DOCSLIB.ORG

Official 1996 Election Results

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Official 1996 Election Results Arkansas Secretary of State Elections Ballot Issues For Against Amendment Uniform Property Tax for Schools Passed 407,719 378,017 1 Sales Tax For Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Department of Parks Amendment and tourism, and Arkansas Department of Heritage and Keep Arkansas Passed 405,216 396,932 2 Beautiful Amendment Ballot Issues Conerning Legal Challanges to Ballot Titles Failed 320,387 372,745 3 Amendment Casino, Lottery, Bingo Approval Failed 333,297 523,986 4 Amendment Term Limits Passed 448,938 284,499 9 Initiative 1 Contribution Limits Passed 487,732 244,267 Referendum Water Bonds Failed 336,791 378,460 Act 1224 U.S. PRESIDENT & U.S. VICE PRESIDENT Winner BILL CLINTON DEMOCRAT 475,171 AL GORE RALPH NADER GREEN PARTY OF ARKANSAS 3,649 WINONA LADUKE HARRY BROWNE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 3,076 JO JORGENSEN ISABELL MASTERS - PH.D. LOOKING BACK PARTY 749 SHIRLEY JEAN MASTERS DR. JOHN HAGELIN NATURAL LAW PARTY 729 DR. MIKE TOMPKINS EARL F. DODGE PROHIBITION PARTY 483 RACHEL B. KELLY ROSS PEROT REFORM 69,884 PAT CHOATE BOB DOLE REPUBLICAN 325,416 JACK KEMP MARY CAL HOLLIS SOCIALIST PARTY OF ARKANSAS 538 ERIC CHESTER JUSTICE RALPH FORBES THE AMERICA FIRST PARTY 932 PRO-LIFE ANDERSON U.S. TAXPAYERS PARTY OF HOWARD PHILLIPS 2,065 ARKANSAS HERBERT W. TITUS UNAFFILIATED INDEPENDENT CHARLES E. COLLINS 823 PARTY ROSEMARY GIUMARRA MONICA MOOREHEAD WORKERS WORLD PARTY 747 GLORIA LARIVA U.S. SENATE ATTORNEY GENERAL WINSTON BRYANT DEMOCRAT 400,241 Winner CONGRESSMAN TIM HUTCHINSON REPUBLICAN 445,942 U.S. CONGRESS DISTRICT 01 Winner MARION BERRY DEMOCRAT 105,280 KEITH CARLE REFORM 5,734 WARREN DUPWE REPUBLICAN 88,436 U.S. CONGRESS DISTRICT 02 Winner VIC SNYDER DEMOCRAT 114,841 BUD CUMMINS REPUBLICAN 104,548 U.S. CONGRESS DISTRICT 03 ANN HENRY DEMOCRAT 102,994 TONY JOE HUFFMAN REFORM 5,974 Winner ASA HUTCHINSON REPUBLICAN 137,093 DAN IVY WRITE-IN 71 U.S. CONGRESS DISTRICT 04 VINCENT TOLLIVER DEMOCRAT 72,391 Winner CONGRESSMAN JAY DICKEY REPUBLICAN 125,956 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CHARLIE COLE CHAFFIN DEMOCRAT 428,337 Winner WIN ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICAN 438,716 STATE SENATE DISTRICT 01 Unopposed SENATOR JAMES C. "JIM" SCOTT DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 03 Unopposed SENATOR MIKE ROSS DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 04 Unopposed SEN. WAYNE DOWD DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 05 Unopposed JIM HILL DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 06 Unopposed SENATOR GEORGE HOPKINS DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 08 JEAN C. EDWARDS DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 09 Unopposed SENATOR JAY BRADFORD DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 10 Unopposed BILL WALTERS REPUBLICAN STATE SENATE DISTRICT 12 Winner TOM KENNEDY DEMOCRAT 13,976 SHARON TRUSTY REPUBLICAN 13,031 STATE SENATE DISTRICT 13 Winner SENATOR "BUD" CANADA DEMOCRAT 15,908 MARY L. HARVEY REPUBLICAN 14,403 STATE SENATE DISTRICT 15 Winner JIM ARGUE, JR. DEMOCRAT 18,435 SCOTT WALLACE REPUBLICAN 12,778 STATE SENATE DISTRICT 20 Unopposed SEN. STANLEY RUSS DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 22 Unopposed ROY C. "BILL" LEWELLEN DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 25 Winner SENATOR EDWARD ALLEN GORDON DEMOCRAT 17,728 JOHNNY K. RHODA REPUBLICAN 11,119 STATE SENATE DISTRICT 27 MORRIL HARRIMAN DEMOCRAT STATE SENATE DISTRICT 28 Winner SENATOR MIKE BEARDEN DEMOCRAT 10,245 JANET MOORE REPUBLICAN 6,847 STATE SENATE DISTRICT 29 Winner GENE ROEBUCK DEMOCRAT 13,447 JOHN E. TURNER REPUBLICAN 8,855 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 001 Unopposed REP. JIM HENDREN REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 002 Unopposed DAVID C. HAUSAM REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 003 Winner REP. DAVE BISBEE REPUBLICAN 4,283 CHARLES E. HARVEY WRITE-IN 4 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 004 Unopposed RANDY BRYANT REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 005 Unopposed CHARLIE FUQUA REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 006 Unopposed LOUIS MCJUNKIN DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 007 Unopposed CHARLES W. STEWART DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 008 Winner SUE MADISON DEMOCRAT 