William C. Velásquez Institute

MEMORANDUM

TO: Antonio Gonzalez, President, William C. Velasquez Institute, Concerned Parties

FROM: Steven Ochoa, Director of Voting Rights Policy and Research, William C. Velasquez Institute

DATE: July 10, 2007

Re: Analysis of State House of Representative District Recent Registration Patterns and Targeted Potential Latino Influence Districts

INTRODUCTION

In the attached table and maps, you will find a general analysis of Texas House of Representative Districts. I did a comparison of the most detailed registration and turnout information, which dates from the November 2000 General Election to the 2006 November General Election. This data comes from the Texas Legislative Council. I included turnout information as well.

Aside from growth and comparison figures, there is an attempt to measure potential Latino influence districts. A Latino influence district is described as having a Latino registration percentage between 25%-50%. A defined potential Latino influence district is defined by adding 10,000 Latino registered voters (and therefore adding 10,000 voters to the total registration) and determining what would be the district’s Latino registration percentage. If the potential Latino registration fell between 25%-50%, then the district was classified as a possible Latino influence district.

GENERAL FINDINGS

In the 6 years between 2000 and 2006, Texas gained 639,553 registered voters and 342,474 Latino registered voters. Latinos represented 53.55% of the Texas registration growth. Latinos outpaced total registration growth 17.10% to 6.23%. If Latinos are removed from the total registration, one notices that Latinos grew 17.10% in 6 years compared to non-Latinos growing 3.59%.

Total Reg Latino Reg Latino Reg % Non-Latino Reg Non-Latino Reg % Texas 2000 10,267,143 2,002,791 19.51% 8,264,352 80.49% Texas 2006 10,906,696 2,345,265 21.50% 8,561,431 78.50% Growth 639,553 342,474 53.55% 297,079 46.45% Growth % 6.23% 17.10% 3.59%

Generally speaking, the urban cores of , , Dallas, and Fort Worth saw losses in total registration between 2000 and 2006, however most of those areas saw modest increases Latino registration in the same time frame, implying that Latinos are moving into the areas (and registering) while non-Latino groups are moving away. Regional descriptions are as follows:

National Office • 206 Lombard, 1 st Floor • San Antonio, TX 78228 • (210) 922-3118 • Fax (210) 922-7095 California Office • 2914 N. Main St., 1 st Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90031 • (323) 222-2217 • Fax (323) 222-2011 Florida Office • 2646-A NW 21 st Terrace • Miami, FL 33142 • (305) 635-6965 • Fax (305) 822-7025 • In the El Paso area, urban House Districts 76 and 77 lost total registration, along with Latino registration, while the suburban El Paso districts all saw significant total registration growth. These bumps in total registration can be attributed to Latino registration, as the non-Latino registration figures show losses or comparatively small gains.

El Paso State House Districts

2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison

Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 75 Chente Quintanilla D 16,636 32.46% 14,977 40.48% 90.03% 1,659 11.64% 9.97% 76 Norma Chavez D -2,097 -2.96% -1,116 -1.88% 53.22% -981 -8.67% 46.78% 77 Paul Moreno D -3,694 -6.34% -2,120 -5.03% 57.39% -1,574 -9.74% 42.61% 78 Pat Haggerty R 7,825 11.62% 7,495 28.10% 95.78% 330 0.81% 4.22% 79 Joseph Pickett D 5,252 9.22% 7,022 21.26% 133.70% -1,770 -7.40% -33.70%

• The Fort Worth area saw the urban core districts (90, 94, 96) lose total registration, with surrounding areas gain. Suburban districts 96, 98, and 99 featured tremendous registration growth, which were attributed to non-Latino registration growth. It should be noted that Latino registration did grow significantly as a percentage, but small in comparison of totals. And many districts that saw growth in Latino registration showed loss in non-Latino registration (90, 92, 95).

