CR Board State Constraints Survey Name First Last Option 1: 31 states - Judges will be permitted to adjudicate students from their state in final rounds. Judges will not be permitted to adjudicate students from their district.*1st choice (best)2nd choice3rd choice4th choice (least preferred)Option 2: 2 states - Endorse the use of multiple judges from one state on a final round panel, the reuse of judges for multiple final round panels, and the reuse of judges who adjudicated a student performance earlier in the tournament. Keep state constraints like the status quo where TX and CA are split into "two states" where each half can judge schools from the other half.*1st choice (best)2nd choice3rd choice4th choice (least preferred)Option 3: 14 states - Judges from states with three or more NSDA districts will be permitted to adjudicate students from their state in final rounds. States with 3+ districts will be split into "two states" where one half can judge schools from the other half, like we do in TX and CA now. Judges will not be permitted to adjudicate students from their district. States with three or more districts: CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, KS, MN, MO, NY, OH, PA, TX, UT, WA.*1st choice (best)2nd choice3rd choice4th choice (least preferred)Option 4: Status Quo - The current system where only TX and CA judges are permitted to adjudicate students from their own state will remain in place. Because they have 7+ districts, TX and CA are split into "two states" each, where each half can judge schools from the other half. Staff will do their best to avoid reuse of judges or use of judges from the same state on one panel. Note: This option makes it significantly less likely we will be able to meet the representation and experience standards set by the Board of Directors.*1st choice (best)2nd choice3rd choice4th choice (least preferred)PhoneThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
