NCGA - North Carolina General Assembly
Full Site Search:
Search Bill Text:
Find a Bill:
View Member Info:
House Member Vote Statistics
2001-2002 Session

District Name Total Votes Eligible Votes Actual Votes Vote % With Majority With Majority % Against Majority Against Majority %
22 Crawford, J. (D) 1927 1914 1735 90.6% 1656 95.4% 79 4.6%
51 Crawford, M. (R) 1927 1662 1639 98.6% 1349 82.3% 290 17.7%
57 Wilson, C. (R) 1927 1909 1737 91.0% 1532 88.2% 205 11.8%
40 Wilson, G. (R) 1927 1927 1900 98.6% 1689 88.9% 211 11.1%
26 Adams (D) 1927 1565 1499 95.8% 1402 93.5% 97 6.5%
56 Alexander (D) 1927 1836 1815 98.9% 1707 94.0% 108 6.0%
22 Allen (D) 1927 1911 1773 92.8% 1689 95.3% 84 4.7%
25 Allred (R) 1927 1891 1823 96.4% 1488 81.6% 335 18.4%
72 Arnold (R) 1927 1746 1646 94.3% 1426 86.6% 220 13.4%
11 Baddour (D) 1927 1878 1831 97.5% 1730 94.5% 101 5.5%
40 Baker (R) 1927 1915 1898 99.1% 1467 77.3% 431 22.7%
82 Barbee (R) 1927 1781 1706 95.8% 1528 89.6% 178 10.4%
44 Barefoot (D) 1927 1799 1796 99.8% 1701 94.7% 95 5.3%
81 Barnhart (R) 1927 1829 1749 95.6% 1488 85.1% 261 14.9%
97 Bell (D) 1927 1918 1888 98.4% 1784 94.5% 104 5.5%
21 Blue (D) 1927 1493 1300 87.1% 1191 91.6% 109 8.4%
27 Blust (R) 1927 1927 1888 98.0% 1540 81.6% 348 18.4%
87 Bonner (D) 1927 1826 1803 98.7% 1711 94.9% 92 5.1%
29 Bowie (R) 1927 1766 1674 94.8% 1539 91.9% 135 8.1%
28 Boyd-McIntyre (D) 1927 1817 1643 90.4% 1534 93.4% 109 6.6%
38 Brubaker (R) 1927 1563 1485 95.0% 1285 86.5% 200 13.5%
46 Buchanan (R) 1927 1849 1738 94.0% 1667 95.9% 71 4.1%
51 Cansler (R) 1927 153 143 93.5% 135 94.4% 8 5.6%
92 Capps (R) 1927 1882 1820 96.7% 1393 76.5% 427 23.5%
52 Carpenter (R) 1927 1844 1787 96.9% 1457 81.5% 330 18.5%
47 Church (D) 1927 1838 1589 86.5% 1523 95.8% 66 4.2%
48 Clary (R) 1927 1815 1591 87.7% 1386 87.1% 205 12.9%
35 Coates (D) 1927 1902 1870 98.3% 1762 94.2% 108 5.8%
25 Cole (D) 1927 1828 1692 92.6% 1613 95.3% 79 4.7%
19 Cox (D) 1927 1859 1814 97.6% 1686 92.9% 128 7.1%
20 Creech (R) 1927 1927 1692 87.8% 1233 72.9% 459 27.1%
30 Culp (R) 1927 1851 1835 99.1% 1670 91.0% 165 9.0%
86 Culpepper (D) 1927 1920 1901 99.0% 1810 95.2% 91 4.8%
59 Cunningham (D) 1927 1875 1805 96.3% 1706 94.5% 99 5.5%
95 Daughtry (R) 1927 1867 1761 94.3% 1502 85.3% 259 14.7%
19 Davis (R) 1927 1790 1775 99.2% 1240 69.9% 535 30.1%
84 Decker (R) 1927 1897 1845 97.3% 1387 75.2% 458 24.8%
48 Dedmon (D) 1927 1746 1726 98.9% 1647 95.4% 79 4.6%
