petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog

46aAppendix Dthat the confidence that can reasonably be placed inthe ER estimates are low due to low levels of Hispanicconcentration in the precincts, which impairs the ERanalysis. (Defs.’ Ex. 51, at 10.) He showed that there is a95% chance that the actual proportion of Hispanic voterscasting their votes for Rivera in 2008 was somewherebetween 38.7 and 100%, and for Medina is was between27.3 and 100%. (Id. at 11.) Dr. Alford concluded that “clearlythe confidence interval for both estimates includes levelsfar too low to be considered cohesive minority voting.” (Id.)Dr. Engstrom also noted that the confidence intervalsare wide, and stated that this result should be expectedgiven the data. He concurred with Dr. Alford that the wideconfidence intervals are due to application of ER to a setof data points that don’t lend themselves to ER analysis.(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 2, Feb. 18.) Dr. Engstrom pointed to theER scatter plots, on which the data points are all clusteredin the lower left corner. (See PL’s Ex. 27.) According toDr. Engstrom, for a more precise ER analysis one wouldneed data points that move further out towards a 100%Hispanic voter precinct-unlike the precincts analyzed,which all have SSRV rates of less than 35%. Dr. Engstromalso responded that the point estimate is the best singleestimate, and the numbers closest to the best estimatewould be more likely than the numbers at the end of theconfidence interval.Dr. Engstrom also applied confidence intervals tohis EI calculations. The confidence intervals producedby the EI analysis were tight around the point estimate,indicating that the analysis was efficient and there was