Alternative Governance Options for Consideration in Future Village Trustee Elections

Transcription

1 A Proposal Submitted in Response to Village of Port Chester Alternative Governance Options for Consideration in Future Village Trustee Elections (RFQ # ) September 1, 2017 M.V. Hood III, Ph.D. Professor of Political Science University of Georgia

2 Statement of Qualifications a. Resume My name is M.V. (Trey) Hood III, and I am a tenured professor at the University of Georgia with an appointment in the Department of Political Science. 1 have been a faculty member at the University of Georgia since also serve as the Director of the School of Public and International Affairs Survey Research Center. 1 am an expert in American politics, specifically in the areas of electoral politics, racial politics, election administration, and Southern politics. 1 teach courses on American politics. Southern politics, and research methods and have taught graduate seminars on the topics of election administration and Southern politics (the courses 1 teach on Southern politics include a specific emphasis on the Voting Rights Act and redistricting). 1 have received research grants from the National Science Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trust. 1 have also published peer-reviewed journal articles specifically in the areas of redistricting and vote dilution. My academic publications are detailed in a copy of my vita that is attached to the end of this document. Currently, 1 serve on the editorial boards for Social Science Quarterly and Election Law Journal. The latter is a peer-reviewed academic journal focused on the area of election administration. 1 have offered opinions in cases dealing specifically with vote dilution (Section 2) and redistricting. During the preceding six years, 1 have testified as an expert in nineteen cases: State of Florida v. United States, (D.D.C.), NAACP v. Walker, 1 l-cv-5492 (Dane County Circuit Court), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin v. Deininger, 2:12-cv (E.D. Wis.), Frank v. Walker, 2:11-CV-Ol 128 (E.D. Wis.), South Carolina v. United States, , D.D.C, Rios-Andino v. Orange County, 6:12-cv (M.D. Fla), Veaseyv. Perry, 2:13-cv-193 (S.D. Tex.), United States v. North Carolina, 1:13-CV-861 (M.D. N.C), Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board ofelections, 3:14-cv (E.D. Va.), The Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, 2:15-cv-1802 (S.D. Ohio), The Northeast Ohio Coalition v. Husted, 2:06-CV (S.D. Ohio), One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol, 3:15-CV-324 (W.D. Wis.), Covington v. North Carolina, l:15-cv (M.D. N.C.), Green Party of Tennessee v. Hargett, 3:1 l-cv (M.D. Tenn.), Vesilind v. Virginia State Board o/elections, CLl (Richmond Circuit Court), Common Cause v. Rucho, 1:16-CV-1026 (M.D. N.C.), Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Merrill, 2:15-CV (N.D. Ala), Feldman v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office, CV (Ari.), and^lrtwe Harding v. County of Dallas, Texas, 3:15-CV (N.D. Tex.). b. Proof of Licensure N/A c. Work Samples 1 have attached a copy of a peer-reviewed academic article pertaining to the conduct of vote dilution analyses that 1 co-authored.

3 References Mr. Thomas Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC Telephone: Mobile: United States v. North Carolina, l:13-cv-861 (M.D. N.C), Covington v. North Carolina, l:15-cv (M.D. N.C.), and Common Cause v. Rucho, l:16-cv-1026 (M.D. N.C.). Mr. Mark Braden BakerHostetler Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC Telephone: com Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 3:14-cv (E.D. Va.).

4 Curriculum Vitae (Augusts 2017) M.V. (Trey) Hood III Contact Information: Department of Political Science Office Phone: (706) School of Public and International Affairs Dept. Phone: (706) Baldwin Hall FAX: (706) The University of Georgia Athens, OA Academic Positions University of Georgia Professor, 2013-present Director, SPIA Survey Research Center, 2016-present. Director of Graduate Studies, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Texas Tech University Visiting Assistant Professor, Education Ph.D. Political Science Texas Tech University 1997 M.A. Political Science Baylor University 1993 B.S. Political Science Texas A&M University 1991 Peer-Reviewed Books The Rational Southerner: Black Mobilization, Republican Growth, and the Partisan Transformation of the American South New York: Oxford University Press. (Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris, co-authors). [Softcover version in 2014 with new Epilogue] Peer-Reviewed Publications "Out of Step and Out of Touch: The Matter with Kansas in the 2014 Midterm." Forthcoming The Forum. (Seth C. McKee and Ian Ostrander, co-authors). "From Legal Theory to Practical Application: A How-To for Performing Vote Dilution Analyses." Social Science Quarterly. (Peter A. Morrison, coauthor).