94 Dockham (R) 1927 1797 1753 97.6% 1583 90.3% 170 9.7%
60 Earle (D) 1927 1889 1728 91.5% 1614 93.4% 114 6.6%
58 Easterling (D) 1927 1758 1693 96.3% 1597 94.3% 96 5.7%
65 Eddins (R) 1927 1839 1833 99.7% 1472 80.3% 361 19.7%
2 Edwards (D) 1927 1860 1711 92.0% 1611 94.2% 100 5.8%
15 Ellis (R) 1927 1801 1701 94.4% 1384 81.4% 317 18.6%
88 Esposito (R) 1927 1663 1638 98.5% 1381 84.3% 257 15.7%
70 Fitch (D) 1927 1369 1002 73.2% 862 86.0% 140 14.0%
78 Fox (D) 1927 1853 1843 99.5% 1753 95.1% 90 4.9%
33 Gibson (D) 1927 1877 1805 96.2% 1708 94.6% 97 5.4%
49 Gillespie (R) 1927 1927 1916 99.4% 1554 81.1% 362 18.9%
32 Goodwin (D) 1927 1761 1747 99.2% 1656 94.8% 91 5.2%
80 Grady (R) 1927 1870 1851 99.0% 1600 86.4% 251 13.6%
39 Gray (R) 1927 1579 1462 92.6% 1344 91.9% 118 8.1%
69 Gulley (R) 1927 1927 1922 99.7% 1704 88.7% 218 11.3%
24 Hackney (D) 1927 1821 1760 96.7% 1615 91.8% 145 8.2%
52 Haire (D) 1927 1707 1674 98.1% 1541 92.1% 133 7.9%
7 Hall (D) 1927 1910 1859 97.3% 1723 92.7% 136 7.3%
76 Harrington (R) 1927 1785 1704 95.5% 1449 85.0% 255 15.0%
64 Hensley (D) 1927 1924 1868 97.1% 1609 86.1% 259 13.9%
40 Hiatt (R) 1927 1069 927 86.7% 785 84.7% 142 15.3%
14 Hill (D) 1927 1860 1822 98.0% 1737 95.3% 85 4.7%
45 Hilton (R) 1927 1832 1808 98.7% 1395 77.2% 413 22.8%
37 Holliman (D) 1927 1876 1866 99.5% 1762 94.4% 104 5.6%
41 Holmes (R) 1927 1784 1602 89.8% 1389 86.7% 213 13.3%
74 Howard (R) 1927 1791 1655 92.4% 1399 84.5% 256 15.5%
5 Hunter (D) 1927 1454 1124 77.3% 1036 92.2% 88 7.8%
18 Hurley (D) 1927 1878 1823 97.1% 1738 95.3% 85 4.7%
24 Insko (D) 1927 1867 1740 93.2% 1594 91.6% 146 8.4%
89 Jarrell (D) 1927 1912 1875 98.1% 1785 95.2% 90 4.8%
89 Jeffus (D) 1927 1908 1879 98.5% 1786 95.1% 93 4.9%
90 Johnson (R) 1927 1867 1800 96.4% 1576 87.6% 224 12.4%
50 Justus (R) 1927 1901 1824 95.9% 1591 87.2% 233 12.8%
45 Kiser (R) 1927 1914 1863 97.3% 1466 78.7% 397 21.3%
17 Lucas (D) 1927 1916 1884 98.3% 1784 94.7% 100 5.3%
23 Luebke (D) 1927 1756 1698 96.7% 1557 91.7% 141 8.3%
17 McAllister (D) 1927 1728 1583 91.6% 1469 92.8% 114 7.2%
13 McComas (R) 1927 1843 1787 97.0% 1599 89.5% 188 10.5%
83 McCombs (R) 1927 1853 1847 99.7% 1654 89.6% 193 10.4%
9 McLawhorn (D) 1927 1895 1873 98.8% 1783 95.2% 90 4.8%
55 McMahan (R) 1927 1887 1811 96.0% 1656 91.4% 155 8.6%
23 Michaux (D) 1927 1895 1663 87.8% 1515 91.1% 148 8.9%
23 Miller (D) 1927 1926 1922 99.8% 1752 91.2% 170 8.8%
62 Miner (R) 1927 1627 1370 84.2% 1257 91.8% 113 8.2%
