3“effectiveness index” that estimates the ability of minority communities to elect their candidates of choice in particular districts. This analysis includes a review of datacreated by the State, including a district-by-district racial bloc voting analysis. HandleyCong. Rep. at 3-4; Handley House Rep. at 3-4.
Texas House of Representatives
An election-oriented functional analysis of the proposed State House plan leads to theconclusion that the plan is retrogressive under Section 5. There are 50 minority districtsin the benchmark plan that offer minority voters an ability to elect.
Handley HouseRep. at 1. The United States contends that there are only 45 minority districts in the proposed plan that offer minority voters an ability to elect.
Handley House Rep. at 1.9.
The United States contends that Districts 33, 35, and 117 provide Hispanic voters anability to elect in the benchmark plan but not in the proposed plan. District 149 providesminority voters an ability to elect in the benchmark plan, and it does not provide minorityvoters with an ability to elect in the proposed plan. District 41 provides minority votersan opportunity to elect a candidate of choice in the benchmark. The State has failed tomeet its burden of proof of showing that District 41 provides an ability to elect in the proposed plan because of the data issues surrounding the precinct splits. See HandleyRep. at 9-10.10.
The State has asserted that there are forty-one districts in the benchmark State House planthat offer minorities the ability to elect candidates of choice: thirty that provide thatability to Hispanic voters – Districts 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 74, 75,76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 104, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 140, 143, 145 – and eleventhat provides that ability to Black voters – Districts 22, 95, 100, 109, 110, 111, 131, 139,
Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 79-1 Filed 10/25/11 Page 3 of 17