Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 61
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiff,
- against -
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-cv-01303
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ERIC H.
HOLDER, JR. in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States,
Three-Judge panel: RMC-TBG-BAH
Defendants.
DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE’S
NOTICE OF FILING PRE-FILED WRITTEN DIRECT TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT 4
Corrected Rebuttal Report of Dr. Richard Engstrom
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 61
CORRECTED
REBUTTAL REPORT
by
Richard L. Engstrom
Visiting Research Fellow
Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Social Sciences
Duke University
My name is Richard L. Engstrom. My initial expert report for this case, dated
August 9, 2011, was submitted previously. The attorney for the plaintiff Texas
Redistricting Task Force has asked me to prepare a rebuttal report that responds to the
report of Prof. John Alford. In addition, I have examined the 2006 primary and general
elections to go along with those for 2008 and 2010 contained in the previous report. In
response to Prof. Alford's report, I have also assessed both the extent to which voting
was racially polarized and also the extent to which there were turnout differences
between Latinos and non-Latinos in the 2010 general elections for United States House
of Representative districts 23 and 27 and Texas House of Representatives districts 33 and
78.
My assignment includes assessing the number of congressional districts that
provide Latinos with a reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice in
the plan in place at the time of redistricting (C 100), in the congressional plan adopted by
the state (C185), and in the illustrative districts in the Task Force's congressional district
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 61
plan (C190), and to do the same for the state House districts contained in the plan
adopted by the state (H283), and the Taskforce's illustrative plan (H292).
Racially Polarized Voting
My initial report contained the results of my analysis of racially polarized voting
in statewide elections in which voters had a choice between or among Latino and nonLatino candidates in the 2008 and 2010 elections within Bexar, Dallas, El Paso, Harris,
Nueces, Tarrant, and Travis counties, and also a 52-county area of South Texas. 1 In 2006
the statewide elections offered this type of choice in three general elections, those for Lt.
Governor, the Place 4 seat on the state Supreme Court, and the position of Presiding
Judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals. 2 There were also nomination contests offering
this same choice in 2006 in the initial Democratic primary election and the subsequent
Democratic runoff primary election.
The analyses of these 2006 elections were conducted in the same manner as those
for the 2008 and 2010 elections, through the Ecological Inference procedure developed
by Professor Gary King, often referred to as EI. The state's expert in this case, Professor
John Alford, has stated in his Expert Report for this case that this method is "normally
preferred" over previous methods for deriving estimates of group divisions in candidate
preferences in past elections. 3 In the bivariate analyses, involving estimates of the
candidate preferences of Latino and non-Latino voters, the independent variable is the
1
There were two Latino candidates in the 20 I 0 Democratic primary. These candidates received 2.83
percent and 4.95 percent of the votes cast across the state. This election therefore was not included in
the analysis.
2
The votes for one of the three candidates in the general election for Lt. Governor in 2006 was not
included in the Texas Legislative Council's precinct election returns and therefore could not be
included in the analyses of this election. The candidate was Judy Baker, the Libertarian nominee for
that office. She received 4.35 percent of the votes statewide.
Expert Report of Dr. John Alford, August 22, 20 II, at II.
2
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 4 of 61
relative presence of Latinos within the precinct electorates, as reported by the state based
on Spanish surnames. This is the same indicator that I used in my bivariate analyses of
the 2008 elections. In the multivariate analyses, involving estimates ofthe candidate
preferences of Latino, African American, and the remaining voters (referred to as
"others" in this report), the relative presence of each group in the precincts is based on
their citizen voting age populations as reported in the American Community Survey.
This is the same indictor I used in my multivariate analyses of the 2008 and 2010
elections. The dependent variable remains the votes cast for the respective candidates in
the precincts.
In order to facilitate geographically specific determinations of racially polarized
voting, I provide separate tables containing the results of the analyses for each county and
South Texas for the entire time period covered. 4 The first three tables will concern the
areas in which only bivariate analyses have been performed, due to the very small
presence of African Americans of voting age within them. These are El Paso and
Nueces, in which non-Hispanic African Americans constitute 2.7 percent and 3.6 percent
of the voting age population, respectively, and the South Texas area in which they
constitute 2.9 percent of the voting age population. 5
4
The tables in this report also correct typographical errors present in the tables contained in my initial
report.
5
Tables Ithrough 3 identify the geographical area under examination, the year of the election and
whether it was a general or a party primary, and the name of the Latino candidate in the first column,
and report the estimates derived for Latino and non-Latino voters in the second and third columns
respectively. The first number in each cell in columns 2 and 3 identifies, in percentage terms, the best
estimate based on the EI analysis, called the point estimate, and below that the value of the 95 percent
confidence interval around that point estimate. The confidence interval identifies the range within
which we can be 95 percent confident, statistically, that the true value of the percentage vote for a
candidate falls. The point estimate, at the center of that interval, is the value most likely to be the true
value. The text of this report will therefore focus on the point estimates. All of the Latino candidates
in the general elections were nominees of the Democratic Party, except the two identified with a (R)
after their name, who were Republican Party nominees.
3
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 5 of 61
El Paso County
The results ofthe election analyses for El Paso County are provided in Table 1.
Latino voters in El Paso County have been highly cohesive in their support of Latino
candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in general elections. All seven such
candidates received their strong support. Estimates of that support produced by the
bivariate analyses range from 82.0 percent to 90.1 percent. Non-Latina voters never
shared this preference. Their support for these Latino candidates ranged from 8.1 percent
to 27.2 percent.
Latino and non-Latina voters cast a majority of their votes for the same candidate
only once across the nine general elections, the 2006 election for Place 4 on the Supreme
Court, in which both groups supported a Republican Latino incumbent over a Libertarian
challenger. The other general election in which a Latino and non-Latino competed was
the 2010 election involving another Republican Latino incumbent on the Supreme Court
and a non-Latina Democrat and a non-Latina Libertarian. This Latino candidate received
an estimated 20.6 percent of the Latino votes and 73.8 percent of the non-Latina vote.
All of the Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries also received strong
support from the Latino voters in El Paso County. 6 Their estimated range in support for
6
There were two contests for the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor in 2006, an initial primary
followed by a runoff primary. For all of the counties and South Texas the tables will include the
results of the analysis of the initial primary, with estimates for the support provided by the groups to
both of the Latino candidates seeking that nomination combined, and then the support provided to the
candidate who received the most support from Latino voters. That candidate was the same person in
all of the counties and South Texas and was the Latino candidate to advance to the runoff primary,
4
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 6 of 61
these candidates was from 70.2 percent to 85.7 percent. In only two of these nomination
contests did a majority of non-Latinos share this preference. In the other contests their
support for Latino candidates is estimated to range from 31.9 percent to 44.7 percent. In
addition, Latinos voting in the 2010 Republican primary supported a Latino incumbent
seeking to be renominated for his seat on the Railroad Commission, casting an estimated
72.0 percent of their votes for him. Non-Latinos voting in that Republican primary,
however, did not support this candidate, casting an estimated 26.8 percent of their votes
for him. A candidate with a Spanish surname but who was not Latino received little
support from Latino or non-Latino voters in the 2010 Republican primary for Governor.
Latinos in El Paso County are very cohesive in their candidate preferences for
Latino candidates, in both general elections and Democratic primaries. They were also
cohesive in their support for a Latino candidate for Railroad Commission in the 2010
Republican primary. This preference has been shared only once in a general election and
twice in Democratic primaries by the non-Latino voters in the county across these 17
general and primary elections. The analyses of these elections, held over the last three
election years and for a variety of offices, reveal the presence of racially polarized voting
in both general elections and primary elections in El Paso County.
Nueces County
The results of the election analyses for Nueces County are provided in Table 2.
Latino voters in Nueces County have been strongly cohesive in their support of Latino
candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in general elections. All seven such
where he faced a non- Latino opponent. The discussion provided in the text will report results only for
the runoff primary, however, which was the decisive primary.
5
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 7 of 61
candidates received their strong support. Estimates of that support indicate each of those
candidates received over 90 percent of the Latino vote, with the range being from 90.1
percent to 97.8 percent. In none of the elections analyzed did non-Latino voters in
Nueces share that preference. Their support for these Latino candidates ranged from an
estimated 7.5 percent to 17.6 percent.
Latino and non-Latino voters cast a majority of their votes for the same candidate
only once across the nine general elections. This occurred, as in El Paso County, in the
2006 election for Place 4 on the Supreme Court, in which both groups supported a
Republican Latino incumbent over a Libertarian challenger. The other general election in
which a Latino and non-Latino competed was the 2010 election involving another
Republican Latino incumbent on the Supreme Court and a non-Latino Democrat and a
non-Latino Libertarian. This Latino candidate received an estimated 11.5 percent of the
Latino votes and 78.0 percent of the non-Latino vote.