5 "Race, Class, Religion and the Southern Party System: A Field Report from Dixie." The Forum 14(1): "Black Votes Count: The 2014 Republican Senate Nomination in Mississippi." Social Science Quarterly. (Seth C. McKee, coauthor). "Sunshine State Dilemma: Voting for the 2014 Governor of Florida." Electoral Studies 40: (Seth C. McKee, co-author). "Tea Leaves and Southern Politics: Explaining Tea Party Support Among Southern Republicans." Social Science Quarterly 96(4): (Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris, co-authors). "True Colors: White Conservative Support for Minority Republican Candidates." Public Opinion Quarterly 79(1): (Seth C. McKee, co-author). "Race and the Tea Party in the Old Dominion: Split-Ticket Voting in the 2013 Virginia Elections." PS: Political Science and Politics 48(1): (Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris, co-authors). "The Damnedest Mess: An Empirical Evaluation of the 1966 Georgia Gubernatorial Election." Forthcoming Social Science Quarterly 96{\):\0A-\\^. (Charles S. Bullock, III, co author). "Candidates, Competition, and the Partisan Press: Congressional Elections in the Early Antebellum Era." American Politics Research 42(5): (Jamie L. Carson, co author). [Winner of the 2014 Hahn-Sigelman Prize] "Strategic Voting in a U.S. Senate Election." Political Behavior 35(4): (Seth C. McKee, co-author). "Unwelcome Constituents: Redistricting and Countervailing Partisan Tides." State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13(2): (Seth C. McKee, co-author). "The Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and the 2010 Congressional Elections: The Aftermath of the Election of Barack Obama." Social Science Quarterly 93(5): (Charles S. Bullock, III, co-author). "Much Ado About Nothing?: An Empirical Assessment of the Georgia Voter Identification Statute." State Politics and Policy Quarterly 12(4): (Charles S. Bullock, III, co-author). "Achieving Validation: Barack Obama and Black Turnout in 2008." State Politics and Policy Quarterly 12:3-22. (Seth C. McKee and David Hill, co-authors).

6 "They Just Don't Vote Like They Used To: A Methodology to Empirically Assess Election Fraud." Social Science Quarterly 93: (William Gillespie, co-author). "An Examination of Efforts to Encourage the Incidence of Early In-Person Voting in Georgia, 2008." Election Law Journal 10: (Charles S. Bullock, III, co author). "What Made Carolina Blue? In-migration and the 2008 North Carolina Presidential Vote." American Politics Research 38: (Seth C. McKee, co-author). "Stranger Danger: Redistricting, Incumbent Recognition, and Vote Choice." Social Science Quarterly 91: (Seth C. McKee, co-author). "Trying to Thread the Needle: The Effects of Redistricting in a Georgia Congressional District." PS: Political Science and Politics 42: (Seth C. McKee, co-author). "Citizen, Defend Thyself: An Individual-Level Analysis of Concealed-Weapon Permit Holders." Criminal Justice Studies 22: (Grant W. Neeley, co-author). "Two Sides of the Same Coin?: Employing Granger Causality Tests in a Time Series Cross- Section Framework." Political Analysis 16: (Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris, co-authors). "Worth a Thousand Words? : An Analysis of Georgia's Voter Identification Statute." American Politics Research 36: (Charles S. Bullock, III, co-author). "Gerrymandering on Georgia's Mind: The Effects of Redistricting on Vote Choice in the 2006 Midterm Election." Social Science Quarterly 89:60-77 (Seth C. McKee, co author). "Examining Methods for Identifying Latino Voters." Election Law Journal 6: (Charles S. Bullock, III, co-author). "A Mile-Wide Gap: The Evolution of Hispanic Political Emergence in the Deep South." Social Science Quarterly 87: (Charles S. Bullock, III, co-author). "Punch Cards, Jim Crow, and A1 Gore: Explaining Voter Trust in the Electoral System in Georgia, 2000." State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5: (Charles S. Bullock, III and Richard Clark, co-authors). "When Southern Symbolism Meets the Pork Barrel: Opportunity for Executive Leadership." Social Science Quarterly 86: (Charles S. Bullock, III, co-author). 'The Reintroduction of the Elephas maximus to the Southern United States: The Rise of Republican State Parties, " American Politics Research 31: (Quentin Kidd and Irwin Morris, co-authors). Ill

7 'One Person, [No Vote; One Vote; Two Votes...]: Voting Methods, Ballot Types, and Undervote Frequency in the 2000 Presidential Election." Social Science Quarterly 83: (Charles S. Bullock, HI, co-author). "On the Prospect of Linking Religious Right Identification with Political Behavior: Panacea or Snipe Hunt?" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41: (Mark C. Smith, co-author). "The Key Issue: Constituency Effects and Southern Senators' Roll-Call Voting on Civil Rights." Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: (Quentin Kidd and Irwin Morris, co authors). "Packin' in the Hood?: Examining Assumptions Underlying Concealed-Handgun Research." Social Science Quarterly ^\: (Grant Neeley, co-author). "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Racial/Ethnic Context and the Anglo Vote on Proposition 187." Social Science Quarterly 81: (Irwin Morris, co-author). "Penny Pinching or Politics? The Line-Item Veto and Military Construction Appropriations." Political Research Quarterly 52: (Irwin Morris and Grant Neeley, co authors). "Of Byrds[s] and Bumpers: Using Democratic Senators to Analyze Political Change in the South, " \999. American Journal of Political Science 43: (Quentin Kidd and Irwin Morris, co-authors). "Bugs in the NRC's Doctoral Program Evaluation Data: From Mites to Hissing Cockroaches." : (Nelson Dometrius, Quentin Kidd, and Kurt Shirkey, co-authors). "Boll Weevils and Roll-Call Voting: A Study in Time and Space." Legislative Studies Quarterly 23: (Irwin Morris, co-author). "Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor,...But Make Sure They Have a Green Card: The Effects of Documented and Undocumented Migrant Context on Anglo Opinion Towards Immigration Political Behavior 20:1-16. (Irwin Morris, co-author). "iquedate o Vente!: Uncovering the Determinants of Hispanic Public Opinion Towards Immigration." Political Research Quarterly 50: (Irwin Morris and Kurt Shirkey, co-authors). "^Amigo 0 Enemigo?: Context, Attitudes, and Anglo Public Opinion toward Immigration." Social Science Quarterly 78: (Irwin Morris, co-author). IV

8 Invited Publications 'Race and the Ideologicai Transformation of the Democratic Party: Evidence from the Bayou State." American Review of Politics 25: Book Chapters "Texas: Big Red Rides On." Forthcoming In The New Politics of the Old South, Charles S. Bullock, III and Mark J. Rozell, editors. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (Seth C. McKee, co-author). ed., "The Participatory Consequences of Florida Redistricting." In Jigsaw Puzzle Politics in the Sunshine State, Seth C. McKee, editor. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press. (Danny Hayes and Seth C. McKee, co-authors). "Texas: Political Change by the Numbers." In The New Politics of the Old South, 5'^ ed., Charles S. Bullock, III and Mark J. Rozell, editors. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (Seth C. McKee, co-author). "The Republican Party in the South." In Oxford Handbook of Southern Politics, Charles S. Bullock, III and Mark J. Rozell, editors. New York: Oxford University Press. (Quentin Kidd and Irwin Morris, co-authors). "The Reintroduction of the Elephas maximus to the Southern United States: The Rise of Republican State Parties, " In Controversies in Voting Behavior, 5'*^ ed., David Kimball, Richard G. Niemi, and Herbert F. Weisberg, editors. Washington, DC: CQ Press. (Quentin Kidd and Irwin Morris, co-authors). [Reprint of 2004 APR article with Epilogue containing updated analysis and other original material.] "The Texas Governors." In Texas Policy and Politics, Mark Somma, editor. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster. Other Publications "Provisionally Admitted College Students: Do They Belong in a Research University?" In Developmental Education: Preparing Successful College Students, Jeanne Higbee and Patricia L. Dwinell, editors. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition (Don Gamett, co-author). NES Technical Report No "The Reliability, Validity, and Scalability of the Indicators of Gender Role Beliefs and Feminism in the 1992 American National Election Study: A Report to the ANES Board of Overseers." (Sue Tolleson-Rinehart, Douglas R. Davenport, Terry L. Gilmour, William R. Moore, Kurt Shirkey, co-authors).

9 Grant-funded Research (UGA) Co-Principal Investigator. "An Examination of Non-Precinct Voting in the State of Georgia." Budget: $47,000. October 2008-July (with Charles S. Bullock, III). Funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. Co-Principal Investigator. "The Best Judges Money Can Buy?: Campaign Contributions and the Texas Supreme Court." (SES ) Total Budget: $166,576; UGA Share: $69,974. September 2006-August (with Craig P. Emmert). Funded by the National Science Foundation. REU Supplemental Award ( ): $6,300. Principal Investigator. "Payola Justice or Just Plain 'Ole Politics Texas-Style?: Campaign Finance and the Texas Supreme Court." $5,175. January 2000-Januray Funded by the University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Curriculum Grants (UGA) Learning Technology Grant: "Converting Ideas Into Effective Action: An Interactive Computer and Classroom Simulation for the Teaching of American Politics." $40,000. January-December (with Loch Johnson). Funded by the Office of Instructional Support and Technology, University of Georgia. Dissertation "Capturing Bubba's Heart and Mind: Group Consciousness and the Political Identification of Southern White Males, " Chair: Professor Sue Tolleson-Rinehart Papers and Activities at Professional Meetings "An Assessment of Online Voter Registration in Georgia." (with Greg Hawrelak and Colin Phillips). Presented at the Annual Meeting of Election Sciences, Reform, and Administration. Portland, Oregon. "Palmetto Postmortem: Examining the Effects of the South Carolina Voter Identification Statute." (with Scott E. Buchanan). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. New Orleans, LA. "Out of Step and Out of Touch: The Matter with Kansas in the 2014 Midterm Election." (with Seth C. McKee and Ian Ostrander) Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. San Juan, Puerto Rico. "Contagious Republicanism in North Carolina and Louisiana, "(with Jamie Monogan) Presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. vi

10 "The Behavioral Implications of Racial Resentment in the South: The Intervening Influence of Party." (with Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris) Presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. Discussant. Panel titled "Partisan Realignment in the South." The Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. "Electoral Implications of Racial Resentment in the South: The Influence of Party." (with Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris) Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia, PA. "Racial Resentment and the Tea Party: Taking Regional Differences Seriously." (with Quentin Kidd an Irwin L. Morris) Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco, CA. "Race and the Tea Party in the Palmetto State: Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Bakari Sellers and the 2014 Elections in South Carolina." (with Quentin Kidd an Irwin L. Morris) Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. New Orleans, LA. Participant. Roundtable on the 2014 Midterm Elections in the Deep South. Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. New Orleans, LA. "Race and the Tea Party in the Old Dominion: Split-Ticket Voting in the 2013 Virginia Elections." (with Irwin L. Morris and Quentin Kidd) Paper presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. "Race and the Tea Party in the Old Dominion: Down-Ticket Voting and Roll-Off in the 2013 Virginia Elections." (with Irwin L. Morris and Quentin Kidd) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. New Orleans, LA. "Tea Leaves and Southern Politics: Explaining Tea Party Support Among Southern Republicans." (with Irwin L. Morris and Quentin Kidd) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Orlando, PL. "The Tea Party and the Southern GOP." (with Irwin L. Morris and Quentin Kidd) Research presented at the Effects of the 2012 Elections Conference. Athens, OA. "Black Mobilization in the Modern South: When Does Empowerment Matter?" (with Irwin L. Morris and Quentin Kidd) Paper presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. "The Legislature Chooses a Governor: Georgia's 1966 Gubernatorial Election." (with Charles S. Bullock, III) Paper presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. Vll

11 "One-Stop to Victory? North Carolina, Obama, and the 2008 General Election." (with Justin Bullock, Paul Carlsen, Perry Joiner, and Mark Owens) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. New Orleans. "Redistricting and Turnout in Black and White." (with Seth C. McKee and Danny Hayes) Paper presented the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL. "One-Stop to Victory? North Carolina, Obama, and the 2008 General Election." (with Justin Bullock, Paul Carlsen, Perry Joiner, Jeni McDermott, and Mark Owens) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting. Chicago, IL. "Strategic Voting in the 2010 Florida Senate Election." (with Seth C. McKee) Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Political Science Association. Jupiter, FL. "The Republican Bottleneck: Congressional Emergence Patterns in a Changing South." (with Christian R. Grose and Seth C. McKee). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. New Orleans, LA. "Capturing the Obama Effect: Black Turnout in Presidential Elections." (with David Hill and Seth C. McKee) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Political Science Association. Jacksonville, FL. "The Republican Bottleneck: Congressional Emergence Patterns in a Changing South." (with Seth C. McKee and Christian R. Grose) Paper presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. "Black Mobilization and Republican Growth in the American South: The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same?" (with Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris) Paper presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. "Unwelcome Constituents: Redistricting and Incumbent Vote Shares." (with Seth C. McKee) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta, GA. "Black Mobilization and Republican Growth in the American South: The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same?" (with Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta, GA. "The Impact of Efforts to Increase Early Voting in Georgia, 2008." (With Charles S. Bullock, III) Presentation made at the Annual Meeting of the Georgia Political Science Association. Callaway Gardens, GA. 'Encouraging Non-Precinct Voting in Georgia, 2008." (With Charles S. Bullock, III) Vlll

12 Presentation made at the Time-Shifting The Vote Conference. Reed College, Portland, OR. "What Made Carolina Blue? In-migration and the 2008 North Carolina Presidential Vote." (with Seth C. McKee) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Political Science Association. Orlando, FL. "Swimming with the Tide: Redistricting and Voter Choice in the 2006 Midterm." (with Seth C. McKee) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. "The Effect of the Partisan Press on U.S. House Elections, " (with Jamie Carson) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the History of Congress Conference. Washington, D.C. "Backward Mapping: Exploring Questions of Representation via Spatial Analysis of Historical Congressional Districts." (Michael Crespin) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the History of Congress Conference. Washington, D.C. "The Effect of the Partisan Press on U.S. House Elections, " (with Jamie Carson) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. "The Rational Southerner: The Local Logic of Partisan Transformation in the South." (with Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris) Paper presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. "Stranger Danger: The Influence of Redistricting on Candidate Recognition and Vote Choice." (with Seth C. McKee) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. New Orleans. "Backward Mapping: Exploring Questions of Representation via Spatial Analysis of Historical Congressional Districts." (with Michael Crespin) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Chicago. "Worth a Thousand Words? : An Analysis of Georgia's Voter Identification Statute." (with Charles S. Bullock, III) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association. Albuquerque. "Gerrymandering on Georgia's Mind: The Effects of Redistricting on Vote Choice in the 2006 Midterm Election." (with Seth C. McKee) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Southern Political Science Association. New Orleans. "Personalismo Politics: Partisanship, Presidential Popularity and 21st Century Southern Politics." (with Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia. "Explaining Soft Money Transfers in State Gubernatorial Elections." (with William Gillespie and Troy Gibson) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the IX

13 Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. "Two Sides of the Same Coin?: A Panel Granger Analysis of Black Electoral Mobilization and GOP Growth in the South, " (with Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris) Paper presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC. "Hispanic Political Emergence in the Deep South, " (With Charles S. Bullock, III) Paper presented at the Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston. "Black Mobilization and the Growth of Southern Republicanism: Two Sides of the Same Coin?" (with Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta. "Exploring the Linkage Between Black Turnout and Down-Ticket Challenges to Black Incumbents." (With Troy M. Gibson) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta. "Race and the Ideological Transformation of the Democratic Party: Evidence from the Bayou State." Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Citadel Southern Politics Symposium. Charleston. "Tracing the Evolution of Hispanic Political Emergence in the Deep South." (Charles S. Bullock, III). Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Citadel Southern Politics Symposium. Charleston. "Much Ado about Something? Religious Right Status in American Politics." (With Mark C. Smith). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. "Tracking the Flow of Non-Federal Dollars in U. S. Senate Campaigns, " (With Janna Deitz and William Gillespie). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. "PAC Cash and Votes: Can Money Rent a Vote?" (With William Gillespie). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Savannah. "What Can Gubernatorial Elections Teach Us About American Politics?: Exploiting and Underutilized Resource." (With Quentin Kidd and Irwin L. Morris). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Boston. 'I Know I Voted, But I'm Not Sure It Got Counted." (With Charles S. Bullock, III and Richard Clark). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association. New Orleans.

14 "Race and Southern Gubernatorial Elections: A 50-Year Assessment." (With Quentin Kidd and Irwin Morris). Paper presented at the Biennial Southern Politics Symposium. Charleston, SC. "Top-Down or Bottom-Up?: An Integrated Explanation of Two-Party Development in the South, " Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta. "Cash, Congress, and Trade: Did Campaign Contributions Influence Congressional Support for Most Favored Nation Status in China?" (With William Gillespie). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association. Fort Worth. "Key 50 Years Later: Understanding the Racial Dynamics of 2U^ Century Southern Politics" (With Quentin Kidd and Irwin Morris). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta. "The VRA and Beyond: The Political Mobilization of African Americans in the Modem South." (With Quentin Kidd and Irwin Morris). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco. "Payola Justice or Just Plain 'Ole Politics Texas Style?: Campaign Finance and the Texas Supreme Court." (With Craig Emmert). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. "The VRA and Beyond: The Political Mobilization of African Americans in the Modern South." (With Irwin Morris and Quentin Kidd). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta. "Where Have All the Republicans Gone? A State-Level Study of Southern Republicanism." (With Irwin Morris and Quentin Kidd). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Savannah. "Elephants in Dixie: A State-Level Analysis of the Rise of the Republican Party in the Modem South." (With Irwin Morris and Quentin Kidd). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Atlanta. "Stimulant to Turnout or Merely a Convenience?: Developing an Early Voter Profile." (With Quentin Kidd and Grant Neeley). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southem Political Science Association. Atlanta. 'The Impact of the Texas Concealed Weapons Law on Crime Rates: A Policy Analysis for the City of Dallas, " (With Grant W. Neeley). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. XI

