Jefferson Parish Poll Results POLLING METHODOLOGY For this poll, a sample of likely households was chosen from the population registered to vote in Jefferson Parish for a “hybrid” automated (for landlines)/live (for cell phones) poll, where 70% of the phone numbers were landlines and 30% of the phone numbers were cell phones. There were 600 completed responses. The survey was conducted February 21-23. The margin of error, with a 95% confidence interval, was 4.0%. The demographic breakdown of the respondents was 73-20% white/black (8% “other”), while the party registration of respondents was 42-37% Democratic/Republican (21% Independents). The geographic breakdown of the respondents was as follows: 18% from Parish Council District 1, 22% from Parish Council District 2, 16% from Parish Council District 3, 21% from Parish Council District 4, and 24% from Parish Council District 5(The explanation of the boundaries of these regions is graphically depicted in Exhibit A at the end of the poll analysis). POLL RESULTS If the election for Parish President were held today, which candidate would you support? Lee-Sheng 30% Young 23% Yenni 14% Undecided 35% Would you favor or oppose a property tax increase to make Jefferson Parish teachers’ salaries competitive with neighboring parishes ? Yes 51% No 29% Undecided 20% And for demographic purposes, are you male or female? Female 55% Male 45% SUMMARY JMC Analytics and Polling was commissioned to conduct this poll for Henry Shane. The main takeaway from this poll is that in the Parish President’s race, Cynthia Lee-Sheng starts off with a noticeable lead (although the undecided percentage is fairly high). In the Parish President’s race, At Large Councilwoman Cynthia Lee-Sheng has a seven point (30-23%) lead over former Parish President John Young, while President Mike Yenni trails with 14%. Lee-Sheng generally has leads across the board, with particularly strong support both from women (32-19 vs 27-26% among men). The black electorate is wide open, with 48% undecided and a three way race among that demographic. Page 1 of 4 When asked their opinion about a tax increase to make teachers salaries competitive with neighboring parishes, voters are overwhelmingly in favor: even Republicans are 42-36% for the tax. In summary, the Parish President’s race will be closely fought, although there is a fairly clear front runner this far out. CROSSTABS Parish President (ballot test) Race Name Black Other White Total Ballot (Parish 1 Lee-Sheng 19% 13% 34% 30% President) 2 Young 16% 16% 25% 23% 3 Yenni 16% 22% 12% 14% 4 Undecided 48% 49% 29% 35% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Party DEM OTHER REP Total Ballot (Parish 1 Lee-Sheng 28% 28% 32% 30% President) 2 Young 22% 20% 25% 23% 3 Yenni 16% 12% 12% 14% 4 Undecided 35% 41% 31% 35% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Cell Phone? Land Cell Total Ballot (Parish 1 Lee-Sheng 33% 21% 30% President) 2 Young 24% 19% 23% 3 Yenni 14% 13% 14% 4 Undecided 29% 48% 35% 100% 100% 100% Total Gender 1 Male 2 Female Total Ballot (Parish 1 Lee-Sheng 27% 32% 30% President) 2 Young 26% 19% 23% 3 Yenni 15% 12% 14% 4 Undecided 32% 36% 35% 100% 100% 100% Total Page 2 of 4 Tax increase teacher salaries Race Name Black Property Tax 1 Yes Other White Total 61% 36% 49% 51% 2 No 19% 36% 32% 29% 3 Undecided 20% 29% 19% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Party DEM Property Tax 1 Yes OTHER REP Total 57% 54% 42% 51% 2 No 24% 29% 36% 29% 3 Undecided 20% 17% 22% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Cell Phone? Land Property Tax 1 Yes Cell Total 47% 59% 51% 2 No 31% 25% 29% 3 Undecided 21% 17% 20% 100% 100% 100% Total Gender 1 Male Property Tax 1 Yes Total 2 Female Total 48% 53% 51% 2 No 36% 24% 29% 3 Undecided 17% 23% 20% 100% 100% 100% Page 3 of 4 00K001 . I ?170011002 I I K003 ?IILooko. I 0 I ?fomagoxm?rl I I A 1 00K Appendix A: 000- '00 efferson Parish re ions . . .. 09 . 0 . Mi 09-42 09'? @3991} #5410005 . . .4 . I I .. 00K017 00K019 003 0004? - . 00 3A "@2212 _00017 .800 A 00K02. 00K020 I rm . . Imsz -I- I 00009 0001 00mm ?021? am I 376% I I 05-5 0005's?! ?022 00023.7? I 00K023 I 00059 . 00070 I . .v 0km001(029/ 01710 007 I . 001(025 7? 00K0?0ooxo31 00104 1, I . . . 00115 2, I001oe a . . .1 011.110 \(00120' 001 $16 II . - .E. I012 I I . 1 . 001%!) 00150 0 ..1 I @?Er I . - . I) 0012 8 . 00124 . -. ..- 0011 I I 00125 ?1 . I I I 40% nun: 0011007? 90H009 . .. 5-1 0? 00170 .I - - 5-17 swim . _?00152 . 150 00153 . 00154 00155 1 0225\ 7 00151 . 00601 I 15.135 73 00111 .I I I I 0022000225 1' 0015? 7 0017 . .. I . I 00172 "?917,535 II +7 00173 ?174,00170' 0022 I I 6?11}, I 00230.0023 - 00179A 00100 I 939?? I 0020301- - . I 0234 II I 00107 . 00134 002143 02-5 00201 I I ,1 II 37 00189 I 0&2 5 on? 00156 00204 I 00236 I I 00217 00190 I ,1 I . 00m 0019? 0019:; I 01 90233 ,00205 0 092153. -. 00218A I 0 19 - I. 032129 I I I. I I 04-1 II 00197A 1 05-1 I I NW Page 4 of 4