 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Turnout | 42.25%[1] 2.75pp | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 Results by ward | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
TheChicago mayoral election of 1995 resulted in the re-election ofDemocratic Party nominee incumbentRichard M. Daley over independent candidateRoland Burris, with 359,466 votes to Burris's 217,024. Daley won 60.1% of the total vote, winning by a landslide 24-point margin. TheRepublican candidate,Raymond Wardingley, fared poorly with only 2.8% of the vote. A fourth-place candidate,Harold Washington Party nominee Lawrence Redmond, won 0.9% of the votes.[2]
This was the last election for Mayor of Chicago where candidates ran under party labels, as a state law was enacted later in 1995 making all municipal offices in the state non-partisan.[3]
TheDemocratic Party,Republican Party, and theHarold Washington Party all heldprimary elections for their nominations. However, only the Democratic Party's primary saw a sizeable number of voters participate. Daley easily defeatedMetropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Commissioner Joseph E. Gardiner by a margin of more that 30 points. Wardingley, aperennial candidate andclown, very narrowly won the Republican nomination among a weak field of contenders. Redmond was unopposed for the Harold Washington Party primary.
The following were speculated as prospective candidates, but did not run:
Daley easily defeated two challengers in the primary.
Daley's main challenge came fromMetropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago commissioner Joseph E. Gardner. Gardner had been a high-ranking member ofHarold Washington's mayoral administration and an executive atPUSH.[4]By 1995, Sheila A. Jones had become aperennial competitor in the Democratic mayoral primary.
As was the case in all of his reelection campaigns, Daley did not attend any debates.[6]
Daley vastly out-raised his opponents in campaign funds.[7]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(February 2019) |
.svg)
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | Richard M. Daley (incumbent) | 348,153 | 65.79 | |
| Democratic | Joseph E. Gardner | 174,943 | 33.06 | |
| Democratic | Sheila A. Jones | 6,067 | 1.15 | |
| Total votes | 529,163 | |||
Daley won a majority of the vote in 31 wards.[8] Gardner won a majority of the vote in the remaining 19 wards.[8]
Results by ward[8]
| Ward | Richard M. Daley | Joseph E. Gardner | Sheila A. Jones | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | Votes | % | Votes | % | Votes | |
| 1 | 5,459 | 80.3% | 1,231 | 18.1% | 111 | 1.6% | 6,801 |
| 2 | 3,582 | 37.2% | 5,814 | 60.4% | 228 | 2.4% | 9,624 |
| 3 | 2,194 | 24.6% | 6,498 | 73.0% | 210 | 2.4% | 8,902 |
| 4 | 3,563 | 32.9% | 7,093 | 65.5% | 176 | 1.6% | 10,832 |