5,895 BILL PRITCHARD REPUBLICAN 5,666 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 009 Unopposed REP. JERRY HUNTON DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 010 Unopposed STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HALL DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 011 Unopposed EDWARD F. THICKSTEN DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 012 B. G. HENDRIX DEMOCRAT 10,489 Winner STATE REPRESENTATIVE GUNNER DELAY REPUBLICAN 11,690 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 013 PAUL SCHLAF REFORM 4,272 Winner REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN POLLAN REPUBLICAN 16,456 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 014 Winner W.K. (MAC) McGEHEE, JR. DEMOCRAT 11,997 DON HUTCHINGS REPUBLICAN 10,320 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 015 Winner REP. ED WILKINSON DEMOCRAT 6,070 JERRY KING REPUBLICAN 4,177 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 016 Winner EVELYN AMMONS DEMOCRAT 5,592 BRUCE CAMPBELL REPUBLICAN 4,128 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 017 Winner ODE MADDOX DEMOCRAT 5,719 AUDRY WHISENHUNT REPUBLICAN 4,288 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 018 Unopposed STEVE FARIS DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 019 Unopposed LARRY R. TEAGUE DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 020 Unopposed REP. BARBARA HORN DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 021 Unopposed DENNIS YOUNG DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 022 Winner DAVID BEATTY DEMOCRAT 4,560 RUSS BENNETT REPUBLICAN 3,805 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 023 Unopposed REPRESENTATIVE RANDY LAVERTY DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 024 Winner CHARLES WHORTON, JR. DEMOCRAT 6,095 DOUG MCDOUGALL REPUBLICAN 4,749 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 025 Winner ARMIL O. CURRAN DEMOCRAT 6,660 LUKE HEFFLEY REPUBLICAN 3,539 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 026 Unopposed FRANK J. WILLEMS DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 027 Unopposed LLOYD R. GEORGE DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 028 Winner SANDRA REYENGA RODGERS DEMOCRAT 5,709 TIM CORNELIUS REPUBLICAN 2,382 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 029 SAM L. SHELTON DEMOCRAT 4,204 Winner JIM MILUM REPUBLICAN 6,129 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 030 Winner M. OLIN COOK DEMOCRAT 5,063 DR. RICHARD K. LOVELL REPUBLICAN 4,801 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 031 Unopposed STATE REPRESENTATIVE BOB JOHNSON DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 032 Unopposed STATE REPRESENTATIVE TED MULLENIX REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 033 Winner RITA HALE DEMOCRAT 12,941 TOM WILKINS REPUBLICAN 7,786 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 034 Winner REPRESENTATIVE TERRY SMITH DEMOCRAT 13,897 DR. GARY A. HEIDT REPUBLICAN 6,249 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 035 Unopposed REP. BUDDY WALLIS DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 036 Unopposed PERCY MALONE DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 037 Unopposed STATE REPRESENTATIVE JUDY SMITH DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 038 Unopposed REP. JOHN DAWSON DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 039 Unopposed BILLY JOE PURDOM DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 040 Unopposed JOE HUDSON REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 041 Winner ROGER L. RORIE DEMOCRAT 5,414 CHANEY TAYLOR REPUBLICAN 5,259 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 042 Unopposed BECKY LYNN DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 043 Unopposed STEPHEN SIMON DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 044 Unopposed GREG WREN DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 045 Unopposed TOM COURTWAY DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 046 Winner SHANE BROADWAY DEMOCRAT 4,904 LOIS ANN BURKS REPUBLICAN 4,555 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 047 Unopposed DOUG KIDD DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 048 Unopposed JIM LANCASTER DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 049 Winner BOBBY G. NEWMAN DEMOCRAT 4,677 RONNIE HALL REPUBLICAN 2,339 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 050 Unopposed COURTNEY SHEPPARD DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 051 Unopposed E. RAY STALNAKER DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 052 Unopposed PHIL WYRICK DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 053 TOM TRAVIS DEMOCRAT 5,025 Winner TED THOMAS REPUBLICAN 6,570 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 054 Unopposed MYRA JONES DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 055 HENRY "O" OSTERLOH DEMOCRAT 4,695 Winner JIM MAGNUS REPUBLICAN 5,438 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 056 Unopposed STATE REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL BOOKER DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 057 Winner STATE REPRESENTATIVE LISA FERRELL DEMOCRAT 7,656 JOSEPH DUNLAP REPUBLICAN 2,825 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 058 STATE REPRESENTATIVE IRMA HUNTER DEMOCRAT BROWN STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 059 Unopposed M. DEE BENNETT DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 060 Winner STUART VESS DEMOCRAT 5,493 TOM PRINCE REPUBLICAN 4,302 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 061 Unopposed JAMES G. DIETZ DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 062 Unopposed JOE MOLINARO DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 063 Winner DIANNE HUDSON DEMOCRAT 5,167 RYAN ROY ROGERS REPUBLICAN 3,937 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 064 Winner PAT BOND DEMOCRAT 3,950 OTIS STEWART REPUBLICAN 2,984 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 065 Unopposed WILMA WALKER DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 066 Unopposed REP. LARRY GOODWIN DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 067 Unopposed JOHN E. MILLER DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 068 Unopposed STATE REP. JOHN PAUL CAPPS DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 069 Winner REPRESENTATIVE DAVID CHOATE DEMOCRAT 5,614 RANDY MINTON REPUBLICAN 4,741 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 070 Unopposed BILLI FLETCHER DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 071 Winner PAT PAPPAS DEMOCRAT 4,352 BETSY FRANCIS REPUBLICAN 3,779 STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 072 Unopposed JOSETTA E. WILKINS DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 073 Unopposed JACQUELINE J. ROBERTS DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 074 Unopposed REP. CHARLOTTE T. SCHEXNAYDER DEMOCRAT STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 075 Unopposed JIMMIE DON MCKISSACK DEMOCRAT STATE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Election Division Presidential Electors Faqs and Roster of Electors, 1816
    Election Division Presidential Electors FAQ Q1: How many presidential electors does Indiana have? What determines this number? Indiana currently has 11 presidential electors. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides that each state shall appoint a number of electors equal to the number of Senators or Representatives to which the state is entitled in Congress. Since Indiana has currently has 9 U.S. Representatives and 2 U.S. Senators, the state is entitled to 11 electors. Q2: What are the requirements to serve as a presidential elector in Indiana? The requirements are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 provides that "no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment also states that "No person shall be... elector of President or Vice-President... who, having previously taken an oath... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Congress may be a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." These requirements are included in state law at Indiana Code 3-8-1-6(b). Q3: How does a person become a candidate to be chosen as a presidential elector in Indiana? Three political parties (Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican) have their presidential and vice- presidential candidates placed on Indiana ballots after their party's national convention.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File