Fort Worth State House Districts

2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison

Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 90 Lon Burnam D -1,868 -4.44% 1,973 11.97% -105.62% -3,841 -14.99% 205.62% 91 Kelly Hancock R 4,982 7.23% 2,143 47.16% 43.01% 2,839 4.41% 56.99% 92 Tod Smith R 723 1.01% 1,361 35.23% 188.24% -638 -0.94% -88.24% 93 Paula Pierson D 3,515 6.52% 2,124 41.34% 60.43% 1,391 2.85% 39.57% 94 Diane Patrick R -2,261 -3.01% 1,021 27.73% -45.16% -3,282 -4.60% 145.16% 95 Marc Veasey D -2,391 -3.61% 1,865 47.72% -78.00% -4,256 -6.84% 178.00% 96 Bill Zedler R 23,072 31.81% 4,189 80.70% 18.16% 18,883 28.04% 81.84% 97 Anna Mowery R 2,929 3.70% 1,984 41.79% 67.74% 945 1.27% 32.26% 98 Vicki Truitt R 28,486 35.65% 3,077 89.11% 10.80% 25,409 33.24% 89.20% 99 Charlie Geren R 16,546 23.19% 4,029 76.23% 24.35% 12,517 18.94% 75.65%

Page 2

• Dallas County House districts almost all featured a loss in total registration and increases in Latino registration. Districts 102, 107, and 114 featured the largest losses in total registration, but little change in Latino registration, which significantly increased the Latino registration percentage in those districts.

Dallas State House Districts

2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison

Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 100 Terri Hodge D -2,836 -5.47% 1,950 33.41% -68.76% -4,786 -10.40% 168.76% 101 Thomas Latham R -874 -1.35% 1,893 32.28% -216.59% -2,767 -4.72% 316.59% 102 Tony Goolsby R -7,556 -12.79% 250 7.60% -3.31% -7,806 -13.99% 103.31% 103 Rafael Anchia D -3,199 -9.12% 523 4.51% -16.35% -3,722 -15.86% 116.35% 104 Roberto Alonzo D 646 1.77% 3,750 21.95% 580.50% -3,104 -15.91% -480.50% 105 Linda Harper-Brown R -3,500 -6.65% 1,587 33.58% -45.34% -5,087 -10.61% 145.34% 106 Krik England R 524 0.96% 3,389 40.66% 646.76% -2,865 -6.17% -546.76% 107 Allen Vought D -7,385 -10.21% 1,381 24.27% -18.70% -8,766 -13.15% 118.70% 108 Dan Branch R -2,582 -4.08% -90 -1.42% 3.49% -2,492 -4.37% 96.51% 109 Helen Giddings D 9,420 12.72% 1,378 35.70% 14.63% 8,042 11.46% 85.37% 110 Barbara Mallory D -4,818 -7.64% 1,962 33.86% -40.72% -6,780 -11.83% 140.72% 111 Yvonne Davis D -649 -0.90% 2,611 47.56% -402.31% -3,260 -4.90% 502.31% 112 Fred Hill R -3,569 -4.77% 992 25.02% -27.79% -4,561 -6.44% 127.79% 113 Joe Driver R 6,531 10.69% 2,088 38.50% 31.97% 4,443 7.98% 68.03% 114 Will Hartnett R -9,976 -14.93% -423 -11.86% 4.24% -9,553 -15.10% 95.76%

• The Austin/Travis County area of the state was a region that saw significant registration growth. Only 1 district (49) saw a loss in registration, with it attributed to a loss in non-Latino registration. Conversely, significant increases in total registration to House districts 47, 48, 50, and 52 can primarily attributed to non- Latino registration.

Austin State House Districts

2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison

Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 46 Dawnna Dukes D 130 0.23% 1,411 14.34% 1085.38% -1,281 -2.69% -985.38% 47 Valinda Bolton D 17,154 20.70% 2,283 21.34% 13.31% 14,871 20.60% 86.69% 48 Donna Howard R 5,384 6.63% 971 20.79% 18.03% 4,413 5.76% 81.97% 49 Elliott Naishtat D -5,028 -6.13% -595 -6.19% 11.83% -4,433 -6.13% 88.17% 50 Mark Strama D 11,959 16.41% 2,782 39.08% 23.26% 9,177 13.95% 76.74% 51 Eddie Rodriguez D 99 0.19% 562 2.54% 567.68% -463 -1.48% -467.68% 52 Mike Krusee R 15,845 22.87% 3,405 40.94% 21.49% 12,440 20.40% 78.51%

Page 3

• Almost all districts in the San Antonio/Bexar County area lost total registration, with the exception of districts 117, 122, and 124 in the western part of the county. Districts that lost total registration generally saw increases in Latino registration, where districts that saw massive total registration growth owe most of it to total non-Latino registration growth. Districts 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, and 125 all saw significant changes to Latino registration percentage due to the increases/maintenance of Latino registration, and loss of non-Latino registration.