All of the Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries also received strong
support from the Latino voters in Nueces County. Their estimated range in support for
these candidates was from 78.4 percent to 96.0 percent, with four of the six exceeding 90
percent. Non-Latinos did not share this preference in any of these primaries, with the
estimates of their support of the Latino candidates ranging from 29.7 percent to 46.6
percent. In addition, Latinos voting in the 2010 Republican primary also supported, as
was the case in El Paso County, the Latino incumbent seeking to be renominated for his
seat on the Railroad Commission. They cast an estimated 84.3 percent of their votes for
him. Non-Latinos voting in that Republican primary, however, did not support this
candidate, casting an estimated 21.9 percent of their votes for him. The candidate with a
6
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 8 of 61
Spanish surname but who was not Latino also received, as was the case in El Paso
County, little support from Latino or non-Latino voters in the 2010 Republican primary.
Latinos in Nueces County are very cohesive in their candidate preferences for
Latino candidates, in both general elections and Democratic primaries. They were also
cohesive in their support for a Latino candidate for Railroad Commission in the 20 I 0
Republican primary. This preference was shared in only one general election, and not in
any of the primary elections. In short, in only one of the I7 general or primary elections
did Latinos and non-Latino voters in the county share a preference for a Latino candidate.
The analyses of these elections, held over the last three election years and for a variety of
offices, reveal the presence of racially polarized voting in both general and primary
elections in Nueces County.
South Texas
The results of the election analyses for the South Texas area are provided in Table
3. Latino voters in the South Texas area have been highly cohesive in their support of
Latino candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in general elections. All seven
such candidates received their strong support at levels estimated to exceed 80 percent.
Estimates of that support range from 80.5 percent to 88.5 percent. In none of the
elections analyzed did non-Latino voters in this area share that preference. Their support
for these Latino candidates is estimated to be below 20 percentage points in all seven
instances. These estimates range from I3 .I percent to I9 .1 percent.
Latino and non-Latino voters cast a majority of their votes for the same candidate
only once across the nine general elections. This was again in the 2006 election for Place
7
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 9 of 61
4 on the Supreme Court, in which both groups supported a Republican Latino incumbent
over a Libertarian challenger. The other general election in which a Latino and nonLatina competed was the 2010 election involving another Republican Latino incumbent
on the Supreme Court and a non-Latino Democrat and a non-Latino Libertarian. This
Latino candidate received an estimated 21.9 percent of the Latino votes and 73.6 percent
ofthe non-Latino vote.
All of the Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries also received strong
support from the Latino voters in South Texas. Five of these six candidates received
support estimated to be greater than 80 percent, with the range in their support from
Latinos ranging from an estimated 76.8 percent to 93.5 percent. Non-Latinos did not
share this preference in any ofthese primaries, with the estimates of their support of the
Latino candidates ranging from 26.1 percent to 39.11 percent. In addition, Latinos voting
in the 201 0 Republican primary also supported, as was the case in El Paso and N ueces
Counties, the Latino incumbent seeking to be renominated for his seat on the Railroad
Commission. They cast an estimated 69.73 percent oftheir votes for him. Non- Latinos
voting in that Republican primary, however, did not support this candidate, casting an
estimated 25.5 percent of their votes for him. The candidate with a Spanish surname but
who was not Latino also received, as was the case in El Paso and Nueces Counties, little
support from Latino or non-Latino voters in the 2010 Republican primary.
Latinos in South Texas have been highly cohesive in their candidate preferences
for Latino candidates, in both general elections and Democratic primaries. They were
also cohesive in their support for a Latino candidate for Railroad Commission in the 2010
Republican primary. This preference was shared in only one general election, and not in
8
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 10 of 61
any of the primary elections. In short, in only one of the 17 general or primary elections
did Latinos and non-Latino voters in the county share a preference for a Latino candidate.
The analyses of these elections, held over the last three election years and for a variety of
offices, reveal the presence of racially polarized voting in both general and primary
elections across the 52 counties in South Texas.
Bexar County
Tables 4 through 8 provide both bivariate and multivariate estimates of support
for Latino candidates in Bexar, Dallas, Harris, Tarrant, and Travis Counties. The
bivariate estimates will continue to compare Latino voters with non-Latino voters. In
these counties non-Latino African Americans will also be included in the analyses, as
they constitute 7.0 percent, 21.6 percent, 18.4 percent, 13.9 percent, and 7.8 percent of
the voting age population in these counties, respectively. In the multivariate analyses
Latino support for the Latino candidates will be compared with that for African
Americans and the other voters in these counties. 7
The results ofthe analyses of voting in the 17 elections within Bexar County are
contained in Table 4. The Latino voters in Bexar County have been highly cohesive in
their support of Latino candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in general
elections. All seven such candidates received their strong support. In the bivariate
analyses their estimated support for the Latino candidates was never below 80.0 percent,
and exceeded 90.0 percent in four ofthese elections. These estimates of their support
7
Tables 4 through 8 are structured the same as Tables I through 3, but include not only the results of
the bivariate analyses, but also those for the multivariate analyses. The first set of point estimates and
confidence intervals are the results of the bivariate analyses, and the second set the results of the
9
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 11 of 61
ranged from 86.0 percent to 91.8 percent. The bivariate estimates indicate that none of
these Latino candidates were the preferred candidates of the non-Latino voters, with the
estimates of their support ranging from 23.9 percent to 33.1 percent.
The multivariate estimates of Latino support for these Latino candidates do not
differ much from those of the bivariate analyses. The estimates of Latino support for
them in the multivariate analyses range from 78.3 percent to 86.0 percent. African
American support is estimated to be over a majority for all seven, ranging from an
estimated 51.2 percent to an estimated 81.4 percent. The multivariate analysis indicates
that their support from the other voters never came close to a majority. Support from
these voters ranges from an estimated 8.2 percent to a high of 21.9 percent. 8
In the 2006 election for Place 4 on the Supreme Court, the bivariate and
multivariate estimates of Latino support for the Republican Latino incumbent competing
with a Libertarian Party candidate, differ by only 3.6 percentage points. The bivariate
estimate indicates that she was the choice of less than a majority of Latino voters, 46.6
percent, while the multivariate estimates indicates that she won a slight majority of their
votes, 50.2 percent. Hernon-Latino support is estimated to be 76.7 percent. In the
multivariate analysis, however, this figure is 51.2 for African Americans and 80.0 for the
other voters. The other general election in which a Latino and non-Latino competed was
the 2010 election involving another Republican Latino incumbent on the Supreme Court
and a non-Latino Democrat and a non-Latino Libertarian. This Latino candidate received
multivariate analyses. Two estimates for Latino voters are provided in each cell, the top one is based
on the bivariate analysis, and the lower one is based on the multivariate analysis.
8
Based on the 2010 Census of Population, if single race African Americans are subtracted from the
non-Latino voting age population of Bexar County, single race whites constitute 89.4 percent of the
remainder.
10
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 12 of 61
an estimated 16.3 percent ofthe Latino votes and 78.0 percent of the non-Latino vote in
the bivariate analysis. Her support among Latinos is estimated in the multivariate
analysis to be 23.8 percent, while that for African Americans is 14.2 percent and for the
other votes 84.9 percent.
All of the Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries also received strong
support from the Latino voters. The range in support for these six candidates among
Latino voters is from 85.3 percent to 93.2 percent in the bivariate analyses, and from 83.3
percent to 89.2 percent in the multivariate analyses. Non-Latino voters provided a
majority of their votes to only two of them, with their support for the other four ranging
from 31.8 to 46.4. In the multivariate analyses, African Americans provided a majority
of their votes to only one of the Latino candidates, while the other voters provided a
majority of their votes to three of them.
Latinos voting in the Republican primaries in Bexar also supported the Latino
candidate running for reelection to the Railroad Commission in both analyses, with
support levels estimated at 80.7 percent in the bivariate analysis and 63.3 in the
multivariate. The bivariate estimate of the non-Latino support for this candidate is 31.0,
while the multivariate estimates are 37.1 percent for African Americans and 25.7 percent
for the others. None of the groups, in either the bivariate analysis or the multivariate
analysis, preferred the non-Latino candidate with a Spanish surname seeking the
Republican nomination for Governor.
Based on these results, the ultimately decisive general elections in Bexar County
reveal a high level of racial polarization in voting. Latinos were very cohesive in their
preferences for Latino Democratic candidates, and that preference is shared by African
11
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 13 of 61
Americans. It was not shared by the other voters, however, whose estimated support for
these candidates never exceeded 22 percent. The analyses of the Democratic primary
elections reveal that Latinos are likewise very cohesive in their preferences for Latino
candidates in these elections, but that these preferences are not usually shared by the nonLatinos participating in them. When African Americans were excluded from the nonLatina group in the multivariate analysis, they were revealed to be the least likely group
to support Latino candidates in Democratic primaries, with the other voters supporting
them half of the time. The analyses of these elections, held over the last three election
years and for a variety of offices, reveal the presence of racially polarized voting in Bexar
County.