| 5 | 3,733 | 34.0% | 7,124 | 64.8% | 136 | 1.2% | 10,993 |
| 6 | 3,287 | 22.7% | 11,082 | 76.4% | 143 | 1.0% | 14,512 |
| 7 | 2,891 | 28.5% | 7,109 | 70.1% | 146 | 1.4% | 10,146 |
| 8 | 3,775 | 24.5% | 11,484 | 74.5% | 165 | 1.1% | 15,424 |
| 9 | 2,252 | 21.2% | 8,264 | 77.7% | 122 | 1.1% | 10,638 |
| 10 | 9,979 | 85.6% | 1,565 | 13.4% | 116 | 1.0% | 11,660 |
| 11 | 14,571 | 95.8% | 561 | 3.7% | 84 | 0.6% | 15,216 |
| 12 | 4,306 | 92.1% | 314 | 6.7% | 56 | 1.2% | 4,676 |
| 13 | 19,414 | 96.3% | 653 | 3.2% | 96 | 0.5% | 20,163 |
| 14 | 10,270 | 95.7% | 405 | 3.8% | 62 | 0.6% | 10,737 |
| 15 | 2,581 | 32.8% | 5,144 | 65.5% | 132 | 1.7% | 7,857 |
| 16 | 2,383 | 35.6% | 4,144 | 62.0% | 161 | 2.4% | 6,688 |
| 17 | 2,323 | 23.4% | 7,463 | 75.1% | 150 | 1.5% | 9,936 |
| 18 | 11,731 | 62.7% | 6,816 | 36.4% | 163 | 0.9% | 18,710 |
| 19 | 16,192 | 85.5% | 2,655 | 14.0% | 83 | 0.4% | 18,930 |
| 20 | 2,371 | 25.4% | 6,835 | 73.1% | 140 | 1.5% | 9,346 |
| 21 | 3,250 | 22.7% | 10,889 | 76.1% | 162 | 1.1% | 14,301 |
| 22 | 3,733 | 69.0% | 1,597 | 29.5% | 80 | 1.5% | 5,410 |
| 23 | 20,287 | 94.6% | 1,000 | 4.7% | 164 | 0.8% | 21,451 |
| 24 | 2,149 | 24.8% | 6,330 | 72.9% | 199 | 2.3% | 8,678 |
| 25 | 4,828 | 87.5% | 618 | 11.2% | 69 | 1.3% | 5,515 |
| 26 | 5,404 | 83.4% | 979 | 15.1% | 98 | 1.5% | 6,481 |
| 27 | 3,806 | 42.9% | 4,898 | 55.2% | 168 | 1.9% | 8,872 |
| 28 | 1,871 | 24.0% | 5,780 | 74.3% | 130 | 1.7% | 7,781 |
| 29 | 3,240 | 36.2% | 5,525 | 61.8% | 182 | 2.0% | 8,947 |
| 30 | 9,090 | 94.1% | 481 | 5.0% | 86 | 0.9% | 9,657 |
| 31 | 5,533 | 89.7% | 574 | 9.3% | 59 | 1.0% | 6,166 |
| 32 | 7,381 | 88.1% | 914 | 10.9% | 87 | 1.0% | 8,382 |
| 33 | 6,673 | 91.2% | 572 | 7.8% | 74 | 1.0% | 7,319 |
| 34 | 2,947 | 23.3% | 9,472 | 74.9% | 223 | 1.8% | 12,642 |
| 35 | 6,365 | 84.7% | 1,043 | 13.9% | 106 | 1.4% | 7,514 |
| 36 | 12,510 | 91.6% | 1,057 | 7.7% | 84 | 0.6% | 13,651 |
| 37 | 3,191 | 36.0% | 5,533 | 62.5% | 132 | 1.5% | 8,856 |
| 38 | 13,697 | 94.6% | 672 | 4.6% | 106 | 0.7% | 14,475 |
| 39 | 9,748 | 92.0% | 737 | 7.0% | 108 | 1.0% | 10,593 |
| 40 | 6,953 | 88.0% | 871 | 11.0% | 75 | 0.9% | 7,899 |
| 41 | 14,384 | 92.7% | 1,007 | 6.5% | 126 | 0.8% | 15,517 |
| 42 | 9,511 | 86.3% | 1,428 | 13.0% | 82 | 0.7% | 11,021 |
| 43 | 7,525 | 88.6% | 912 | 10.7% | 56 | 0.7% | 8,493 |
| 44 | 6,897 | 86.8% | 986 | 12.4% | 60 | 0.8% | 7,943 |
| 45 | 14,863 | 93.9% | 833 | 5.3% | 127 | 0.8% | 15,823 |
| 46 | 7,119 | 71.2% | 2,680 | 26.8% | 198 | 2.0% | 9,997 |
| 47 | 8,627 | 88.5% | 1,011 | 10.4% | 109 | 1.1% | 9,747 |
| 48 | 5,970 | 77.2% | 1,699 | 22.0% | 65 | 0.8% | 7,734 |
| 49 | 4,105 | 67.7% | 1,858 | 30.6% | 99 | 1.6% | 6,062 |
| 50 | 9,639 | 92.3% | 733 | 7.0% | 73 | 0.7% | 10,445 |
| Total | 348,153 | 65.8% | 174,943 | 33.1% | 6,067 | 1.1% | 529,163 |
Raymond Wardingley narrowly won the Republican nomination.
