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

48aAppendix Dto Dr. Alford’s hypothetical elections, in both cases theHispanic candidates still would not have prevailed. (Id.)Essentially, Dr. Alford claims that low concentrations ofHispanic voters are the real cause of the failure to electHispanic candidates, and that these low concentrationswould preclude the success of a Hispanic candidate evenif the illustrative districts were actually created.But low minority voter turnout does not militateagainst finding a Section 2 violation. See Harvell v.Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 71 F.3d 1382, 1388 (8thCir.1995) (“low voter turnout has often been considered theresult of the minority’s inability to effectively participatein the political process.”); United States v. Blaine County,363 F.3d 897, 911 (9th Cir.2004) (describing the situationwhere low voter turnout could defeat a Section 2 claim asa “vicious cycle”). As Dr. Engstrom testified, differentpatterns of past political participation under a diluted atlargeelectoral system are not a good indicator of futurevoting behavior in a nondiluted electoral system. (TrialTr. vol. 1, 3-4, Feb. 18.) He explained that by movingfrom a dilutive system to a system that is not dilutive,minority groups have improved opportunities to electthe candidates of choice, which in turn creates a stimulusto “organize and mobilize and bring more people to thepolls.” (Id.)3. Gingles III: White Majority Bloc VotingAs discussed above, HPA analysis reports thepercentage of the votes received by a candidate withingthe precincts in which a particular group constitutes