Dallas County
The results of the analyses of voting in the 17 elections within Dallas County are
contained in Table 5. The Latino voters in Dallas County also have been highly cohesive
in their support of Latino candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in general
elections. All seven such candidates received their strong support. In the bivariate
analyses their estimated support for the Latino candidates was never below 80.0 percent,
and exceeded 90.0 percent in three of these elections. These estimates of their support
ranged from 83.8 percent to 90.9 percent. The bivariate estimates indicate that five of
these Latino candidates were the preferred candidates of the non-Latino voters, with
support ranging from 50.5 percent to 54.0 percent. In addition, in the other two elections
the estimates of the non-Latino support for Latino candidates were 48.0 percent and 49.9
percent.
12
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 14 of 61
The multivariate estimates of Latino support for these Latino candidates likewise
indicate high levels of cohesion. The range in these estimates of Latino support is from
81.1 percent to 88.0 percent. African American support is estimated to be over 90
percent in all of these elections. The multivariate analysis indicates that their support
from the other voters never reached 30 percent. Support from these voters ranges from
an estimated 22.1 percent to a high of 29.4 percent. 9
In the 2006 election for Place 4 on the Supreme Court, the bivariate and
multivariate estimates of Latino support for the Republican Latino incumbent competing
with a Libertarian Party candidate, differ by only 4.5 percentage points. As in Bexar
County, however, the bivariate estimate indicates that she was the choice of less than a
majority of Latino voters, 49.1 percent, while the multivariate estimates indicates that she
won a slight majority of their votes, 53.6 percent. Her non-Latino support is estimated to
be 72.5 percent. In the multivariate analysis, however, this figure is 32.9 for African
Americans and 79.1 for the other voters. The other general election in which a Latino
and non-Latino competed was the 2010 election involving another Republican Latino
incumbent on the Supreme Court and a non-Latino Democrat and a non-Latino
Libertarian. This Latino candidate received an estimated 17.4 percent of the Latino votes
and 46.3 percent of the non-Latino vote in the bivariate analysis. Her support among
Latinos in the multivariate analysis is estimated to be 18.6 percent, while that for African
Americans is less than .0.1 percent and for the other votes 72.1 percent.
9
Based on the 2010 Census of Population, if single race African Americans are subtracted from the
non-Latino voting age population of Dallas County, single race whites constitute 85.1 percent of the
remainder.
13
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 15 of 61
All of the Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries received well over a
majority of the votes cast by Latinos. Their support level in the bivariate analysis was
never below 70.0 percent. It ranged from an estimated 71.5 percent to 84.7 percent. In
the multivariate analysis it ranged from 60.3 percent to 87.8 percent. Non-Latino voters
did not cast a majority of their votes for any of these candidates, with their range in
support estimated to be from 32.2 percent to 46.8 percent. In the multivariate analyses,
African Americans provided a majority of their votes, an estimated 52.7 percent, to only
one of the Latino candidates, while their support for the other five ranged from an
estimated 27.2 percent to 47.6. The other voters provided a majority of their votes,
estimated at 51.7 percent and 54.0 percent, to two of the six. Their support for the other
four candidates ranged from an estimated 31.5 percent to 44.3 percent.
Latinos voting in the Republican primaries in Dallas County supported the Latino
candidate running for reelection to the Railroad Commission in the bivariate analysis
with an estimated 78.5 percent of their vote. However, this figure in the multivariate
analysis is reduced to 41.8 percent. The bivariate estimate ofthe non-Latino support for
this candidate is 39.6 percent, while the multivariate estimates are 46.9 percent for
African Americans and 40.7 percent for the other voters. Only one estimate of the
support from any group for the non-Latino candidate with a Spanish surname seeking the
Republican nomination for Governor exceeded a majority, that being 50.5 percent for
Latinos in the bivariate analysis. This was considerably lower in the multivariate
analysis, at 32.5 percent. .
There has been racially polarized voting in Dallas County. In the general
elections Latinos were very cohesive in their preferences for Latino candidates with the
14
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 16 of 61
Democratic nomination, and that preference was shared by African Americans. It was
not shared, however, by the other voters. These voters did not cast as much as 30 percent
of their votes for any ofthese Latino candidates. The analyses ofthe Democratic primary
elections reveal that Latinos are likewise very cohesive in their preferences for Latino
candidates in these elections, but that these preferences are not usually shared by the nonLatina voters participating in them. When African Americans were excluded from the
non-Latina group in the multivariate analysis, they were revealed to be the least likely
group to support Latino candidates in Democratic primaries, with the other voters
supporting them in only two. The analyses of these elections, held over the last three
election years and for a variety of offices, reveal the presence of racially polarized voting
in Dallas County.
Harris County
The results ofthe analyses of voting in the 17 elections within Harris County are
contained in Table 6. The Latino voters in Harris also have been highly cohesive in their
support of Latino candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in general elections.
All seven such candidates received their strong support. In the bivariate analyses their
estimated support for these Latino candidates ranged from 74.9 percent to 83.0 percent.
The bivariate estimates indicate that four of these Latino candidates were the preferred
candidates of the non-Latina voters, with support ranging from 50.1 percent to 52.0
percent. In the other three elections the estimates of the non-Latino support for Latino
candidates ranged from 45.3 percent and 46.9 percent.
15
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 17 of 61
The multivariate estimates of Latino support for these Latino Democratic
candidates likewise indicate high levels of cohesion. The range in these estimates of
Latino support is from 76.4 percent to 84.6 percent. African American support is
estimated to be over 90 percent in all of these elections. The multivariate analysis
indicates that their support from the other voters never reached 25 percent. Support from
these voters ranges from an estimated 15.0 percent to a high of 24.7 percent. 10
In the 2006 election for Place 4 on the Supreme Court, the bivariate and
multivariate estimates of Latino support for the Republican Latino incumbent competing
with a Libertarian Party candidate are 66.9 and 64.6 respectively. Her non-Latino
support is estimated to be 73.7 percent in the bivariate analysis. In the multivariate
analysis, however, this figure is 28.1 for African Americans and 81.6 for the other voters.
The other general election in which a Latino and non-Latino competed was the 2010
election involving another Republican Latino incumbent on the Supreme Court and a
non-Latino Democrat and a non-Latino Libertarian. This Latino candidate received an
estimated 28.1 percent of the Latino votes and 51.7 percent of the non-Latino vote in the
bivariate analysis. Her support among Latinos in the multivariate analysis is estimated to
be 24.9 percent, while that for African Americans is estimated to be 0.2 percent and for
the other votes 81.1 percent.
Five of the six Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries received over a
majority of the votes cast by Latinos according to all estimates. Their support level for
these six candidates ranged from an estimated 78.1 percent to 91.7 percent in the
10
Based on the 2010 Census of Population, if single race African Americans are subtracted from the
non-Latino voting age population of Harris County, single race whites constitute 82.2 percent of the
remainder.
16
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 18 of 61
bivariate analysis, and from 59.0 percent to 87.8 percent in the multivariate analysis. The
exception occurred in the 2006 Democratic primary runoff for Lt. Governor, in which the
Latino candidate is estimated to have received 47.5 percent of the Latino vote in the
bivariate analysis and 43.5 percent in the multivariate.
Non-Latino voters cast a majority of their votes for only one ofthese candidates,
an estimated 50.1 percent for the Latino candidate for the Democratic nomination for a
United States Senate seat. In the other five Democratic primary elections their support
ranged from 29.7 percent to 47.1 percent. In the multivariate analyses, African
Americans provided a majority of their votes, an estimated 52.7 percent and 69.6 percent,
to only two of the Latino candidates, while their support for the other four ranged from an
estimated 27.6 percent to 44.2. The other voters provided a majority of their votes,
estimated at 54.0 percent, to just one of the Latino candidates. Their support for the other
five candidates ranged from an estimated 30.7 percent to 46.4 percent.
Latinos voting in the Republican primaries in Harris County supported the Latino
candidate running for reelection to the Railroad Commission in 2010 with an estimated
78.5 percent of their vote. In the multivariate analysis this figure was 54.9 percent. The
bivariate estimate of the non-Latino support for this candidate is 45.6 percent, while the
multivariate estimates are 54.1 percent for African Americans and 42.9 percent for the
other voters. No group preferred the non-Latino candidate with a Spanish surname
seeking the Republican nomination for Governor.