The Republican field was regarded as weak.[9] Wardingly had worked as a clown under the name "Spanky the Clown".[9] He had thrice before run for mayor.[10]
Candidates Themis Anagost[11] (an attorney),[12] Leon Beard,[13] and Raymond Lear[14][15] had been denied inclusion on the ballot due to issues with their petitions.
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | Raymond Wardingley | 2,438 | 28.2 | |
| Republican | Larry P. Horist | 2,354 | 27.2 | |
| Republican | Saturnino Noriega | 1,995 | 23.1 | |
| Republican | William J. Grutzmacher | 1,579 | 18.2 | |
| Republican | Kimball Ladien | 288 | 3.3 | |
| Total votes | 8,654 | |||
Results by ward[16]
| Ward | Raymond Wardingley | Larry P. Horist | Saturnino Nino Noriega | William J. Grutzmacher | Kimball Ladien | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 34 | 30.1% | 25 | 22.1% | 30 | 26.5% | 21 | 18.6% | 3 | 2.7% | 113 |
| 2 | 39 | 24.1% | 59 | 36.4% | 39 | 24.1% | 18 | 11.1% | 7 | 4.3% | 162 |
| 3 | 27 | 58.7% | 5 | 10.9% | 7 | 15.2% | 5 | 10.9% | 2 | 4.3% | 46 |
| 4 | 25 | 34.7% | 14 | 19.4% | 23 | 31.9% | 9 | 12.5% | 1 | 1.4% | 72 |
| 5 | 30 | 30.6% | 30 | 30.6% | 25 | 25.5% | 12 | 12.2% | 1 | 1.0% | 98 |
| 6 | 35 | 46.7% | 15 | 20.0% | 14 | 18.7% | 9 | 12.0% | 2 | 2.7% | 75 |
| 7 | 21 | 33.3% | 20 | 31.7% | 14 | 22.2% | 8 | 12.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 63 |
| 8 | 31 | 35.2% | 18 | 20.5% | 27 | 30.7% | 10 | 11.4% | 2 | 2.3% | 88 |
| 9 | 13 | 35.1% | 11 | 29.7% | 9 | 24.3% | 3 | 8.1% | 1 | 2.7% | 37 |
| 10 | 86 | 25.4% | 92 | 27.2% | 66 | 19.5% | 88 | 26.0% | 6 | 1.8% | 338 |
| 11 | 36 | 27.9% | 42 | 32.6% | 23 | 17.8% | 24 | 18.6% | 4 | 3.1% | 129 |
| 12 | 20 | 29.0% | 12 | 17.4% | 22 | 31.9% | 13 | 18.8% | 2 | 2.9% | 69 |
| 13 | 53 | 26.2% | 67 | 33.2% | 37 | 18.3% | 42 | 20.8% | 3 | 1.5% | 202 |
| 14 | 31 | 22.3% | 33 | 23.7% | 37 | 26.6% | 31 | 22.3% | 7 | 5.0% | 139 |
| 15 | 27 | 42.2% | 19 | 29.7% | 13 | 20.3% | 4 | 6.2% | 1 | 1.6% | 64 |
| 16 | 20 | 41.7% | 6 | 12.5% | 11 | 22.9% | 8 | 16.7% | 3 | 6.2% | 48 |
| 17 | 23 | 40.4% | 14 | 24.6% | 16 | 28.1% | 4 | 7.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 57 |
| 18 | 38 | 29.5% | 38 | 29.5% | 26 | 20.2% | 24 | 18.6% | 3 | 2.3% | 129 |
| 19 | 75 | 33.8% | 56 | 25.2% | 38 | 17.1% | 48 | 21.6% | 5 | 2.3% | 222 |
| 20 | 26 | 38.8% | 8 | 11.9% | 23 | 34.3% | 8 | 11.9% | 2 | 3.0% | 67 |
| 21 | 24 | 38.1% | 9 | 14.3% | 14 | 22.2% | 14 | 22.2% | 2 | 3.2% | 63 |