    Version 03 Codebook ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE ANES 1988‐1992 MERGED SENATE FILE USER NOTE: Much of his file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As a result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. MASTER CODES: The following master codes follow in this order: PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODES CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CODE ELECTIVE OFFICE CODE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE SENATOR NAMES CODES CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND POLLSTERS CAMPAIGN CONTENT CODES HOUSE CANDIDATES CANDIDATE CODES >> VII. MASTER CODES ‐ Survey Variables >> VII.A. Party/Candidate ('Likes/Dislikes') ? PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice‐presidential candidate ? Make 0097 Other people within party reasons Card PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party‐‐good/nice people; patriotic; etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Majority and Minority Leaders”, Available At
    Majority and Minority Party Membership Other Resources Adapted from: “Majority and Minority Leaders”, www.senate.gov Available at: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 3: Majority and Minority Whips (Assistant Floor Leaders) Chapter 4: Complete List of Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 5: Longest-Serving Party Leaders Introduction The positions of party floor leader are not included in the Constitution but developed gradually in the 20th century. The first floor leaders were formally designated in 1920 (Democrats) and 1925 (Republicans). The Senate Republican and Democratic floor leaders are elected by the members of their party in the Senate at the beginning of each Congress. Depending on which party is in power, one serves as majority leader and the other as minority leader. The leaders serve as spokespersons for their parties' positions on issues. The majority leader schedules the daily legislative program and fashions the unanimous consent agreements that govern the time for debate. The majority leader has the right to be called upon first if several senators are seeking recognition by the presiding officer, which enables him to offer motions or amendments before any other senator. Majority and Minority Leaders Elected at the beginning of each Congress by members of their respective party conferences to represent them on the Senate floor, the majority and minority leaders serve as spokesmen for their parties' positions on the issues. The majority leader has also come to speak for the Senate as an institution. Working with the committee chairs and ranking members, the majority leader schedules business on the floor by calling bills from the calendar and keeps members of his party advised about the daily legislative program.
    [Show full text]
  • The David and Barbara Pryor Center for Arkansas Oral and Visual History
    The David and Barbara Pryor Center for Arkansas Oral and Visual History University of Arkansas 1 East Center Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-6829 Arkansas Memories Project Ray Thornton Interviewed by Scott Lunsford September 20, 2011 Little Rock, Arkansas Copyright 2014 Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas. All rights reserved. Objective Oral history is a collection of an individual's memories and opinions. As such, it is subject to the innate fallibility of memory and is susceptible to inaccuracy. All researchers using these interviews should be aware of this reality and are encouraged to seek corroborating documentation when using any oral history interview. The Pryor Center's objective is to collect audio and video recordings of interviews along with scanned images of family photographs and documents. These donated materials are carefully preserved, catalogued, and deposited in the Special Collections Department, University of Arkansas Libraries, Fayetteville. The transcripts, audio files, video highlight clips, and photographs are made available on the Pryor Center website at http://pryorcenter.uark.edu. The Pryor Center recommends that researchers utilize the audio recordings and highlight clips, in addition to the transcripts, to enhance their connection with the interviewee. Transcript Methodology The Pryor Center recognizes that we cannot reproduce the spoken word in a written document; however, we strive to produce a transcript that represents the characteristics and unique qualities of the interviewee's speech pattern, style of speech, regional dialect, and personality. For the first twenty minutes of the interview, we attempt to transcribe verbatim all words and utterances that are spoken, such as uhs and ahs, false starts, and repetitions.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes.Form
    MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK FINE ARTS BUILDING STELLA BOYLE SMITH CONCERT HALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1:30 P.M., MAY 24, 2017 AND 8:30 A.M., MAY 25, 2017 TRUSTEES PRESENT: Chairman Ben Hyneman; Trustees David Pryor (first day only); Mark Waldrip; John Goodson; Stephen A. Broughton, MD; Cliff Gibson; Morril Harriman; Sheffield Nelson, Kelly Eichler and Tommy Boyer. UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS AND OTHERS PRESENT: System Administration: President Donald R. Bobbitt, General Counsel JoAnn Maxey, Of Counsel Fred Harrison, Vice President for Agriculture Mark J. Cochran, Vice President for Academic Affairs Michael K. Moore, Vice President for University Relations Melissa Rust, Senior Director of Policy and Public Affairs Ben Beaumont, Director of Communications Nate Hinkel, Associate Vice President for Finance and Interim Chief Financial Officer Rita Fleming, Associate Vice President for Finance Chaundra Hall, Associate Vice President for Benefits & Risk Management Services Steve Wood, Chief Audit Executive Jacob Flournoy, Assistant to the President Angela Hudson and Associate for Administration Sylvia White. UAF Representatives: Chancellor Joseph E. Steinmetz, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Jim Coleman and Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Tim O’Donnell. UAMS Representatives: Chancellor Daniel W. Rahn; Senior Vice Chancellor for Clinical Programs Richard Board of Trustees Meeting May 24-25, 2017 Page 2 Turnage; Chief Financial Officer Hospital Daniel J. Riley; Senior Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Bill Bowes; Dean, College of Medicine and Executive Vice Chancellor Pope L. Moseley; Vice Chancellor, Institutional Advancement Lance Burchett; Vice Chancellor, Institutional Relations Cherry Duckett; Chief General Counsel Mark Hagemeier; Vice Chancellor, Campus Operations Mark Kenneday; Vice Chancellor Communications and Marketing Leslie Taylor and Chief of Trauma Ron Robertson.
    [Show full text]
  • Betty Clark Dickey Oral History
    Arkansas Supreme Court Project Arkansas Supreme Court Historical Society Interview With Betty C. Dickey Little Rock, Arkansas February 20, 2018 Interviewer: Ernest Dumas Ernest Dumas: I am Ernie Dumas and I am interviewing Judge Betty C. Dickey. This interview is being held at her home at 132 Falata Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas, in Pulaski County on February 20, 2018. The audio recording of this interview will be donated to the David and Barbara Pryor Center for Oral and Visual Arkansas History at the University of Arkansas and the Arkansas Supreme Court Historical Society. The recording transcript and any other related materials will be deposited and preserved forever in the Special Collections Department, University of Arkansas Libraries, Fayetteville. And the copyright will belong to the University of Arkansas and the Arkansas Supreme Court Historical Society. Judge Dickey, please state your full name and spell your name and indicate that you are willing to give the Pryor Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society permission to make the transcript available to others? Betty Dickey: My name is Betty Clark Dickey and, yes, I am willing. ED: OK. Judge, let’s start off at the beginning. Your birth date and your full name as it was at birth. BD: My birth date was February 23, 1940. I was born in Black Rock [Lawrence County]. ED: Your father and your mother. BD: My full name was Betty Clark. No middle name. My father’s name was Millard Morris Clark of Black Rock. My mother was Myrtle Norris Clark, also of Black Rock. ED: Black Rock is in Lawrence County.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discourse of Sustainable Development: Business Groups, Local Government and Ngos In
    London School of Economics and Political Sciences The discourse of sustainable development: business groups, local government and NGOs in Juarez (Mexico) and El Paso (USA) PhD Thesis Claudia Granados Sociology Department December 2003 UMI Number: U222167 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U222167 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 I H S £ S F For F.G. and my pa ABSTRACT The thesis proposes and develops a threefold categorisation as a framework for the analysis of the sustainable development (SD) discourse of business groups, local government and NGOs in the Mexico-US border region and specifically in the border cities of Juarez (Chihuahua, Mexico) and El Paso (Texas, US). The SD categorisation proposed in this