There has been racially polarized voting in Harris County. In the general
elections Latinos were very cohesive in their preferences for Latino candidates with the
Democratic nomination, and that preference was shared by African Americans. It was
17
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 19 of 61
not shared, however, by the other voters. These voters did not cast as much as 30 percent
of their votes for any of these Latino candidates. The analyses of the Democratic primary
elections reveal that Latinos are likewise very cohesive in their preferences for Latino
candidates in these elections, but that these preferences are not usually shared by the nonLatina voters participating in them. When African Americans were excluded from the
non-Latina group in the multivariate analysis, they were revealed to be the least likely
group to support Latino candidates in Democratic primaries, with the other voters
supporting them in only one. The analyses of these elections, held over the last three
election years and for a variety of offices, reveal the presence of racially polarized voting
in Harris County.
Tarrant County
The results of the analyses of voting in the 17 elections within Tarrant County are
contained in Table 7. The Latino voters in Tarrant have been strongly cohesive in their
support of Latino candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in general elections.
All seven such candidates received their strong support. In the bivariate analyses their
estimated support for the Latino candidates was never below 90.0 percent. These
estimates oftheir support ranged from 94.9 percent to 99.8 percent. None ofthese Latino
candidates were supported by non-Latinos in the bivariate analysis. These estimates
exceeded 40 percent only once, and ranged from 35.4 percent to 40.1 percent.
The multivariate estimates of Latino support for these Latino candidates likewise
indicate high levels of cohesion. The range in these estimates of Latino support is from
84.3 percent to 98.3 percent. African American support is estimated to be over 90
18
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 20 of 61
percent in all of these elections, ranging from 93.6 percent to 99.9 percent. The
multivariate analysis indicates that their support from the other voters never reached 30
percent. Support from these voters ranges from an estimated 24.1 percent to a high of
26.8 percent. 11
In the 2006 election for Place 4 on the Supreme Court, the bivariate and
multivariate estimates of Latino support for the Republican Latino incumbent competing
with a Libertarian Party candidate, differ by 11.5 percentage points. As in Bexar and
Dallas Counties, the bivariate estimate indicates that she was the choice of less than a
majority of Latino voters, 43.8 percent, while the multivariate estimates indicates that she
won a majority of their votes, 55.3 percent. Her non-Latina support is estimated to be
76.0 percent. In the multivariate analysis, however, this figure is 26.5 for African
Americans and 79.7 for the other voters. The other general election in which a Latino
and non-Latino competed was the 2010 election involving another Republican Latino
incumbent on the Supreme Court and a non-Latino Democrat and a non-Latina
Libertarian. This Latino candidate received an estimated 6.9 percent of the Latino votes
and 60.0 percent of the non-Latina vote in the bivariate analysis. Her support among
Latinos in the multivariate analysis is estimated to be 14.3 percent, while that for African
Americans is less than 1.0 percent and that for other voters is 76.9 percent.
All of the Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries received well over a
majority of the votes cast by Latinos. Their support level in the bivariate analysis was
never below 70.0 percent, ranging from an estimated 70.7 percent to 99.9 percent. In the
11
Based on the 20 I 0 Census of Population, if single race African Americans are subtracted from the
non-Latino voting age population of Tarrant County, single race whites constitute 89.6 percent ofthe
remainder.
19
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 21 of 61
multivariate analysis it ranged from 64.3 percent to 85.0 percent. Non-Latino voters did
not cast a majority of their votes for any of these candidates, with their range in support
estimated to be from 30.5 percent to 47.5 percent. In the multivariate analyses, African
Americans provided a majority of their votes, an estimated 66.1 percent, to only one of
the Latino candidates, while their support for the other five ranged from an estimated
27.6 percent to 43.0. The other voters provided a majority of their votes, estimated at
51.5 percent, to one of the six. Their support for the other four candidates ranged from an
estimated 31.3 percent to 47.5 percent.
Latinos voting in the Republican primaries in Dallas County supported the Latino
candidate running for reelection to the Railroad Commission in the bivariate analysis
with an estimated 92.4 percent of their vote. This figure in the multivariate analysis is
reduced to 56.1 percent, but still a majority. The bivariate estimate of the non-Latino
support for this candidate is 40.0 percent, while the multivariate estimates are 44.6
percent for African Americans and 41.1 percent for the other voters. The non-Latino
candidate with a Spanish surname seeking the Republican nomination for Governor was
not close to being a candidate of choice for any group.
The analyses reveal that voting in elections in Tarrant County has been racially
polarized. In the general elections Latinos were very cohesive in their preferences for
Latino candidates with the Democratic nomination, and that preference was not shared by
non-Latino voters in any of these elections. While African Americans were strongly
supportive of the Latino candidates in these elections, the other voters cast their ballots
for their opponents in every instance. The analyses of the Democratic primary elections
reveal that Latinos are again very cohesive in their preferences for Latino candidates in
20
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 22 of 61
these elections, but that these preferences are not shared by the non-Latino voters
participating in them. African Americans supported only one of the six, as did the other
voters in these elections. The analyses of these elections, held over the last three election
years and for a variety of offices, reveal the presence of racially polarized voting in
Tarrant County.
Travis County
The results ofthe analyses of voting in the 17 elections within Travis County are
contained in Table 8. The Latino voters in Travis also have been strongly cohesive in
their support of Latino candidates with the Democratic Party nomination in general
elections. All seven such candidates received their support. In the bivariate analyses six
of them are estimated to have received over 99.9 ofthe votes cast by Latinos. The
exception is an instance when the estimate is 67.5 percent Four ofthese candidates were
the choices of non-Latino voters as a group, with the bivariate estimates for their nonLatina support ranging from 51.9 percent to 55.1 percent. The bivariate estimates for the
other three were 30.9 percent, 47.9 percent, and 48.7 percent.
The multivariate estimates of Latino support for these Latino candidates likewise
indicate high levels of cohesion. The range in these estimates for six of the seven is from
84.8 to 96.4 percent, while the estimate for the seventh is 72.4 percent. African
American support is estimated to be over 90 percent in all but one of these candidates.
The remaining Latino candidate was not their candidate of choice, however. The
multivariate analysis indicates that only two of these Latino candidates received a
21
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 23 of 61
majority of the cast by the other voters. Their support levels were 50.7 percent and 63.7
percent. The range of support for the other five is from 41.2 percent to 48.1 percent. 12
In the 2006 election for Place 4 on the Supreme Court, both the bivariate and
multivariate estimates of Latino support for the Republican Latino incumbent competing
with a Libertarian Party candidate were low, 6.2 percent and 28.8 percent respectively.
Hernon-Latino support is estimated to be 60.7 percent in the bivariate analysis. In the
multivariate analysis, however, her support among African Americans is estimated to be
29.1 percent while that figure for the other voters is 64.1 percent. The other general
election in which a Latino and non-Latino competed was the 2010 election involving
another Republican Latino incumbent on the Supreme Court and a non-Latino Democrat
and a non-Latino Libertarian. The Latino vote for this candidate is estimated at 0.1
percent in the bivariate analysis, and 6.2 in the multivariate. Her support among nonLatinos in the bivariate analysis is estimated to be 43.1 percent, while the figures from
the multivariate analysis are 2.1 percent for African Americans 50.1 percent for the other
voters.
All but one of the six Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries received well
over a majority of the votes cast by Latinos. The support levels for five ofthem ranged
from 65.3 percent to 92.6 percent in the bivariate analysis. The remaining Latino
candidate received an estimated 39.4 percent. In the multivariate analysis Latino support
for the five favored candidates remained well above a majority, ranging from 69.3
percent to 89.2 percent, with the other Latino candidate receiving an estimated 36.3
12
Based on the 2010 Census of Population, if single race African Americans are subtracted from the
non-Latino voting age population of Travis County, single race whites constitute 87.7 percent of the
remainder.
22
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 24 of 61
percent. Non-Latino voters in Travis provided majority support for only two of these
Latino candidates. Their vote for them in the bivariate analysis is estimated to be 60.0
and 61.6 for them. Their vote for the other Latino candidates is estimated to be 21.6
percent, 35.5 percent, 36.6 percent, and 46.4 percent.
In the multivariate analyses, none of the Latino candidates in the Democratic
primaries was favored by the African American voters. Only one ofthese candidates
received over 40 percent of their votes. Their votes for the other five ranged from 19.4
percent to 39.0 percent. The other voters provided a majority of their votes to two of the
Latino candidates, providing those candidates with an estimated 61.5 percent and 63.7
percent of their votes. The other Latino candidates are estimated to have received from
21.6 percent to 43.6 percent of their votes.
Latinos voting in the Republican primaries in Travis County supported the Latino
candidate running for reelection to the Railroad Commission in the bivariate analysis
with an estimated 74.6 percent of their vote. This figure in the multivariate analysis is
reduced to less than a majority, however, 46.0 percent. The bivariate estimate of the nonLatina support for this candidate is 45.7 percent, while the multivariate estimates of her
support are 68.9 percent for the African Americans participating in that Republic primary
and 47.2 percent for the other voters. The non-Latino candidate with a Spanish surname
seeking the Republican nomination for Governor received an estimated 50.8 of the Latino
vote in the bivariate analysis and an estimated 95.2 percent ofthe votes cast by African
Americans voting in the Republican primary. No other estimate identifies her as a
candidate of choice however.