| 22 | 20 | 32.8% | 4 | 6.6% | 28 | 45.9% | 7 | 11.5% | 2 | 3.3% | 61 |
| 23 | 76 | 31.9% | 54 | 22.7% | 47 | 19.7% | 55 | 23.1% | 6 | 2.5% | 238 |
| 24 | 13 | 43.3% | 7 | 23.3% | 6 | 20.0% | 3 | 10.0% | 1 | 3.3% | 30 |
| 25 | 22 | 25.9% | 15 | 17.6% | 37 | 43.5% | 9 | 10.6% | 2 | 2.4% | 85 |
| 26 | 28 | 29.2% | 16 | 16.7% | 36 | 37.5% | 15 | 15.6% | 1 | 1.0% | 96 |
| 27 | 84 | 38.2% | 47 | 21.4% | 55 | 25.0% | 26 | 11.8% | 8 | 3.6% | 220 |
| 28 | 13 | 30.2% | 8 | 18.6% | 15 | 34.9% | 5 | 11.6% | 2 | 4.7% | 43 |
| 29 | 31 | 33.3% | 22 | 23.7% | 26 | 28.0% | 8 | 8.6% | 6 | 6.5% | 93 |
| 30 | 75 | 30.2% | 55 | 22.2% | 61 | 24.6% | 50 | 20.2% | 7 | 2.8% | 248 |
| 31 | 33 | 25.2% | 30 | 22.9% | 45 | 34.4% | 20 | 15.3% | 3 | 2.3% | 131 |
| 32 | 45 | 23.2% | 57 | 29.4% | 48 | 24.7% | 38 | 19.6% | 6 | 3.1% | 194 |
| 33 | 37 | 23.6% | 43 | 27.4% | 35 | 22.3% | 30 | 19.1% | 12 | 7.6% | 157 |
| 34 | 30 | 46.2% | 9 | 13.8% | 20 | 30.8% | 3 | 4.6% | 3 | 4.6% | 65 |
| 35 | 48 | 27.0% | 32 | 18.0% | 54 | 30.3% | 36 | 20.2% | 8 | 4.5% | 178 |
| 36 | 67 | 25.4% | 114 | 43.2% | 33 | 12.5% | 42 | 15.9% | 8 | 3.0% | 264 |
| 37 | 13 | 31.0% | 8 | 19.0% | 16 | 38.1% | 5 | 11.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 42 |
| 38 | 93 | 28.0% | 98 | 29.5% | 49 | 14.8% | 82 | 24.7% | 10 | 3.0% | 332 |
| 39 | 65 | 26.0% | 70 | 28.0% | 56 | 22.4% | 47 | 18.8% | 12 | 4.8% | 250 |
| 40 | 46 | 22.5% | 74 | 36.3% | 46 | 22.5% | 32 | 15.7% | 6 | 2.9% | 204 |
| 41 | 164 | 23.6% | 211 | 30.4% | 122 | 17.6% | 181 | 26.0% | 17 | 2.4% | 695 |
| 42 | 152 | 24.6% | 183 | 29.6% | 158 | 25.5% | 101 | 16.3% | 25 | 4.0% | 619 |
| 43 | 96 | 28.3% | 103 | 30.4% | 78 | 23.0% | 41 | 12.1% | 21 | 6.2% | 339 |
| 44 | 68 | 23.6% | 87 | 30.2% | 71 | 24.7% | 47 | 16.3% | 15 | 5.2% | 288 |
| 45 | 102 | 27.5% | 148 | 39.9% | 46 | 12.4% | 71 | 19.1% | 4 | 1.1% | 371 |
| 46 | 95 | 32.4% | 55 | 18.8% | 76 | 25.9% | 55 | 18.8% | 12 | 4.1% | 293 |
| 47 | 43 | 20.5% | 40 | 19.0% | 59 | 28.1% | 56 | 26.7% | 12 | 5.7% | 210 |
| 48 | 67 | 24.5% | 90 | 32.8% | 64 | 23.4% | 42 | 15.3% | 11 | 4.0% | 274 |
| 49 | 44 | 24.9% | 44 | 24.9% | 48 | 27.1% | 34 | 19.2% | 7 | 4.0% | 177 |
| 50 | 54 | 30.7% | 37 | 21.0% | 46 | 26.1% | 35 | 19.9% | 4 | 2.3% | 176 |
| Total | 2,438 | 28.2% | 2,354 | 27.2% | 1,995 | 23.1% | 1,579 | 18.2% | 288 | 3.3% | 8,654 |
Lawrence C. Redmond went unopposed in the Harold Washington Party primary.