Bexar County State House Districts 2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison

Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 116 Trey Martinez Fischer D -8,118 -12.11% -2,092 -5.66% 25.77% -6,026 -20.05% 74.23% 117 David Leibowitz D 10,584 17.78% 5,467 16.36% 51.65% 5,117 19.60% 48.35% 118 Joe Farias D -1,703 -2.39% 408 1.03% -23.96% -2,111 -6.63% 123.96% 119 Robert Puente D -5,371 -7.40% -812 -2.01% 15.12% -4,559 -14.17% 84.88% 120 Ruth McClendon D -3,422 -5.06% 1,732 8.77% -50.61% -5,154 -10.77% 150.61% 121 Joe Straus R -1,845 -2.08% 3,166 20.82% -171.60% -5,011 -6.84% 271.60% 122 Frank Corte Jr. R 18,716 19.93% 5,892 41.09% 31.48% 12,824 16.12% 68.52% 123 Mike Villareal D -7,840 -11.57% -2,314 -6.07% 29.52% -5,526 -18.67% 70.48% 124 D 4,519 6.64% 4,384 11.62% 97.01% 135 0.45% 2.99% 125 Joaquin Castro D -2,229 -2.79% 819 1.82% -36.74% -3,048 -8.70% 136.74%

• South Texas saw the most significant increases in total and Latino registration in the state. Most of the districts with the largest total increases in Latino registration reside along the Mexican border area. Only districts 33 and 34 saw losses in total registration, which can be attributed to loss of non-Latino registration.

South Texas State House Districts 2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison

Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 30 Geanie Morrison R 1,108 1.33% 3,262 23.21% 294.40% -2,154 -3.12% -194.40% 31 Ryan Guillen D 8,395 14.47% 8,127 15.49% 96.81% 268 4.83% 3.19% 32 Juan Garcia D 1,047 1.22% 1,347 5.23% 128.65% -300 -0.50% -28.65% 33 Soloman Ortiz Jr. D -1,277 -1.76% 1,706 4.54% -133.59% -2,983 -8.48% 233.59% 34 Abel Herrero D -2,412 -3.26% 179 0.47% -7.42% -2,591 -7.26% 107.42% 35 Yvonne Gonzalez D 1,505 1.94% 2,891 7.23% 192.09% -1,386 -3.68% -92.09% 36 Kino Flores D 6,852 11.11% 8,256 17.14% 120.49% -1,404 -10.39% -20.49% 37 Rene Oliveira D 3,778 7.41% 3,679 8.92% 97.38% 99 1.02% 2.62% 38 Eddie Lucio D 9,608 18.24% 9,154 23.67% 95.27% 454 3.24% 4.73% 39 Armando Martinez D 6,403 11.33% 7,817 18.00% 122.08% -1,414 -10.83% -22.08% 40 Aaron Pena D 9,142 19.85% 8,940 22.54% 97.79% 202 3.16% 2.21% 41 Veronica Gonzales D 8,568 16.38% 9,919 31.34% 115.77% -1,351 -6.54% -15.77% 42 Richard Raymond D 7,897 12.90% 7,199 13.79% 91.16% 698 7.74% 8.84% 43 Juan Escobar D 2,196 3.44% 3,596 8.38% 163.75% -1,400 -6.69% -63.75%

Page 4

• The Houston/Harris County area posted a serious loss in total registration. Only 8 of the 25 House districts in the county posted increases in total registration, with significant increases occurring in the western part of the county (130, 132). Like other parts of the state, those districts owe most of their total registration growth to non-Latino registration. Latino registration grew in all but 2 of the 25 House districts.