42 Mitchell (R) 1927 1927 1923 99.8% 1663 86.5% 260 13.5%
31 Morgan (R) 1927 1924 1848 96.0% 1689 91.4% 159 8.6%
18 Morris (R) 1927 1757 1720 97.9% 1551 90.2% 169 9.8%
51 Nesbitt (D) 1927 1847 1679 90.9% 1530 91.1% 149 8.9%
96 Nye (D) 1927 1897 1887 99.5% 1755 93.0% 132 7.0%
67 Oldham (D) 1927 1884 1788 94.9% 1704 95.3% 84 4.7%
1 Owens (D) 1927 1927 1909 99.1% 1804 94.5% 105 5.5%
61 Pope (R) 1927 1675 1659 99.0% 1356 81.7% 303 18.3%
4 Preston (R) 1927 1783 1742 97.7% 1594 91.5% 148 8.5%
93 Rayfield (R) 1927 1865 1856 99.5% 1550 83.5% 306 16.5%
14 Redwine (D) 1927 1827 1780 97.4% 1683 94.6% 97 5.4%
6 Rogers (D) 1927 1908 1802 94.4% 1686 93.6% 116 6.4%
77 Russell (R) 1927 1785 1723 96.5% 1525 88.5% 198 11.5%
54 Saunders (D) 1927 1825 1713 93.9% 1617 94.4% 96 5.6%
43 Setzer (R) 1927 1874 1830 97.7% 1467 80.2% 363 19.8%
73 Sexton (R) 1927 1843 1757 95.3% 1538 87.5% 219 12.5%
51 Sherrill (R) 1927 1797 1766 98.3% 1627 92.1% 139 7.9%
34 Shubert (R) 1927 1918 1900 99.1% 1547 81.4% 353 18.6%
4 Smith (D) 1927 1741 1722 98.9% 1641 95.3% 81 4.7%
36 SPEAKER (D) 1927 1894 184 9.7% 175 95.1% 9 4.9%
91 Starnes (R) 1927 1787 1729 96.8% 1407 81.4% 322 18.6%
85 Sutton (D) 1927 1808 1753 97.0% 1609 91.8% 144 8.2%
25 Teague (R) 1927 1844 1819 98.6% 1618 88.9% 201 11.1%
46 Thompson (R) 1927 1627 1584 97.4% 1401 88.4% 183 11.6%
71 Tolson (D) 1927 1918 1908 99.5% 1807 94.7% 101 5.3%
10 Tucker (D) 1927 1801 1776 98.6% 1670 94.0% 106 6.0%
3 Underhill (D) 1927 1828 1758 96.2% 1659 94.4% 99 5.6%
79 Wainwright (D) 1927 1752 1735 99.0% 1652 95.2% 83 4.8%
68 Walend (R) 1927 1867 1840 98.6% 1610 87.5% 230 12.5%
41 Walker (R) 1927 1883 1851 98.3% 1638 88.5% 213 11.5%
75 Warner (D) 1927 1886 1829 97.0% 1715 93.8% 114 6.2%
8 Warren (D) 1927 1883 1872 99.4% 1775 94.8% 97 5.2%
12 Warwick (D) 1927 1839 1799 97.8% 1671 92.9% 128 7.1%
48 Weatherly (R) 1927 1810 1722 95.1% 1531 88.9% 191 11.1%
63 Weiss (D) 1927 1874 1845 98.5% 1707 92.5% 138 7.5%
53 West (R) 1927 1825 1803 98.8% 1579 87.6% 224 12.4%
70 Willingham (D) 1927 432 421 97.5% 394 93.6% 27 6.4%
66 Womble (D) 1927 1842 1759 95.5% 1645 93.5% 114 6.5%
98 Wright (D) 1927 1671 1470 88.0% 1373 93.4% 97 6.6%
16 Yongue (D) 1927 1915 1880 98.2% 1792 95.3% 88 4.7%

Data Last Updated: Jan 29 2003 12:01AM

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.

* Presiding Officer

Speaker and Speaker Pro Tem often do not vote while presiding; therefore their voting % may be low.