Candidates Phillip Morris[18] and Ilene Smith[19] had been denied inclusion on the ballot due to issues regarding their petitions.
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harold Washington | Lawrence C. Redmond | 1,383 | 100 | |
| Total votes | 1,383 | |||
Results by ward[20]
| Ward | Lawrence C. Redmond | |
|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | |
| 1 | 12 | 100.0% |
| 2 | 44 | 100.0% |
| 3 | 39 | 100.0% |
| 4 | 54 | 100.0% |
| 5 | 38 | 100.0% |
| 6 | 52 | 100.0% |
| 7 | 80 | 100.0% |
| 8 | 68 | 100.0% |
| 9 | 63 | 100.0% |
| 10 | 9 | 100.0% |
| 11 | 3 | 100.0% |
| 12 | 2 | 100.0% |
| 13 | 3 | 100.0% |
| 14 | 6 | 100.0% |
| 15 | 64 | 100.0% |
| 16 | 39 | 100.0% |
| 17 | 58 | 100.0% |
| 18 | 49 | 100.0% |
| 19 | 30 | 100.0% |
| 20 | 45 | 100.0% |
| 21 | 75 | 100.0% |
| 22 | 6 | 100.0% |
| 23 | 2 | 100.0% |
| 24 | 42 | 100.0% |
| 25 | 6 | 100.0% |
| 26 | 14 | 100.0% |
| 27 | 59 | 100.0% |
| 28 | 35 | 100.0% |
| 29 | 36 | 100.0% |
| 30 | 4 | 100.0% |
| 31 | 3 | 100.0% |
| 32 | 3 | 100.0% |
| 33 | 5 | 100.0% |
| 34 | 78 | 100.0% |
| 35 | 13 | 100.0% |
| 36 | 2 | 100.0% |
| 37 | 78 | 100.0% |
| 38 | 0 | N/A |
| 39 | 1 | 100.0% |
| 40 | 9 | 100.0% |
| 41 | 0 | N/A |
| 42 | 11 | 100.0% |
| 43 | 7 | 100.0% |
| 44 | 10 | 100.0% |
| 45 | 2 | 100.0% |
| 46 | 42 | 100.0% |
| 47 | 11 | 100.0% |
| 48 | 26 | 100.0% |
| 49 | 42 | 100.0% |
| 50 | 3 | 100.0% |
| Totals | 1,383 | 100.0% |
Roland Burris ran as an independent.[21] When first approached by black activists about running for mayor, Burris had declined. He ultimately ran, proclaiming to have been drafted by “the people”.[22] By the time he decided to run, Joseph Gardner had already challenged Daley in the Democratic primary. Not wanting to run against Gardner and split the black vote in the primary, Burris decided he would run in the general election as an independent candidate.[22]
Daley did not attend any debates.[6] Burris complained of a lack of media coverage on his candidacy.[22] Late into the campaign, Burris issued demands for Daley to address corruption and misconduct by aviation employees, especially Dominic Longo, the manager of vehicle operations at O’Hare. The airport had recently suffered a number of accidents caused by inexperienced runway crew leadership. Burris also alleged that Longo has coerced airport employees into making donations to the Daley campaign in order to keep their jobs.[23] Daley's campaign spent $3 million in the election. Burris spent $250,000.[24]
| This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(February 2019) |