Harris County State House Districts

2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison

Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Non-Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 126 Patricia Harless R 2,477 3.66% 2,481 43.43% 100.16% -4 -0.01% -0.16% 127 Joe Crabb R 9,489 11.95% 3,192 61.46% 33.64% 6,297 8.49% 66.36% 128 Wayne Smith R 422 0.66% 2,682 29.53% 635.55% -2,260 -4.16% -535.55% 129 John Davis R -1,127 -1.48% 1,161 20.23% -103.02% -2,288 -3.26% 203.02% 130 Corbin Van Arsdale R 31,470 44.95% 4,827 99.28% 15.34% 26,643 40.89% 84.66% 131 Dr. Alma A Allen D -22 -0.04% 1,628 27.39% -7400.00% -1,650 -3.48% 7500.00% 132 Bill Callegari R 17,372 26.53% 6,164 86.83% 35.48% 11,208 19.20% 64.52% 133 Jim Murphy R -4,074 -7.42% 363 6.52% -8.91% -4,437 -9.00% 108.91% 134 Ellen Cohen D -4,334 -5.08% 212 4.35% -4.89% -4,546 -5.65% 104.89% 135 Gary Elkins R 4,499 7.45% 3,320 41.13% 73.79% 1,179 2.25% 26.21% 136 Beverly Woolley R -6,153 -8.09% 527 11.85% -8.56% -6,680 -9.33% 108.56% 137 Scott Hochberg D -4,365 -13.41% -55 -0.91% 1.26% -4,310 -16.27% 98.74% 138 Dwayne Bohac R -4,974 -8.55% 1,476 16.60% -29.67% -6,450 -13.08% 129.67% 139 Sylvester Turner D -1,157 -1.92% 1,848 24.95% -159.72% -3,005 -5.68% 259.72% 140 Kevin Bailey D -3,387 -7.89% 3,178 16.78% -93.83% -6,565 -27.38% 193.83% 141 Senfronia Thomson D -685 -1.12% 2,531 40.86% -369.49% -3,216 -5.86% 469.49% 142 Harold Dutton Jr. D -5,601 -8.43% 2,055 23.22% -36.69% -7,656 -13.29% 136.69% 143 Ana Hernandez D -4,990 -11.33% 840 3.50% -16.83% -5,830 -29.07% 116.83% 144 Robert Talton R -108 -0.18% 5,239 43.51% -4850.93% -5,347 -10.83% 4950.93% 145 Rick Noriega D -3,124 -7.23% 1,233 5.01% -39.47% -4,357 -23.41% 139.47% 146 Borris Miles D -7,726 -10.07% 600 14.67% -7.77% -8,326 -11.46% 107.77% 147 Garnet Coleman D -2,259 -3.60% 1,402 18.78% -62.06% -3,661 -6.61% 162.06% 148 Jessica Farrar D -1,998 -3.87% -781 -3.49% 39.09% -1,217 -4.17% 60.91% 149 Hubert Vo D 3,033 5.18% 2,141 30.34% 70.59% 892 1.73% 29.41% 150 Debbie Riddle R 8,599 11.36% 3,472 57.83% 40.38% 5,127 7.35% 59.62%

Page 5

POTENTIAL LATINO INFLUENCE DISTRICTS

POTENTIAL - Adding 10,000 Latino Registered Voters per District to 2006 2006 General Totals

Total House Total Latino Latino Votes Turnout Total Latino Latino Percent District 2007 Member Name Party Reg Reg Reg % Cast % Reg Reg Reg % Increase 120 Ruth McClendon D 64,177 21,490 33.49% 20,299 31.63% 74,177 31,490 42.45% 8.97% 137 Scott Hochberg D 28,175 5,997 21.28% 9,094 32.28% 38,175 15,997 41.90% 20.62% 81 Geroge West R 68,999 22,713 32.92% 21,822 31.63% 78,999 32,713 41.41% 8.49% 32 Juan Garcia D 86,690 27,089 31.25% 37,003 42.68% 96,690 37,089 38.36% 7.11% 144 Robert Talton R 61,317 17,280 28.18% 20,379 33.24% 71,317 27,280 38.25% 10.07% 84 Carl Isett R 67,043 19,163 28.58% 24,207 36.11% 77,043 29,163 37.85% 9.27% 85 Joe Heflin D 72,289 20,911 28.93% 29,903 41.37% 82,289 30,911 37.56% 8.64% 106 Krik England R 55,310 11,724 21.20% 21,910 39.61% 65,310 21,724 33.26% 12.07% 82 Tom Craddick R 76,596 18,607 24.29% 31,603 41.26% 86,596 28,607 33.04% 8.74% 44 Edmund Kuempel R 92,157 23,345 25.33% 39,709 43.09% 102,157 33,345 32.64% 7.31% 72 Drew Darby R 69,364 15,896 22.92% 26,903 38.79% 79,364 25,896 32.63% 9.71% 138 Dwayne Bohac R 53,216 10,369 19.48% 21,695 40.77% 63,216 20,369 32.22% 12.74% 46 Dawnna Dukes D 57,673 11,249 19.50% 22,380 38.80% 67,673 21,249 31.40% 11.89% 100 Terri Hodge D 49,040 7,787 15.88% 16,636 33.92% 59,040 17,787 30.13% 14.25% 87 David Swinford R 59,293 10,822 18.25% 23,258 39.23% 69,293 20,822 30.05% 11.80% 45 Patrick Rose D 92,394 20,370 22.05% 42,057 45.52% 102,394 30,370 29.66% 7.61% 142 Harold Dutton Jr. D 60,841 10,905 17.92% 18,026 29.63% 70,841 20,905 29.51% 11.59% 128 Wayne Smith R 63,884 11,764 18.41% 22,488 35.20% 73,884 21,764 29.46% 11.04% 121 Joe Straus R 86,668 18,376 21.20% 41,022 47.33% 96,668 28,376 29.35% 8.15% 30 Geanie Morrison R 84,287 17,316 20.54% 33,435 39.67% 94,287 27,316 28.97% 8.43% 135 Gary Elkins R 64,926 11,392 17.55% 23,253 35.81% 74,926 21,392 28.55% 11.00% 139 Sylvester Turner D 59,134 9,254 15.65% 16,284 27.54% 69,134 19,254 27.85% 12.20% 131 Dr. Alma A Allen D 53,359 7,571 14.19% 17,347 32.51% 63,359 17,571 27.73% 13.54% 105 Linda Harper-Brown R 49,164 6,313 12.84% 22,582 45.93% 59,164 16,313 27.57% 14.73% 83 Delwin Jones R 84,793 16,065 18.95% 38,656 45.59% 94,793 26,065 27.50% 8.55% 149 Hubert Vo D 61,546 9,198 14.94% 23,418 38.05% 71,546 19,198 26.83% 11.89% 27 Dora Olivo D 89,594 16,701 18.64% 34,800 38.84% 99,594 26,701 26.81% 8.17% 147 Garnet Coleman D 60,568 8,869 14.64% 20,608 34.02% 70,568 18,869 26.74% 12.10% 141 Senfronia Thomson D 60,424 8,725 14.44% 16,102 26.65% 70,424 18,725 26.59% 12.15% 25 Dennis Bonnen R 69,280 10,773 15.55% 29,676 42.83% 79,280 20,773 26.20% 10.65% 133 Jim Murphy R 50,819 5,929 11.67% 21,175 41.67% 60,819 15,929 26.19% 14.52% 110 Barbara Mallory D 58,266 7,757 13.31% 17,604 30.21% 68,266 17,757 26.01% 12.70% 88 Warren Chisum R 77,300 12,547 16.23% 33,425 43.24% 87,300 22,547 25.83% 9.60% 93 Paula Pierson D 57,449 7,262 12.64% 22,256 38.74% 67,449 17,262 25.59% 12.95% 132 Bill Callegari R 82,842 13,263 16.01% 30,255 36.52% 92,842 23,263 25.06% 9.05%

Based on 2006 registration figures, if 10,000 Latinos were registered in the 35 House districts listed in the table above, Latinos would gain significant election influence; enough to become 25%-50% of the registered voters. Democrats currently represent 16 of this influence districts, and 19 are represented by Republican members. The table above is sorted by potential Latino registration. It is of particular note that when on examines the growth patterns of the top potential districts, that these districts represent areas that are already growing in Latino registration and falling in non-Latino registration. The table below shows that the top 9 potential influence districts all show this pattern. In fact, a full 27 of these districts have shown a net loss in non-Latino

Page 6 registration, whereas only 1 district showed a loss in Latino registration (and that district only showed a loss of 55 Latino voters).

2000-2006 Registration Growth Comparison Non- Total Latino Latino % Non- Latino % Reg Reg of Total Non- Latino of Total House Total Growth Latino Growth Reg Latino Reg Reg District 2007 Member Name Party Reg % Reg % Growth Reg Growth % Growth 120 Ruth McClendon D -3,422 -5.06% 1,732 8.77% -50.61% -5,154 -10.77% 150.61% 137 Scott Hochberg D -4,365 -13.41% -55 -0.91% 1.26% -4,310 -16.27% 98.74% 81 Geroge West R 1,242 1.83% 4,068 21.82% 327.54% -2,826 -5.75% -227.54% 32 Juan Garcia D 1,047 1.22% 1,347 5.23% 128.65% -300 -0.50% -28.65% 144 Robert Talton R -108 -0.18% 5,239 43.51% -4850.93% -5,347 -10.83% 4950.93% 84 Carl Isett R -1,853 -2.69% 1,128 6.25% -60.87% -2,981 -5.86% 160.87% 85 Joe Heflin D -2,283 -3.06% 1,511 7.79% -66.18% -3,794 -6.88% 166.18% 106 Krik England R 524 0.96% 3,389 40.66% 646.76% -2,865 -6.17% -546.76% 82 Tom Craddick R 866 1.14% 3,127 20.20% 361.09% -2,261 -3.75% -261.09% 44 Edmund Kuempel R 11,812 14.70% 3,346 16.73% 28.33% 8,466 14.03% 71.67% 72 Drew Darby R -597 -0.85% 1,800 12.77% -301.51% -2,397 -4.29% 401.51% 138 Dwayne Bohac R -4,974 -8.55% 1,476 16.60% -29.67% -6,450 -13.08% 129.67% 46 Dawnna Dukes D 130 0.23% 1,411 14.34% 1085.38% -1,281 -2.69% -985.38% 100 Terri Hodge D -2,836 -5.47% 1,950 33.41% -68.76% -4,786 -10.40% 168.76% 87 David Swinford R -1,025 -1.70% 1,851 20.63% -180.59% -2,876 -5.60% 280.59% 45 Patrick Rose D 16,594 21.89% 4,233 26.23% 25.51% 12,361 20.72% 74.49% 142 Harold Dutton Jr. D -5,601 -8.43% 2,055 23.22% -36.69% -7,656 -13.29% 136.69% 128 Wayne Smith R 422 0.66% 2,682 29.53% 635.55% -2,260 -4.16% -535.55% 121 Joe Straus R -1,845 -2.08% 3,166 20.82% -171.60% -5,011 -6.84% 271.60% 30 Geanie Morrison R 1,108 1.33% 3,262 23.21% 294.40% -2,154 -3.12% -194.40% 135 Gary Elkins R 4,499 7.45% 3,320 41.13% 73.79% 1,179 2.25% 26.21% 139 Sylvester Turner D -1,157 -1.92% 1,848 24.95% -159.72% -3,005 -5.68% 259.72% 131 Dr. Alma A Allen D -22 -0.04% 1,628 27.39% -7400.00% -1,650 -3.48% 7500.00% 105 Linda Harper-Brown R -3,500 -6.65% 1,587 33.58% -45.34% -5,087 -10.61% 145.34% 83 Delwin Jones R 7,773 10.09% 3,132 24.22% 40.29% 4,641 7.24% 59.71% 149 Hubert Vo D 3,033 5.18% 2,141 30.34% 70.59% 892 1.73% 29.41% 27 Dora Olivo D 22,098 32.74% 4,024 31.74% 18.21% 18,074 32.97% 81.79% 147 Garnet Coleman D -2,259 -3.60% 1,402 18.78% -62.06% -3,661 -6.61% 162.06% 141 Senfronia Thomson D -685 -1.12% 2,531 40.86% -369.49% -3,216 -5.86% 469.49% 25 Dennis Bonnen R -687 -0.98% 1,695 18.67% -246.72% -2,382 -3.91% 346.72% 133 Jim Murphy R -4,074 -7.42% 363 6.52% -8.91% -4,437 -9.00% 108.91% 110 Barbara Mallory D -4,818 -7.64% 1,962 33.86% -40.72% -6,780 -11.83% 140.72% 88 Warren Chisum R -4,249 -5.21% 2,168 20.89% -51.02% -6,417 -9.02% 151.02% 93 Paula Pierson D 3,515 6.52% 2,124 41.34% 60.43% 1,391 2.85% 39.57% 132 Bill Callegari R 17,372 26.53% 6,164 86.83% 35.48% 11,208 19.20% 64.52%

Page 7