23
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 25 of 61
The analyses reveal that voting in elections in Travis County has been racially
polarized. In the general elections Latinos have been very cohesive in their preferences
for Latino candidates with the Democratic nomination, and also for Latino candidates
Democratic primaries. African Americans also were strongly supportive of the Latino
candidates with Democratic nominations in the general elections, but that support was not
present for Latino candidates in the Democratic primaries. The other voters more often
than not cast their ballots for the opponents of these Latino preferred candidates, in both
the general elections and in the Democratic primaries. The analyses of these elections,
held over the last three election years and for a variety of offices, reveal the presence of
racially polarized voting in Travis County.
Conclusion
Group differences in voting preferences are common across the seven counties
examined in this analysis and in the South Texas area. Latino voters have been very
cohesive in their preferences for Latino candidates, across different offices and across all
three election cycles, in general elections and in Democratic primaries. They do exercise
discretion however in choosing which Latino candidates to support. Not every Latino
candidate on the ballot can expect to be their preferred candidate, in general or primary
elections.
These candidates preferred by Latino voters have been supported in general
elections by African American voters as well. However, this African American support
is not typically present in primaries. Indeed, African Americans have a distinct tendency
to vote for candidates competing with the candidates preferred by Latinos in primary
24
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 26 of 61
elections. The other voters usually cast a majority of their votes for the opponents of
these candidates in primary elections as well, and consistently do so in general elections.
CDs 23 and 27 and HDs 33 and 78
I also examined whether voting in the 2010 general election to fill congressional
seats in Texas Districts 23 and 27, and Texas House of Representative elections to fill the
seats assigned to Districts 33 and 78, had been racially polarized. These are districts in
which incumbents in Latino opportunity districts were defeated for reelection. The
analyses of these elections rely on the same EI methodology and turnout data used in the
analyses of the 2010 elections above. Only the bivariate version ofEI is employed for
this purpose as the African American voting age population in these districts is low- 4.0
percent in CD 23, 2.6 percent in CD 27, 4.6 percent in HD 33, and 4.7 percent in HD 78.
Racially polarized voting was present in all four of these elections. In CD 23 the
incumbent Ciro D. Rodriguez received an estimated 84.7 percent of the votes cast by
Latinos (CI = 82.0 to 87.6), and just 18.1 percent ofthose cast by non-Latinos (CI = 15.2
to 20.8). In CD 27 the incumbent Solomon P. Ortiz received an estimated 86.6 percent of
the votes cast by Latinos (CI + 85.3 to 88.1) and only 15.9 percent of those cast by nonLatinos (CI = 13.4 to 20.8). In the HD 33 election Latino support for incumbent
Solomon Ortiz, Jr. is estimated to be 92.3 percent (CI = 88.5 to 96.4), while that from the
non-Latino voters is estimated as only 11.0 (CI = 8.4 to 13.5). In HD 78 these respective
figures were 79.6 (CI = 76.1 to 83.4), and 28.4 (CI = 24.8 to 31.8).
Given that turnout data are available that identify voters in this election that have
Spanish surnames and those that do not, I have been asked to calculate the percentage of
25
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 27 of 61
those turning out that was Latino, based on these data. These percentages are 40.77 in
the CD 23 election, 46.72 percent in that for CD 27,45.08 in the HD 33 election, and
34.88 in that for HD 78.
The percentages of the overall votes received by the incumbents are 44.44 in CD
23,47.11 in CD 27,47.49 in HD 33 and 47.59 in HD 78.
Reasonable Opportunities to Elect in Districts in CJOO, CJ85 and CJ90
and HD 283 and 292
The third issue I have been asked to address is the number of districts that
provided Latino voters with a reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their
choice, including from within their own group if that is their preference, in the previous
plan, C 100, and the number of such districts provided in the State's congressional plan,
C185, and in the Task Force's congressional plan, C190. The presence of such districts is
addressed again with state House of Representative districts, comparing the number of
such opportunities provided in the H283, the state's plan, and in H292, the Task Force
plan.
C 100 contained seven districts that provided Latino voters with reasonable
opportunities to elect representatives of their choice. Prof. Alford states that these
districts, CDs 15, 16, 20, 23, 27, 28, and 29, were all intended to be what he calls
"effective" minority districts, presumably districts virtually guaranteed to elect Latino
Democrats. 13 He further identifies five of them as "performing districts" through the
13
Alford Report, at 4.
26
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 28 of 61
2010 elections, presumably because they elected Latino Democrats in that year as well. 14
Two districts however, CD 23 and CD 27, are identified by him as no longer
"performing" because they did not elect Latino Democrats in 2010, as noted above, and a
majority of the votes cast in statewide elections within them that year did not go to a
white Democratic candidate and two Latino Democratic candidates. 15 Alford notes that
2010 was "not a good Democratic year". 16 This was true not just in Texas but across the
country as well.
Alford does not state that these districts did not provide Latino voters with a
reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, however, only that they
did not do so. These voting age populations in these districts in 2010 were still over 60
percent Latino, 17 62.8 percent in CD 23 and 69.2 percent in CD 27. In addition, as Alford
reports, a Latino Democrat won CD 23 with 54.3 percent of the votes in a 2006 special
election, defeating the Republican Latino incumbent in the district after the district had
been redrawn by a federal court. He also won reelection in the district in 2008. A
Democratic Latino had been elected to represent CD 27 in four consecutive elections
prior to 201 0. The fact that Latinos did not elect the candidate of their choice in the 201 0
election in these districts does not mean the districts no longer provided them with a
reasonable opportunity to do so, only that the opportunity wasn't seized, as the turnout
differences reported above between Latinos and non-Latinos in those districts indicate.
14
Ibid., at 6.
15
!d., at 4-5.
16
/d., at 5.
17
/d., at 4.
27
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 29 of 61
To assess the opportunities provided in the post-2010 redistricting plans, in which
elections have not been held, I examine the votes cast in statewide elections analyzed
above within the geographical area of the congressional or state House districts in each of
the plans in which Latinos constitute a majority of the voting age population. The
elections utilized for this purpose are the seven elections analyzed above in which Latino
candidates ran as Democratic nominees in general elections, and the six Democratic
primaries in which Latinos sought that party's nomination. 18 The above analyses reveal
that these Latino candidates in those elections were almost always the choice of Latino
voters in the areas analyzed. I consider Latinos to have a reasonable opportunity in a
district when their preferred candidates win a majority of the votes cast in these elections
in the districts more often than not, in both the general elections and Democratic
pnmanes.
The analyses ofthe congressional maps indicate that such opportunities are
provided in seven districts in C185. These are CDs 15, 16, 20, 28, 29, 34, and 35. In
contrast, C 190 contains nine districts that offer such opportunities. These are COs 6, 15,
16, 20, 23, 28, 34, 35, and 36. In the state plan for the Texas House, H283, such
opportunities are provided in 30 districts. These are in districts 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41,42,43,51, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79,80,90, 103,104,116,118,119,123,124,125,140,
143, 145, and 148. In contrast, in the Task Force plan, H292, provides Latinos with 34
such opportunities. These are in districts 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
51, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 90, 103, 104, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 140, 143, 145,
18
The runoff primary vote is used for the 2006 nomination contest for Lt. Governor.
28
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 30 of 61
and 148. Both Task Force plans provide Latinos with more reasonable opportunities to
elect candidates of their choice than the corresponding state plans.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this Affidavit was executed on
September 12, 2011 in Durham, NC.