Officeholders
| Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size | Margin of error | Ronald Burris | Richard M. Daley | Raymond Wardingley |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicago Tribune[25] | March 1995 | 19% | 57% | 2% |
Daley won a majority of the vote in 31 of the city's 50 wards. Burris won a majority of the vote in the remaining 19 wards.[2] In response to Wardingley's abysmal showing, the Republican-controlledIllinois General Assembly passed legislation creating a nonpartisan, runoff election system for citywide offices in Chicago. Public Act 89-0095 was signed into law by GovernorJim Edgar and went into effect for the1999 Chicago mayoral election.[26][27]
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | Richard M. Daley (incumbent) | 359,466 | 60.09 | |
| Independent | Roland W. Burris | 217,024 | 36.28 | |
| Republican | Raymond Wardingley | 16,568 | 2.77 | |
| Harold Washington | Lawrence C. Redmond | 5,160 | 0.86 | |
| Turnout | 598,218 | |||
Results by ward[2]
| Ward | Richard M. Daley (Democratic Party) | Roland W. Burris (Independent) | Raymond Wardingley (Republican Party) | Lawrence C. Redmond (Harold Washington Party) | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | % | Votes | % | Votes | % | Votes | % | Votes | |
| 1 | 6,105 | 79.0% | 1,321 | 17.1% | 188 | 2.4% | 113 | 1.5% | 7,727 |
| 2 | 3,564 | 30.6% | 7,700 | 66.2% | 174 | 1.5% | 193 | 1.7% | 11,631 |
| 3 | 1,974 | 19.3% | 7,915 | 77.4% | 99 | 1.0% | 234 | 2.3% | 10,222 |
| 4 | 3,044 | 26.7% | 8,073 | 70.9% | 106 | 0.9% | 166 | 1.5% | 11,389 |
| 5 | 3,735 | 27.7% | 9,493 | 70.5% | 110 | 0.8% | 136 | 1.0% | 13,474 |
| 6 | 2,644 | 15.2% | 14,502 | 83.5% | 57 | 0.3% | 161 | 0.9% | 17,364 |
| 7 | 2,440 | 20.3% | 9,327 | 77.8% | 93 | 0.8% | 133 | 1.1% | 11,993 |
| 8 | 3,106 | 17.2% | 14,681 | 81.4% | 65 | 0.4% | 174 | 1.0% | 18,026 |
| 9 | 1,874 | 14.5% | 10,888 | 84.2% | 54 | 0.4% | 114 | 0.9% | 12,930 |
| 10 | 11,304 | 81.3% | 1,950 | 14.0% | 585 | 4.2% | 65 | 0.5% | 13,904 |
| 11 | 15,565 | 94.2% | 587 | 3.6% | 331 | 2.0% | 47 | 0.3% | 16,530 |
| 12 | 3,566 | 91.0% | 216 | 5.5% | 107 | 2.7% | 28 | 0.7% | 3,917 |
| 13 | 20,701 | 92.6% | 816 | 3.7% | 794 | 3.6% | 35 | 0.2% | 22,346 |
| 14 | 11,308 | 93.2% | 456 | 3.8% | 329 | 2.7% | 37 | 0.3% | 12,130 |
| 15 | 2,528 | 26.4% | 6,794 | 70.9% | 109 | 1.1% | 147 | 1.5% | 9,578 |
| 16 | 2,301 | 28.5% | 5,541 | 68.7% | 69 | 0.9% | 160 | 2.0% | 8,071 |
| 17 | 1,889 | 16.1% | 9,586 | 81.7% | 68 | 0.6% | 186 | 1.6% | 11,729 |