thesis consists of three schools of thought, namely, Ecologism, Ecologically-sustainable-Development (EsD) and Corporate-Environmentalism. The thesis investigates how and why Corporate- Environmentalism came to dominate sustainable development discourse in the 1990s? Based on data collected in the border region of Juarez and El Paso, this thesis argues that Corporate-Environmentalism strongly influenced the sustainable development discourse of business groups, local government and NGOs and became the prevailing orthodoxy in the sustainable development discourse of the region during the 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • More Than Kids Stuff: Can News and Information Web Sites Mobilize Young Adults? SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, DC
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 473 027 SO 034 353 AUTHOR Lupia, Arthur; Philpot, Tasha S. TITLE More Than Kids Stuff: Can News and Information Web Sites Mobilize Young Adults? SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. PUB DATE 2002-00-00 NOTE 33p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. (Boston, MA, August 28- September 2, 2002). CONTRACT 0094964 PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Internet; *Mass Media Effects; Media Research; *Presidential Campaigns (United States); *Voting; *Young Adults IDENTIFIERS News Sources; Political Communication; *Web Sites ABSTRACT Many young adults are not politically active. Since 1972, their participation and interest levels have declined not only in absolute terms but also relative to other voting-age groups. This paper examines how the Internet can reverse this trend. It focuses on how leading news and political information Web sites affected young adults during the closing weeks of the 2000 presidential election campaign. The data come from a survey that exposes citizens to Web sites under varying conditions. The data are used to document how individual sites change viewers' political interest and likely participation levels. Seemingly similar sites had dramatically different effects on young viewers. The analysis documents that sites which provide information effectively increase political interest and participation for all ages, but young and old differ significantly on which sites are effective. Findings suggest that using the Internet to increase youth political engagement entails unique, but discoverable, challenges. (Contains 21 references, 7 notes, and 4 tables.)(Author/BT) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 19-524 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROQUE DE LA FUENTE, AKA ROCKY, Petitioner, v. AlEX PADIllA, CALIFOrnIA SECRETARY OF STATE, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF AppEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRcuIT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ALICia I. DEARN, ESQ. Counsel of Record 231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 850 Clayton, MO 63105 (314) 526-0040 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae 292830 A (800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................i TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES .............. ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................6 ARGUMENT....................................7 I. CERTIORARI IS DESIRABLE BECAUSE THERE IS CONFUSION AMONG LOWER COURTS OVER WHETHER THE APPLY THE USAGE TEST ...........7 II. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRONEOUSLY STATED THAT BECAUSE MINOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES HAVE APPEARED ON THE CALIFORNIA BALLOT, THEREFORE IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT THAT NO INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS QUALIFIED SINCE 1992 ..............................15 CONCLUSION .................................20 ii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page CASES: American Party v. Jernigan, 424 F.Supp. 943 (e.d. Ark. 1977)..................8 Arutunoff v. Oklahoma State Election Board, 687 F.2d 1375 (1982)...........................14 Bergland v. Harris, 767 F.2d 1551 (1985) ..........................8-9 Bradley v Mandel, 449 F. Supp. 983 (1978) ........................10 Citizens to Establish a Reform Party in Arkansas v. Priest, 970 F. Supp. 690 (e.d. Ark. 1996) .................8 Coffield v. Kemp, 599 F.3d 1276 (2010) ...........................12 Cowen v. Raffensperger, 1:17cv-4660 ..................................12 Dart v.