29
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 31 of 61
Table 1
El Paso County
Percentage of Group Votes for Latino Candidates
Latino
Voters
Non-Latino
Voters
Lt. Governor (Alvarado)
85.1
83.7-86.6
8.1
5.1-10.9
Supreme Court Pl. 4 (Medina) (R)
58.1
56.5-59.7
75.7
74.2-77.2
Criminal Court (Molina)
90.1
88.8-91.4
15.5
13.0-18.0
US. Senate (Noriega)
87.6
86.3-89.0
25.5
22.1-28.7
Supreme Court Pl. 8 (Yanez)
90.1
88.8-91.5
27.2
23.7-30.6
Criminal Court (Molina)
89.2
87.9-90.6
24.3
20.6-27.8
Lt. Governor (Chavez- Thompson)
82.0
80.6-83.3
19.8
17.2-22.3
Land Comm (Uribe)
84.1
82.7-85.6
19.1
16.3-21.8
Supreme Court Pl. 9 (Guzman) (R)
20.6
19.0-22.1
73.8
71.1-76.6
92.0
90.4-93.6
66.0
62.6-69.5
2006 General Election
2008 General Election
2010 General Election
2006 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor (2 Latino Candidates)
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 32 of 61
60.4
58.0-62.9
47.6
42.9-52.3
85.7
83.6-87.8
52.4
47.1-57.76
US. Senate (Noriega)
70.2
68.8-71.7
39.7
36.0-43.5
Supreme Court Pl. 7 (Cruz)
78.3
76.8-79.8
31.9
27.7-36.0
Supreme Court Pl. 8 (Yanez)
84.8
83.9-85.7
44.7
41.0-48.3
Lt. Governor (Chavez-Thompson)
84.8
83.4-86.3
62.6
58.3-66.8
Land Comm (Uribe)
84.2
82.7-85.9
32.2
31.9-42.2
Governor (Medina)
16.8
13.2-20.3
4.5
2.6-6.4
RR Comm (Carrillo)
71.9
68.2-75.8
26.7
24.0-29.5
Lt. Governor (Alvarado)
2006 Dem Primary Runoff
Lt. Governor (Alvarado)
2008 Dem Primary
2010 Dem Primary
2010 Rep Primary
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 33 of 61
Table 2
Nueces County
Percentage of Group Votes for Latino Candidates
Latino
Voters
Non-Latino
Voters
Lt. Governor (Alvarado)
92.9
90.6-95.2
7.5
4.2-10.6
Supreme Court Pl. 4 (Medina) (R)
54.3
50.8-57.8
78.9
77.3-80.6
Criminal Court (Molina)
97.8
96.0-99.8
11.6
8.3-14.8
US. Senate (Noriega)
91.9
89.6-94.3
15.7
12.7-18.5
Supreme Court Pl. 8 (Yanez)
95.2
92.9-97.6
17.6
14.7-20.5
Criminal Court (Molina)
94.7
92.5-97.0
13.5
10.5-16.5
Lt. Governor (Chavez- Thompson)
90.1
87.8-92.6
11.3
7.3-15.0
Land Comm (Uribe)
93.7
91.4596.0
11.2
7.1-15.1
11.5
9.2-13.6
78.0
74.7-81.4
98.3
96.8-99.8
47.5
44.4-50.4
2006 General Election
2008 General Election
2010 General Election
Supreme Court Pl. 9 (Guzman) (R)
2006 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor (2 Latino Candidates)
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 34 of 61
73.9
71.8-75.9
39.6
36.4-42.4
96.0
93.9-98.2
34.3
30.5-38.0
US. Senate (Noriega)
78.4
77.1-79.7
40.3
38.0-42.5
Supreme Court Pl. 7 (Cruz)
90.5
89.0-92.1
29.7
27.3-32.1
Supreme Court Pl. 8 (Yanez)
95.0
93.6-96.3
38.7
36.5-40.8
Lt. Governor (Chavez- Thompson)
83.9
82.0-85.9
46.6
43.6-49.6
Land Comm (Uribe)
91.5
89.8-93.7
37.7
34.4-41.0
Governor (Medina)
28.2
14.3-40.4
10.3
6.7-13.6
RR Comm (Carrillo)
84.3
70.3-101.8
21.8
17.6-25.9
Lt. Governor (Alvarado)
2006 Dem Primary Runoff
Lt. Governor (Alvarado)
2008 Dem Primary
2010 Dem Primary
2010 Rep Primary
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 35 of 61
Table 3
South Texas Counties
Percentage of Group Votes for Latino Candidates
Latino
Voters
Non-Latino
Voters
Lt. Governor (Alvarado)
80.5
79.5-81.5
13.1
11.6-14.5
Supreme Court Pl. 4 (Medina) (R)
65.3
64.0-66.5
78.0
77.1-79.0
Criminal Court (Molina)
84.2
83.2-85.2
17.4
16.0-18.8
US Senate (Noriega)
84.5
83.8-85.2
16.6
15.7-17.4
Supreme Court Pl. 8 (Yanez)
88.5
87.8-89.2
19.1
18.2-20.0
Criminal Court (Molina)
87.5
86.8-88.2
17.1
16.2-18.0
Lt. Governor (Chavez-Thompson)
81.9
81.1-82.7
16.0
15.1-16.9
Land Comm (Uribe)
86.9
86.0-87.7
15.7
14.8-16.7
Supreme Court Pl. 9 (Guzman) (R)
21.8
21.0-22.6
73.5
72.7-74.4
95.3
94.3-96.3
40.8
38.7-42.8
2006 General Election
2008 General Election
2010 General Election
2006 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor (2 Latino Candidates)
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 36 of 61
58.4
57.4-59.4
26.8
26.1-28.58
88.3
87.0-89.6
36.6
34.0-39.1
US. Senate (Noriega)
76.8
76.0-77.63
36.2
35.3-37.2
Supreme Court Pl. 7 (Cruz)
81.9
81.0-82.9
26.0
25.0-27.0
Supreme Court Pl. 8 (Yanez)
93.5
92.6-94.3
29.0
28.1-30.0
Lt. Governor (Chavez-Thompson)
81.9
81.1-82.8
39.1
3 7.7-40.4
Land Comm (Uribe)
84.7
83.8-85.6
31.3
30.0-32.6
Governor (Medina)
14.7
10.8-18.3
21.1
20.3-22.0
RR Comm (Carrillo)
69.7
65.8-73.8
25.5
24.5-26.5
Lt. Governor (Alvarado)
2006 Dem Primary Runoff
Lt. Governor (Alvarado)
2008 Dem Primary
2010 Dem Primary
2010 Rep Primary
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 37 of 61
Table 4
Bexar County
Percentage of Group Votes for Latino Candidates
Latino
Non-Latino
85.9
84.0-87.9
23.9
22.2-25.6
African Americans
Others
58.9
45.0-74.6
15.7
13.6-17.7
51.2
41.1-61.1
80.0
78.5-81.6
59.8
45.7-75.4
17.6
15.6-19.6
70.0
52.8-90.9
21.9
19.4-24.3
2006 General Election
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
-------------Multi variate
Supreme Court Pl. 4
Medina (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court
Molina
Bivariate
80.7
79.1-82.3
46.57
44.3-48.7
76.7
75.4-78.0
50.1
48.7-51.6
90.0
88.0-92.0
25.4
23.6-27.2
-------------Multivariate
84.5
82.9-86.2
2008 General Election
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
88.7
87.2-90.2
29.6
28.2-31.2
-------------Multivariate
83.2
81.5-84.9
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl.8
Yanez
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court Pl. 4
Molina
Bivariate
91.4
89.7-93.1
31.1
29.4-32.7
86.0
84.4-87.5
91.8
90.3-93.3
Filed 01/17/12 Page 38 of 61
81.4
68.2-97.5
21.2
18.9-23.4
71.2
53.9-92.6
18.4
15.9-20.8
73.8
59.9-90.4
9.6
7.4-11.7
72.3
52.2-89.0
8.1
5.9-10.3
14.1
3.8-23.3
84.9
82.7-87.2
27.3
25.4-32.7
-------------Multi variate
85.7
84.1-87.5
2010 General Election
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
86.6
84.4-89.0
24.2
22.5-25.8
-------------Multivariate
78.3
76.9-79.6
Land Comrn
Uribe
Bivariate
91.6
88.9-94.6
Multivariate
82.8
81.1-84.4
Supreme Court Pl.9
Guzman (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
16.3
13.8-18.7
23.7
22.3-25.1
24.0
21.8-26.1
70.3
68.3-72.2
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 39 of 61
2006 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
2 Latino Candidates
Bivariate
95.5
93.8-97.3
Multivariate
92.4
90.8-94.1
55.4
53.2-57.6
47.9
38.5-56.8
54.4
51.6-57.2
34.1
21.5-45.2
40.8
38.0-43.7
43.3
30.4-55.7
36.4
32.1-40.6
37.6
28.7-46.7
57.1
55.3-59.1
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
63.2
61.7-64.8
41.1
38.3-43.4
-------------Multivariate
61.7
60.2-63.2
2006 Dem Primary
Runoff
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
87.5
84.0-91.2
38.8
35.5-42.0
-------------Multivariate
83.3
80.0-86.7
2008 Dem Primary
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
85.3
84.2-86.4
55.2
53.6-56.8
-------------Multivariate
83.6
82.4-84.9
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl. 7
Cruz
Bivariate
89.5
88.2-90.8
Multivariate
85.6
84.3-87.0
Supreme Court Pl. 8
Yanez
Bivariate
92.2
91.9-94.6