| 18 | 10,949 | 54.4% | 8,480 | 42.2% | 548 | 2.7% | 132 | 0.7% | 20,109 |
| 19 | 17,149 | 77.7% | 3,582 | 16.2% | 1,293 | 5.9% | 41 | 0.2% | 22,065 |
| 20 | 2,067 | 20.5% | 7,802 | 77.2% | 63 | 0.6% | 174 | 1.7% | 10,106 |
| 21 | 2,620 | 14.9% | 14,686 | 83.7% | 54 | 0.3% | 178 | 1.0% | 17,538 |
| 22 | 2,608 | 59.2% | 1,677 | 38.1% | 59 | 1.3% | 63 | 1.4% | 4,407 |
| 23 | 20,043 | 90.7% | 1,074 | 4.9% | 929 | 4.2% | 52 | 0.2% | 22,098 |
| 24 | 1,621 | 18.1% | 7,090 | 79.4% | 70 | 0.8% | 153 | 1.7% | 8,934 |
| 25 | 4,033 | 85.1% | 558 | 11.8% | 108 | 2.3% | 39 | 0.8% | 4,738 |
| 26 | 4,696 | 80.2% | 906 | 15.5% | 190 | 3.2% | 64 | 1.1% | 5,856 |
| 27 | 4,281 | 39.4% | 6,168 | 56.8% | 220 | 2.0% | 189 | 1.7% | 10,858 |
| 28 | 1,635 | 17.6% | 7,449 | 80.1% | 60 | 0.6% | 161 | 1.7% | 9,305 |
| 29 | 3,377 | 30.4% | 7,393 | 66.5% | 152 | 1.4% | 203 | 1.8% | 11,125 |
| 30 | 11,019 | 89.3% | 731 | 5.9% | 538 | 4.4% | 55 | 0.4% | 12,343 |
| 31 | 4,970 | 85.7% | 575 | 9.9% | 196 | 3.4% | 60 | 1.0% | 5,801 |
| 32 | 8,307 | 86.3% | 875 | 9.1% | 383 | 4.0% | 62 | 0.6% | 9,627 |
| 33 | 7,217 | 88.2% | 611 | 7.5% | 307 | 3.8% | 47 | 0.6% | 8,182 |
| 34 | 2,613 | 17.2% | 12,323 | 81.2% | 82 | 0.5% | 167 | 1.1% | 15,185 |
| 35 | 6,872 | 82.7% | 1,061 | 12.8% | 261 | 3.1% | 117 | 1.4% | 8,311 |
| 36 | 15,021 | 87.7% | 1,402 | 8.2% | 665 | 3.9% | 39 | 0.2% | 17,127 |
| 37 | 2,027 | 23.2% | 6,491 | 74.2% | 79 | 0.9% | 154 | 1.8% | 8,751 |
| 38 | 13,773 | 90.0% | 777 | 5.1% | 717 | 4.7% | 32 | 0.2% | 15,299 |
| 39 | 10,784 | 87.1% | 906 | 7.3% | 614 | 5.0% | 74 | 0.6% | 12,378 |
| 40 | 8,325 | 85.2% | 970 | 9.9% | 412 | 4.2% | 64 | 0.7% | 9,771 |
| 41 | 16,253 | 85.5% | 1,371 | 7.2% | 1,345 | 7.1% | 39 | 0.2% | 19,008 |
| 42 | 10,229 | 83.0% | 1,510 | 12.3% | 515 | 4.2% | 66 | 0.5% | 12,320 |
| 43 | 8,457 | 86.4% | 897 | 9.2% | 394 | 4.0% | 41 | 0.4% | 9,789 |
| 44 | 8,782 | 86.3% | 969 | 9.5% | 352 | 3.5% | 68 | 0.7% | 10,171 |
| 45 | 15,580 | 89.0% | 920 | 5.3% | 949 | 5.4% | 49 | 0.3% | 17,498 |
| 46 | 6,036 | 69.7% | 2,222 | 25.6% | 302 | 3.5% | 104 | 1.2% | 8,664 |
| 47 | 9,384 | 86.2% | 981 | 9.0% | 440 | 4.0% | 76 | 0.7% | 10,881 |
| 48 | 7,172 | 74.0% | 2,066 | 21.3% | 342 | 3.5% | 106 | 1.1% | 9,686 |
| 49 | 4,016 | 63.8% | 1,903 | 30.3% | 260 | 4.1% | 111 | 1.8% | 6,290 |
| 50 | 9,902 | 89.7% | 752 | 6.8% | 331 | 3.0% | 51 | 0.5% | 11,036 |
| Total | 359,466 | 60.1% | 217,024 | 36.3% | 16,568 | 2.8% | 5,160 | 0.9% | 598,218 |
| | |
| Elections |
| |
1 tenure as acting officeholder. 2 Election declared null and void. | ||
.jpg)
.jpg)
