT BOBBY BELL
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 32,328 63,249 669,133 764,710 65.9%
NO 17,193 33,479 344,648 395,320 34.1%
Total 49,521 96,728 1,013,781 1,160,030
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS – E. BAY MITCHELL, III
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
YES 32,904 63,906 679,451 776,261 66.9%
NO 16,607 32,903 334,726 384,236 33.1%
Total 49,511 96,809 1,014,177 1,160,497
Line
STATE QUESTIONS
STATE QUESTION NO. 758 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 358
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 42,807 68,814 745,090 856,711 67.7%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 14,445 37,287 356,593 408,325 32.3%
Total 57,252 106,101 1,101,683 1,265,036
STATE QUESTION NO. 759 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 359
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 34,174 57,866 652,514 744,554 59.2%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 22,885 47,656 442,705 513,246 40.8%
Total 57,059 105,522 1,095,219 1,257,800
STATE QUESTION NO. 762 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 360
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 33,876 62,376 647,613 743,865 59.2%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 23,092 43,015 447,027 513,134 40.8%
Total 56,968 105,391 1,094,640 1,256,999
STATE QUESTION NO. 764 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 361
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 32,167 58,738 614,131 705,036 56.7%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 24,006 45,555 469,047 538,608 43.3%
Total 56,173 104,293 1,083,178 1,243,644
STATE QUESTION NO. 765 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 362
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 34,595 58,889 657,074 750,558 59.9%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 21,974 46,184 433,932 502,090 40.1%
Total 56,569 105,073 1,091,006 1,252,648
STATE QUESTION NO. 766 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 363
1960 of 1960 Precincts Completely Reporting
ABSENTEE
MAIL
EARLY
VOTING
ELECTION
DAY
TOTAL
FOR THE PROPOSAL – YES 38,321 65,374 721,047 824,742 65.0%
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL – NO 18,923 41,058 384,656 444,637 35.0%
Total 57,244 106,432 1,105,703 1,269,379
Results as of: 11/7/2012 5:42:44 AM

Keep your promises made on the campaign trail and your oath of office too.

Keep a copy of the State and Federal Constitution handy for reference (before you vote)!

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Hebrews 12:13-15

Posted by Sandra Crosnoe for Finding Gems & Sharing Them

OKGrassroots

Posted in Activism, Conservatives, Elections, Grassroots, History, OKGrassroots, Politics, R3publicans, Teaparty. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »
%d bloggers like this: