North Carolina General Assembly - House Member Vote Statistics

House Member Vote Statistics

2007-2008 Session

District	Name	Total Votes	Eligible Votes	Actual Votes	Vote %	With Majority	With Majority %	Against Majority	Against Majority %
58	Adams of Guilford (D)	1902	1868	1850	99.0%	1804	97.5%	46	2.5%
107	Alexander, K. of Mecklenburg (D)	1902	491	480	97.8%	460	95.8%	20	4.2%
106	Alexander, M. of Mecklenburg (D)	1902	1805	1804	99.9%	1745	96.7%	59	3.3%
49	Allen of Franklin (D)	1902	1899	1894	99.7%	1850	97.7%	44	2.3%
64	Allred of Alamance (R)	1902	1902	1866	98.1%	1545	82.8%	321	17.2%
67	Almond of Stanly (R)	1902	866	860	99.3%	754	87.7%	106	12.3%
40	Avila of Wake (R)	1902	1901	1872	98.5%	1621	86.6%	251	13.4%
82	Barnhart of Cabarrus (R)	1902	1710	1704	99.6%	1559	91.5%	145	8.5%
21	Bell of Sampson (D)	1902	1874	1856	99.0%	1818	98.0%	38	2.0%
100	Black of Mecklenburg (D)	1902	4	2	50.0%	2	100.0%	0	0.0%
68	Blackwood of Union (R)	1902	1900	1886	99.3%	1580	83.8%	306	16.2%
33	Blue of Wake (D)	1902	1824	1654	90.7%	1607	97.2%	47	2.8%
62	Blust of Guilford (R)	1902	1902	1895	99.6%	1558	82.2%	337	17.8%
63	Bordsen of Alamance (D)	1902	1491	1486	99.7%	1436	96.6%	50	3.4%
52	Boylan of Moore (R)	1902	1789	1785	99.8%	1544	86.5%	241	13.5%
10	Braxton of Lenoir (D)	1902	1894	1868	98.6%	1803	96.5%	65	3.5%
22	Brisson of Bladen (D)	1902	1863	1809	97.1%	1748	96.6%	61	3.4%
73	Brown of Forsyth (R)	1902	1798	1771	98.5%	1486	83.9%	285	16.1%
78	Brubaker of Randolph (R)	1902	1589	1561	98.2%	1405	90.0%	156	10.0%
7	Bryant of Nash (D)	1902	1899	1878	98.9%	1817	96.8%	61	3.2%
102	Carney of Mecklenburg (D)	1902	1896	1894	99.9%	1856	98.0%	38	2.0%
86	Church of Burke (D)	1902	1763	1681	95.3%	1646	97.9%	35	2.1%
110	Clary of Cleveland (R)	1902	1804	1792	99.3%	1646	91.9%	146	8.1%
14	Cleveland of Onslow (R)	1902	1902	1891	99.4%	1512	80.0%	379	20.0%
77	Coates of Rowan (D)	1902	1891	1885	99.7%	1845	97.9%	40	2.1%
65	Cole of Rockingham (D)	1902	1840	1782	96.8%	1724	96.7%	58	3.3%
39	Coleman of Wake (D)	1902	1881	1866	99.2%	1819	97.5%	47	2.5%
100	Cotham of Mecklenburg (D)	1902	1836	1834	99.9%	1795	97.9%	39	2.1%
32	Crawford of Granville (D)	1902	1887	1799	95.3%	1755	97.6%	44	2.4%
107	Cunningham of Mecklenburg (D)	1902	1374	1305	95.0%	1279	98.0%	26	2.0%
109	Current of Gaston (R)	1902	1714	1704	99.4%	1571	92.2%	133	7.8%
25	Daughtridge of Nash (R)	1902	1729	1722	99.6%	1553	90.2%	169	9.8%
26	Daughtry of Johnston (R)	1902	1770	1658	93.7%	1499	90.4%	159	9.6%
44	Dickson of Cumberland (D)	1902	1842	1841	99.9%	1800	97.8%	41	2.2%
80	Dockham of Davidson (R)	1902	1785	1762	98.7%	1617	91.8%	145	8.2%
36	Dollar of Wake (R)	1902	1902	1902	100.0%	1643	86.4%	259	13.6%
101	Earle of Mecklenburg (D)	1902	1689	1601	94.8%	1550	96.8%	51	3.2%
112	England of Rutherford (D)	1902	1898	1883	99.2%	1853	98.4%	30	1.6%
50	Faison of Orange (D)	1902	1842	1823	99.0%	1782	97.8%	41	2.2%
24	Farmer-Butterfield of Wilson (D)	1902	1729	1697	98.1%	1646	97.0%	51	3.0%
114	Fisher of Buncombe (D)	1902	1873	1871	99.9%	1805	96.5%	66	3.5%
74	Folwell of Forsyth (R)	1902	1827	1823	99.8%	1476	81.0%	347	19.0%
84	Frye of Mitchell (R)	1902	1902	1902	100.0%	1620	85.2%	282	14.8%
67	Furr of Stanly (R)	1902	390	381	97.7%	347	91.1%	34	8.9%
69	Gibson of Anson (D)	1902	1858	1836	98.8%	1802	98.1%	34	1.9%