Filed 01/17/12 Page 40 of 61
31.7
30.0-33.4
28.3
8.9-44.1
32.5
30.5-34.5
46.3
31.3-59.3
43.6
41.4-45.8
65.2
57.8-72.8
60.2
55.2-64.6
9.7
0.5-18.0
54.0
51.8-56.1
24.1
15.3-32.0
11.1
8.6-13.4
44.9
43.1-46.6
-------------Multivariate
89.2
87.7-90.7
2010 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
87.4
85.9-89.0
60.7
59.2-62.2
-------------Multi variate
86.0
84.5-87.5
LandComm
Uribe
Bivariate
90.4
88.9-92.0
46.3
44.6-48.0
-------------Multivariate
86.4
84.8-88.1
2010 Rep Primary
Governor
Medina
Bivariate
24.4
20.5-28.2
14.2
12.9-15.4
-------------Multivariate
21.3
19.2-23.3
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 41 of 61
RRComm
Carrillo
Bivariate
80.7
76.9-84.6
Multivariate
63.2
60.8-65.7
31.0
29.7-32.1
37.0
25.1-48.0
25.7
22.8-28.5
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 42 of 61
Table 5
Dallas County
Percentage of Group Votes for Latino Candidates
Latino
Non-Latino
90.0
84.4-96.1
48.0
46.3-49.8
African Americans
Others
92.0
90.3-93.7
25.6
24.1-27.0
32.9
28.1-37.4
79.1
78.1-80.0
94.4
92.9-96.1
28.1
26.6-29.5
99.7
99.5-100.0
29.4
27.9-30.8
2006 General Election
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
-------------Multivariate
Supreme Court Pl. 4
Medina (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court
Molina
Bivariate
83.3
80.7-86.1
49.1
41.5-56.0
72.5
71.3-73.7
53.5
49.6-57.4
90.9
85.5-96.8
51.1
49.3-52.9
-------------Multivariate
84.9
82.3-87.7
2008 General Election
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
86.9
82.1-92.2
53.2
51.3-55.0
-------------Multivariate
85.5
82.9-88.1
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl.8
Yanez
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court Pl. 4
Molina
Bivariate
90.3
85.4-95.6
54.0
52.1-55.8
88.0
85.4-90.7
88.9
84.1-94.1
Filed 01/17/12 Page 43 of 61
99.4
98.9-99.9
29.4
28.0-30.7
99.8
99.7-99.9
28.9
27.4-30.4
99.9
99.7-100.0
22.1
20.5-23.6
99.9
99.8-100.0
22.6
20.9-24.2
0.0
0.0-0.1
72.0
71.2-74.4
54.0
52.1-55.8
-------------Multivariate
87.3
84.8-90.0
2010 General Election
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
83.7
75.8-92.6
49.9
47.9-51.8
-------------Multivariate
81.1
78.0-84.3
LandComm
Uribe
Bivariate
86.61
78.8-95.3
Multivariate
82.5
79.4-85.7
Supreme Court Pl.9
Guzman (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
17.3
9.4-24.5
18.5
15.5-21.4
50.5
48.6-52.4
46.3
44.4-48.1
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 44 of 61
2006 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
2 Latino Candidates
Bivariate
81.4
76.0-87.1
Multivariate
73.2
68.9-77.7
50.5
49.3-51.7
47.6
44.7-50.4
51.6
49.7-53.5
27.2
24.5-29.9
43.2
41.4-45.0
34.8
31.8-37.6
43.4
40.6-46.3
44.1
42.6-45.6
54.0
52.8-55.2
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
56.1
51.1-61.2
38.3
37.2-39.8
-------------Multivariate
50.5
46.6-54.5
2006 Dem Primary
Runoff
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
74.6
65.1-85.2
39.7
37.9-41.5
-------------Multivariate
60.2
52.2-68.7
2008 Dem Primary
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
71.5
68.6-74.5
46.8
45.7-47.9
-------------Multivariate
73.8
71.2-76.4
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl. 7
Cruz
Bivariate
82.4
79.6-85.5
Multivariate
75.8
73.6-78.0
Supreme Court Pl. 8
Yanez
Bivariate
83.87
80.7-87.1
Filed 01/17/12 Page 45 of 61
32.1
31.3-33.0
27.6
26.3-28.8
30.6
29.6-31.7
52.7
51.4-53.9
44.3
43.1-45.4
47.0
45.3-48.8
31.5
30.0-32.9
27.2
25.1-29.2
51.7
50.0-53.4
29.2
25.9-32.3
16.0
14.5-17.4
41.6
40.6-42.6
-------------Multivariate
87.8
85.9-89.7
2010 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
84.6
78.1-91.9
38.5
37.5-39.6
-------------Multivariate
77.6
74.3-81.0
LandComm
Uribe
Bivariate
76.7
70.5-83.6
43.7
42.5-44.9
-------------Multivariate
64.6
60.6-68.9
2010 Rep Primary
Governor
Medina
Bivariate
50.4
36.6-64.3
17.9
16.7-19.1
-------------Multivariate
32.5
27.8-37.1
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 46 of 61
RRComm
Carrillo
Bivariate
78.5
66.8-90.4
Multivariate
41.7
35.3-47.9
39.6
38.2-40.9
46.9
41.2-52.4
40.6
38.7-42.5
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 47 of 61
Table 6
Harris County
Percentage of Group Votes for Latino Candidates
Latino
Non-Latino
75.7
72.7-78.8
46.9
45.1-48.6
African Americans
Others
94.1
92.7-95.4
20.6
19.4-21.8
28.1
22.4-33.3
81.5
80.7-82.3
97.2
95.9-98.6
23.9
22.7-25.0
99.8
99.7-100.2
24.6
23.4-25.9
2006 General Election
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
-------------Multi variate
Supreme Court Pl. 4
Medina (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court
Molina
Bivariate
76.3
74.3-78.4
66.9
64.0-69.6
73.7
72.6-74.8
64.6
62.7-66.4
80.4
77.5-83.4
50.1
48.3-51.8
-------------Multivariate
80.9
79.0-82.8
2008 General Election
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
81.8
78.4-85.3
51.3
49.5-53.0
-------------Multivariate
83.4
81.6-85.2
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl.8
Yanez
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court Pl. 4
Molina
Bivariate
83.0
79.7-86.5
52.0
50.2-53.8
84.6
82.8-86.4
82.0
78.7-85.5
Filed 01/17/12 Page 48 of 61
99.9
99.8-100.0
24.7
22.8-26.5
99.8
99.5-100.1
23.2
21.8-24.5
98.2
96.1-100.0
16.7
15.4-17.9
99.5
98.6-100.5
15.0
13.6-16.3
0.1
-0.2-0.5
81.0
79.8-82.4
51.1
49.3-53.0
-------------Multivariate
83.6
81.7-85.5
2010 General Election
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
74.9
70.4-79.6
45.4
43.6-47.2
-------------Multivariate
78.5
76.3-80.7
LandComm
Uribe
Bivariate
79.1
74.1-84.2
Multivariate
79.9
77.9-82.0
Supreme Court Pl.9
Guzman (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
28.1
23.4-32.5
24.8
22.8-26.8
45.2
43.2-47.2
51.6
49.6-53.6
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 49 of 61
2006 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
2 Latino Candidates
Bivariate
79.1
75.1-83.3
Multivariate
68.2
64.8-71.8
51.3
50.1-52.5
51.0
48.4-53.7
53.6
51.7-55.5
28.0
24.9-31.0
38.3
36.5-40.2
39.3
37.3-41.3
45.7
43.7-47.7
44.1
42.6-45.6
54.0
52.8-55.2
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
41.0
37.3-44.6
Multivariate
39.5
36.1-42.7
34.9
33.6-36.1
2006 Dem Primary
Runoff
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
47.4
41.1-53.1
42.5
41.0-43.9
-------------Multi variate
43.5
39.0-47.9
2008 Dem Primary
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
78.1
75.7-80.5
50.1
49.2-51.0
-------------Multivariate
73.8
71.2-76.4
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl. 7
Cruz
Bivariate
Multivariate
Supreme Court Pl. 8
Yanez
Bivariate
80.7
78.9-82.5
29.7
29.0-30.4
75.8
73.6-78.0
91.6
90.3-93.0
Filed 01/17/12 Page 50 of 61
27.6
26.3-28.8
30.6
29.5-31.7
52.7
51.7-53.9
44.3
43.1-45.4
37.8
36.4-39.2
31.1
29.6-32.6
69.6
68.2-70.9
46.3
44.7-47.9
15.4
12.0-18.5
10.2
9.4-11.0
47.1
46.4-47.6
-------------Multivariate
87.8
85.9-89.7
2010 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
81.7
78.0-85.8
34.7
33.9-35.6
-------------Multivariate
67.6
64.5-70.7