    [Show full text]
  • General Election 2000.Xls
    GENERAL ELECTION-NOVEMBER 7, 2000 O F F I C I A L R E S U L T S Precinct Counted TOTAL Early/AB 1 2 3 45678910111213141516171920 President & Vice President George W. Bush & Dick Cheney (R) 4472 1763 150 82 93 97 137 189 103 270 134 207 268 218 203 107 143 33 47 107 121 Al Gore & Joe Lieberman (D) 4208 1490 186 189 286 136 99 237 117 182 115 153 150 111 212 107 63 9 35 179 152 Harry Browne & Art Olivier (L) 73 31 7240441330514100030 John Hagelin & Nat Goldhaber (N) 14 23003001000100002020 Ralph Nader & Winona LaDuke (G) 820 226 69 52 78 29 28 57 23 28 27 36 11 14 23 16 9 1 2 43 48 Howard Phillips & J. Curtis Frazier (A) 601000100000030100000 Pat Buchanan & Ezola Foster (F) 42 18 3120010011414121020 Earl F. Dodge & W. Dean Watkins (P) 101000000000000000000 James Harris & Margaret Trowe (SW) 100000000000000010000 David McReynolds & Mary Cal Hollis (SP) 101000000000000000000 Representative to the 107th United States Congress District 3 Curtis Imrie (D) 2881 996 116 137 219 87 80 161 89 117 73 95 109 67 151 74 55 4 21 127 103 Scott McInnis (R) 5741 2229 238 131 181 148 156 244 134 333 177 265 297 255 239 125 153 35 54 176 171 Drew Sakson (L) 282 87 26 19 21 7 10 19 2 11 6 8 9 4 19 8 4 3 0 9 10 Victor A. Good (RP) 145 46 17 398685442346230177 Secretary of State - 2 year term Donetta Davidson (R) 4531 1827 165 106 113 114 142 179 115 267 147 204 247 193 172 95 125 32 44 121 123 Anthony Martinez (D) 3260 1108 143 137 228 108 92 191 86 133 87 114 125 100 171 85 64 5 22 141 120 Clyde J.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballot Access Committee Report to NC
    Ballot Access Committee Report to NC As mentioned in the Presidential campaign debriefing, our 2012 Presidential campaign was the best in terms of ballot access since Ralph Nader ran as a Green in 2000. However, we fell short of our targets and exhausted a great deal of effort in getting on the ballot. The biggest difference between the Libertarian and Green Parties in terms of Presidential ballot lines was in our starting point. The Libertarians started off with 26 ballot lines after the 2010 midterm elections and the Greens only started off with 16. There were too many states with weak or nonexistent state parties that the Ballot Access Committee (BAC) was in poor position to assist. Delays in receiving matching funds exacerbated the campaign’s problems with trying to work in too many states at once on already scarce resources. BAC will be discussing a draft plan that sets goals for ballot access in each year of the 2013-2016 election cycle. Ultimately, our goal is to be on the ballot in between 45 and 47 states on Election Day in 2016. To make this goal more achievable, we plan to have at least 25 ballot lines after the 2014 midterm elections and at least 35 at the end of 2015. If the Green Party can achieve ballot access from 2013-15, not only will our final goal be much more achievable, but our Presidential campaign will be able to focus on what it should- winning votes on Election Day instead of fighting just to give voters a chance to see us on the ballot.
    [Show full text]
  • Representación Mediática Del Liderazgo Político Femenino. Estudio De Caso De Angela Merkel Durante La Crisis Económica En España
    REPRESENTACIÓN MEDIÁTICA DEL LIDERAZGO POLÍTICO FEMENINO. ESTUDIO DE CASO DE ANGELA MERKEL DURANTE LA CRISIS ECONÓMICA EN ESPAÑA THE MEDIA REPRESENTATION OF FEMALE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP. A CASE STUDY OF ANGELA MERKEL DURING THE ECONOMIC CRISIS IN SPAIN TESIS DOCTORAL. 2019 Presentada por Miriam Suárez-Romero Dirigida por Dra. Lorena R. Romero-Domínguez i ii Resumen Esta investigación aborda la cobertura mediática del liderato de las políticas. Partiendo de aportaciones previas con una visión multidisciplinar, se toma como caso de estudio a la canciller alemana, Angela Merkel, en un periodo temporal que ha marcado nuestra contemporaneidad: la crisis económica (y financiera, social y política) en España. A partir de lo publicado en los diarios impresos de referencia del momento delimitado, El País y El Mundo, se estudian mediante análisis de contenido los marcos empleados en su representación mediática. Diseñamos un protocolo para investigar los encuadres de género, la definición del liderazgo, los elementos formales de diseño, los marcos visuales o la idiosincrasia de los grupos de autorías, entre otros aspectos. Posteriormente, los periodistas que aparecen en el corpus son entrevistados para examinar el objeto de estudio desde su perspectiva como emisores y conocer su percepción de la profesión y de su propia producción, identificando condicionantes en sus rutinas productivas y reflexionando sobre la potencialidad de su trabajo y el rol específico de Merkel en la concepción del liderato político femenino. También se entrevista a políticas de diferentes ámbitos territoriales para conocer en primera persona cómo se ven representadas en los medios y la perspectiva que tienen de lo investigado en esta disertación.
    [Show full text]