85	Gillespie of McDowell (R)	1902	1811	1802	99.5%	1534	85.1%	268	14.9%
45	Glazier of Cumberland (D)	1902	1715	1696	98.9%	1663	98.1%	33	1.9%
115	Goforth of Buncombe (D)	1902	1861	1855	99.7%	1805	97.3%	50	2.7%
66	Goodwin of Richmond (D)	1902	1879	1866	99.3%	1817	97.4%	49	2.6%
15	Grady of Onslow (R)	1902	1863	1860	99.8%	1721	92.5%	139	7.5%
103	Gulley of Mecklenburg (R)	1902	1898	1895	99.8%	1689	89.1%	206	10.9%
54	Hackney of Orange (D)	1902	1892	53	2.8%	53	100.0%	0	0.0%
119	Haire of Jackson (D)	1902	1819	1800	99.0%	1733	96.3%	67	3.7%
29	Hall of Durham (D)	1902	1897	1870	98.6%	1810	96.8%	60	3.2%
90	Harrell, J. of Surry (D)	1902	1680	1628	96.9%	1588	97.5%	40	2.5%
41	Harrell, T. of Wake (D)	1902	1898	1888	99.5%	1845	97.7%	43	2.3%
57	Harrison of Guilford (D)	1902	1872	1870	99.9%	1779	95.1%	91	4.9%
20	Hill of Columbus (D)	1902	1898	1874	98.7%	1814	96.8%	60	3.2%
96	Hilton of Catawba (R)	1902	1801	1795	99.7%	1468	81.8%	327	18.2%
81	Holliman of Davidson (D)	1902	1871	1836	98.1%	1805	98.3%	31	1.7%
91	Holloway of Stokes (R)	1902	1902	1890	99.4%	1544	81.7%	346	18.3%
92	Holmes of Yadkin (R)	1902	1667	1468	88.1%	1322	90.1%	146	9.9%
79	Howard of Davie (R)	1902	1612	1587	98.4%	1461	92.1%	126	7.9%
18	Hughes of New Hanover (D)	1902	497	490	98.6%	473	96.5%	17	3.5%
5	Hunter of Hertford (D)	1902	0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
70	Hurley of Randolph (R)	1902	1902	1894	99.6%	1710	90.3%	184	9.7%
56	Insko of Orange (D)	1902	1869	1802	96.4%	1720	95.4%	82	4.6%
59	Jeffus of Guilford (D)	1902	1885	1877	99.6%	1834	97.7%	43	2.3%
83	Johnson of Cabarrus (R)	1902	1755	1716	97.8%	1563	91.1%	153	8.9%
60	Jones of Guilford (D)	1902	1829	1766	96.6%	1710	96.8%	56	3.2%
7	Jones, Ed of Halifax (D)	1902	0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
16	Justice of Pender (R)	1902	1881	1875	99.7%	1752	93.4%	123	6.6%
117	Justus of Henderson (R)	1902	1894	1885	99.5%	1713	90.9%	172	9.1%
105	Killian of Mecklenburg (R)	1902	1829	1819	99.5%	1521	83.6%	298	16.4%
97	Kiser of Lincoln (R)	1902	1892	1856	98.1%	1639	88.3%	217	11.7%
28	Langdon of Johnston (R)	1902	1884	1878	99.7%	1687	89.8%	191	10.2%
53	Lewis of Harnett (R)	1902	1736	1719	99.0%	1541	89.6%	178	10.4%
51	Love of Lee (D)	1902	1888	1850	98.0%	1811	97.9%	39	2.1%
42	Lucas of Cumberland (D)	1902	1868	1860	99.6%	1821	97.9%	39	2.1%
30	Luebke of Durham (D)	1902	1771	1728	97.6%	1623	93.9%	105	6.1%
34	Martin of Wake (D)	1902	1857	1854	99.8%	1814	97.8%	40	2.2%
43	McAllister of Cumberland (D)	1902	1872	1705	91.1%	1657	97.2%	48	2.8%
19	McComas of New Hanover (R)	1902	1836	1805	98.3%	1658	91.9%	147	8.1%
13	McElraft of Carteret (R)	1902	1813	1791	98.8%	1626	90.8%	165	9.2%
75	McGee of Forsyth (R)	1902	1893	1877	99.2%	1699	90.5%	178	9.5%
9	McLawhorn of Pitt (D)	1902	1854	1848	99.7%	1803	97.6%	45	2.4%
31	Michaux of Durham (D)	1902	1887	1689	89.5%	1625	96.2%	64	3.8%
5	Mobley of Hertford (D)	1902	1878	1873	99.7%	1830	97.7%	43	2.3%
111	Moore of Cleveland (R)	1902	1864	1856	99.6%	1589	85.6%	267	14.4%
108	Neumann of Gaston (R)	1902	1781	1776	99.7%	1601	90.1%	175	9.9%
1	Owens of Pasquotank (D)	1902	1902	1902	100.0%	1858	97.7%	44	2.3%
72	Parmon of Forsyth (D)	1902	1649	1588	96.3%	1549	97.5%	39	2.5%
11	Pate of Wayne (R)	1902	1729	1727	99.9%	1570	90.9%	157	9.1%
48	Pierce of Scotland (D)	1902	1872	1866	99.7%	1836	98.4%	30	1.6%
118	Rapp of Madison (D)	1902	1892	1886	99.7%	1851	98.1%	35	1.9%
95	Ray of Iredell (R)	1902	1711	1685	98.5%	1520	90.2%	165	9.8%
38	Ross of Wake (D)	1902	1863	1850	99.3%	1792	96.9%	58	3.1%
104	Samuelson of Mecklenburg (R)	1902	1706	1682	98.6%	1533	91.1%	149	8.9%
99	Saunders of Mecklenburg (D)	1902	1684	1597	94.8%	1559	97.6%	38	2.4%
89	Setzer of Catawba (R)	1902	1845	1820	98.6%	1530	84.1%	290	15.9%
2	Spear of Washington (D)	1902	1886	1882	99.8%	1817	96.5%	65	3.5%
37	Stam of Wake (R)	1902	1870	1802	96.4%	1621	90.0%	181	10.0%
87	Starnes of Caldwell (R)	1902	1874	1843	98.3%	1622	88.0%	221	12.0%
76	Steen of Rowan (R)	1902	1738	1727	99.4%	1571	91.0%	156	9.0%
17	Stiller of Brunswick (R)	1902	1835	1828	99.6%	1679	91.8%	149	8.2%
47	Sutton of Robeson (D)	1902	1789	1708	95.5%	1616	94.6%	92	5.4%
93	Tarleton of Watauga (D)	1902	1861	1855	99.7%	1831	98.7%	24	1.3%
116	Thomas of Buncombe (R)	1902	1791	1767	98.7%	1597	90.4%	170	9.6%
98	Tillis of Mecklenburg (R)	1902	1771	1760	99.4%	1544	87.7%	216	12.3%
23	Tolson of Edgecombe (D)	1902	1887	1880	99.6%	1838	97.8%	42	2.2%
4	Tucker of Duplin (D)	1902	1863	1835	98.5%	1798	98.0%	37	2.0%
3	Underhill of Craven (D)	1902	1575	1564	99.3%	1531	97.9%	33	2.1%
12	Wainwright of Craven (D)	1902	1724	1711	99.2%	1680	98.2%	31	1.8%
113	Walend of Transylvania (R)	1902	1893	1886	99.6%	1724	91.4%	162	8.6%
94	Walker of Wilkes (R)	1902	1864	1859	99.7%	1686	90.7%	173	9.3%
8	Warren, E. of Pitt (D)	1902	1758	1747	99.4%	1718	98.3%	29	1.7%
88	Warren, R. of Alexander (D)	1902	1902	1877	98.7%	1845	98.3%	32	1.7%
35	Weiss of Wake (D)	1902	1886	1882	99.8%	1796	95.4%	86	4.6%
120	West of Cherokee (R)	1902	1813	1776	98.0%	1551	87.3%	225	12.7%
61	Wiley of Guilford (R)	1902	1870	1867	99.8%	1603	85.9%	264	14.1%
55	Wilkins of Person (D)	1902	1885	1869	99.2%	1835	98.2%	34	1.8%
6	Williams of Beaufort (D)	1902	1894	1867	98.6%	1818	97.4%	49	2.6%
71	Womble of Forsyth (D)	1902	1811	1793	99.0%	1750	97.6%	43	2.4%
27	Wray of Northampton (D)	1902	1882	1881	99.9%	1854	98.6%	27	1.4%
18	Wright of New Hanover (D)	1902	1190	1156	97.1%	1125	97.3%	31	2.7%
46	Yongue of Scotland (D)	1902	1887	1878	99.5%	1854	98.7%	24	1.3%

Data Last Updated: Sep 29 2008 10:59AM

Total Votes	-	The total number of roll call votes taken this session on the chamber floor.
Eligible Votes	-	The number of votes the member was eligible to vote on this session. This number does not include votes taken when the member had an excused absence or an excused vote.
Actual Votes	-	The number of actual votes the member cast on the chamber floor this session.
Vote %	-	The percentage of eligible votes this session on which the member voted.
With Majority	-	The number of times this session the member voted the same way as the outcome of the vote. If a specific vote passed and the member voted AYE, then that vote counted as WITH THE MAJORITY.
With Majority %	-	The With Majority votes divided by the Actual Votes.
Against Majority	-	The number of time this session the member voted opposite way as the outcome of the vote. If a specific vote failed and the member voted AYE, then that vote counted as AGAINST THE MAJORITY.
Against Majority %	-	The Against Majority votes divided by the Actual Votes.