LandComm
Uribe
Bivariate
79.8
75.8-83.7
36.4
35.5-37.4
-------------Multi variate
59.0
55.5-62.6
2010 Rep Primary
Governor
Medina
Bivariate
20.4
14.9-25.5
12.8
12.1-13.4
-------------Multivariate
23.4
21.2-25.5
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 51 of 61
RRComm
Carrillo
Bivariate
64.7
58.0-71.3
45.5
44.6-46.4
Multi variate
54.8
51.2-58.2
54.1
49.3-58.9
42.8
41.5-44.1
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 52 of 61
Table 7
Tarrant County
Percentage of Group Votes for Latino Candidates
Latino
Non-Latino
97.9
94.2-101.8
36.5
34.9-38.0
African Americans
Others
93.6
90.1-97.2
24.0
22.8-25.2
26.4
15.4-35.9
79.7
78.5-80.9
95.3
91.7-99.0
26.8
25.4-28.1
99.8
99.3-100.2
25.4
24.4-26.3
2006 General Election
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
-------------Multivariate
Supreme Court Pl. 4
Medina (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court
Molina
Bivariate
84.3
79.1-89.9
43.7
25.3-58.0
76.0
74.8-77.1
55.3
47.2-62.8
99.8
99.2-100.4
39.6
38.2-40.99
-------------Multi variate
89.6
84.2-95.4
2008 General Election
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
98.1
94.3-102.3
39.4
38.0-40.9
-------------Multivariate
98.2
88.9-95.7
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl.8
Yanez
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court Pl. 4
Molina
Bivariate
99.0
96.7-101.5
40.1
38.6-41.5
93.3
89.7-97.0
98.6
95.4-102.0
Filed 01/17/12 Page 53 of 61
99.8
99.6-100.1
25.7
24.7-26.9
99.8
99.4-100.2
24.5
22.5-25.4
99.9
99.8-100.0
17.6
16.5-18.6
99.9
99.7-100.1
17.6
16.5-18.7
0.06
0.008-1.25
76.8
75.8-78.0
39.1
37.5-40.6
-------------Multivariate
91.9
87.2-96.3
2010 General Election
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
94.8
86.6-101.7
35.4
33.7-37.1
-------------Multivariate
86.6
82.1-91.5
Land Comrn
Uribe
Bivariate
95.7
89.5-102.6
Multivariate
86.0
81.5-90.8
Supreme Court Pl.9
Guzman (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
6.8
-1.3-14.2
14.3
9.6-18.8
35.6
33.9-37.3
60.0
58.4-61.6
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 54 of 61
2006 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
2 Latino Candidates
Bivariate
77.9
69.3-87.6
Multivariate
72.0
64.9-79.8
54.1
52.9-55.8
47.3
42.4-52.0
56.1
54.0-58.2
30.8
25.5-35.8
45.3
43.1-47.5
30.4
25.5-35.1
47.5
44.9-50.1
66.0
63.4-68.7
51.5
50.5-52.5
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
50.3
40.6-60.3
Multivariate
46.2
39.0-53.5
42.2
40.3-44.1
2006 Dem Primary
Runoff
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
70.7
60.7-81.7
43.9
41.9-45.9
-------------Multivariate
66.1
56.4-76.6
2008 Dem Primary
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
74.9
70.1-80.0
47.4
46.5-48.3
-------------Multivariate
72.4
68.2-76.9
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl. 7
Cruz
Bivariate
Multivariate
Supreme Court Pl. 8
Yanez
Bivariate
83.3
76.6-90.9
30.5
29.6-31.4
79.4
74.2-85.1
89.3
82.6-96.7
Filed 01/17/12 Page 55 of 61
27.6
24.2-30.9
31.2
30.0-32.4
42.2
38.9-45.5
40.5
39.4-41.7
42.9
38.5-47.2
39.6
38.3-41.0
24.1
19.1-28.8
35.4
33.8-36.9
25.3
16.5-33.2
22.1
20.8-23.5
40.5
39.5-41.5
-------------Multivariate
85.0
80.6-89.6
2010 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
99.9
99.8-99.9
41.1
40.3-41.9
-------------Multi variate
73.3
67.3-79.7
LandComm
Uribe
Bivariate
99.8
99.6-100.0
32.9
32.0-33.8
-------------Multivariate
64.3
57.1-72.0
2010 Rep Primary
Governor
Medina
Bivariate
33.9
19.3-46.9
23.5
22.6-24.3
-------------Multivariate
35.2
27.3-42.7
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 56 of 61
RRComm
Carrillo
Bivariate
Multivariate
92.3
82.5-103.3
56.0
47.7-64.1
40.0
39.1-40.9
44.6
38.0-51.0
41.1
39.5-42.7
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 57 of 61
Table 8
Travis County
Percentage of Group Votes for Latino Candidates
Latino
Non-Latino
99.7
99.3-100.0
48.7
47.0-50.0
African Americans
Others
90.4
82.7-99.0
45.3
43.1-47.6
29.0
14.3-41.8
61.7
59.4-64.0
94.7
88.1-101.6
50.6
48.3-52.9
98.0
94.8-101.4
46.6
44.5-48.8
2006 General Election
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
-------------Multi variate
Supreme Court Pl. 4
Medina (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court
Molina
Bivariate
89.0
82.0-96.8
6.2
-2.1-13.7
60.7
58.7-62.7
28.8
20.1-36.7
99.8
99.8-99.9
55.1
53.6-56.7
-------------Multivariate
94.2
88.3-100.7
2008 General Election
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
99.9
99.8-99.9
53.9
52.4-55.4
-------------Multivariate
94.2
89.0-100.0
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl.8
Yanez
Bivariate
Multivariate
Criminal Court Pl. 4
Molina
Bivariate
99.9
98.8-99.4
54.0
52.4-55.4
96.4
92.4-100.8
99.9
99.8-99.4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 58 of 61
98.1
95.2-101.1
48.0
46.0-50.0
97.4
93.5-101.4
45.9
43.8-47.9
95.8
88.9-103.4
41.38
38.7-44.0
96.2
88.2-105.4
42.7
40.0-45.4
2.0
-4.4-7.9
50.1
47.6-52.6
51.9
50.3-53.4
-------------Multivariate
95.8
91.4-100.4
2010 General Election
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
99.8
99.8-99.9
47.9
46.5-49.3
-------------Multivariate
84.8
78.3-91.9
LandComm
Uribe
Bivariate
67.4
63.2-71.9
Multivariate
89.7
82.9-97.2
Supreme Court Pl.9
Guzman (R)
Bivariate
Multivariate
0.1
0.0-0.1
6.2
-0.9-12.6
30.9
29.9-31.9
43.1
41.6-44.5
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 59 of 61
2006 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
2 Latino Candidates
Bivariate
Multivariate
93.0
88.0-98.5
49.1
47.5-50.6
89.4
84.0-95.2
47.6
42.0-53.1
47.7
46.0-49.4
26.9
20.4-32.9
41.9
40.2-43.5
38.9
26.5-50.6
33.7
31.3-35.9
36.7
31.33-41.9
61.4
60.0-62.9
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
68.3
64.3-72.8
Multivariate
71.0
66.3-75.8
42.4
41.0-43.9
2006 Dem Primary
Runoff
Lt. Governor
Alvarado
Bivariate
91.5
78.6-107.2
35.5
33.2-37.7
-------------Multivariate
85.6
71.9-102.4
2008 Dem Primary
U.S. Senate
Noriega
Bivariate
65.3
61.2-69.6
60.0
58.7-61.3
-------------Multivariate
69.2
65.7-72.9
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Supreme Court Pl. 7
Cruz
Bivariate
Multivariate
Supreme Court Pl. 8
Yanez
Bivariate
78.4
76.0-80.9
36.5
35.7-37.3
79.1
75.9-82.4
92.6
90.0-95.3
Filed 01/17/12 Page 60 of 61
23.7
18.9-28.4
35.7
34.7-36.7
46.3
31.3-59.3
43.6
41.4-48.8
19.3
14.2-24.1
21.6
20.5-22.6
25.1
15.6-33.8
63.6
61.3-66.0
95.1
93.7-96.2
18.3
16.9-19.6
46.3
45.2-47.5
-------------Multivariate
89.2
87.7-90.6
2010 Dem Primary
Lt. Governor
Chavez- Thompson
Bivariate
39.4
35.4-43.3
21.6
20.5-22.6
-------------Multivariate
36.3
32.5-39.9
LandComm
Uribe
Bivariate
65.5
58.7-72.7
61.5
59.7-63.4
-------------Multivariate
72.4
65.8-79.6
2010 Rep Primary
Governor
Medina
Bivariate
50.7
15.6-87.1
22.2
19.5-24.8
-------------Multivariate
43.8
38.3-49.1
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 156-4
Filed 01/17/12 Page 61 of 61
RRComm
Carrillo
Bivariate
74.6
60.5-97.5
Multivariate
46.0
37.2-54.7
45.7
44.1-47.2
68.9
53.7-86.7
47.1
45.3-48.9