15 "Analyzing Anglo Voting on Proposition 187: Does Racial/Ethnic Context Really Matter?" (With Irwin Morris). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Norfolk. "Capturing Bubba's Heart and Mind: Group Consciousness and the Political Identification of Southern White Males, " Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. "Of Byrds[s] and Bumpers: A Pooled Cross-Sectional Study of the Roll-Call Voting Behavior of Democratic Senators from the South, " (With Quentin Kidd and Irwin Morris). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta. "Pest Control: Southern Politics and the Eradication of the Boll Weevil." (With Irwin Morris). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco. "Fit for the Greater Functions of Politics: Gender, Participation, and Political Knowledge." (With Terry Gilmour, Kurt Shirkey, and Sue Tolleson-Rinehart). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. "^Amigo o Enemigo?: Racial Context, Attitudes, and White Public Opinion on Immigration." (With Irwin Morris). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago. "jquedate o Vente!: Uncovering the Determinants of Hispanic Public Opinion Towards Immigration." (With Irwin Morris and Kurt Shirkey). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association. Houston. "Downs Meets the Boll Weevil: When Southern Democrats Turn Left." (With Irwin Morris). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Tampa. "<?,Amigo 0 Enemigo?: Ideological Dispositions of Whites Residing in Heavily Hispanic Areas." (With Irwin Morris). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Tampa. Chair. Panel titled "Congress and Interest Groups in Institutional Settings." Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association. Dallas. "Death of the Boll Weevil?: The Decline of Conservative Democrats in the House." (With Kurt Shirkey). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association. Dallas. "Capturing Bubba's Heart and Mind: The Political Identification of Southern White Males." (With Sue Tolleson-Rinehart). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Atlanta. Xll

16 Other Professional Presentations "Much Adieu About Nothing?: An Empirical Assessment of Georgia's Voter Identification Statute." Presentation made to the Department of Political Science, Texas Tech University. Lubbock, TX. "Report on the Aftermath of the 2010 Midterm Elections." Presentation made to the Oconee County Republican Party. Watkinsville, GA. "Non-Precinct Voting in Georgia-A Survey of Voters from the 2008 Election." Presentation made to the Jeannette Rankin Foundation Program: The Life and Legacy of Jeannette Rankin: Championing Election Reform. Athens, GA. "Non-Precinct Voting in Georgia, 2008." (With Charles S. Bullock, III). Presentation made at the Annual Meeting of the Georgia Election Officials Association. Savannah. Areas of Teaching Competence American Politics: Behavior and Institutions Public Policy Scope, Methods, Techniques Teaching Experience University of Georgia, 1999-present. Graduate Faculty, 2003-present. Provisional Graduate Faculty, Distance Education Faculty, 2000-present. Texas Tech University, , Visiting Faculty, Graduate Faculty, Extended Studies Faculty, Teaching Assistant, Xlll

17 Courses Taught: Undergraduate: American Government and Politics, American Government and Politics (Honors), Legislative Process, Introduction to Political Analysis, American Public Policy, Political Psychology, Advanced Simulations in American Politics (Honors), Southern Politics, Southern Politics (Honors) Graduate: Election Administration and Related Issues (Election Sciences), Political Parties and Interest Groups, Legislative Process, Seminar in American Politics, Southern Politics; Publishing for Political Science Editorial Boards Social Science Quarterly. Member, 2011-present. Election Law Journal. Member present. Institutional Service (University-Level) University Program Review Committee, Chair, Vice-Chair, Graduate Council, Program Committee, Chair, Program Committee, University Libraries Committee, Search Committee for University Librarian and Associate Provost, XIV

18 From Legal Theory to Practical Application: A How-To for Performing Vote Dilution Analyses* M. V. Hood III, University of Georgia Peter A. Morrison, Morrison & Associates Thomas M. Bryan, Bryan GeoDemographics Objectives. The Supreme Court opinion in Thomburgv. three decades ago established a threeprong test whereby a vote dilution claim can be substantiated. This article provides practitioners and social scientists with a working understanding of the operational steps involved in analyzing a vote dilution claim. Methods. A brief primer is offered on how to translate the Gingles preconditions into a set of practical, real-world tests. At each stage, we buttress these explanations with examples from actual court proceedings. Results. This primer furnishes readers with the basic knowledge necessary to carry out a vote dilution analysis under the current legal standard. Conclusion. While the generic process for conducting a test of vote dilution has been well-defined by decades of case law, practitioners should be mindful that some aspects of these procedures will continue to be affected by future court proceedings. The 1965 Voting Rights Act has profoundly altered the American political landscape (see Herman, 2015). The challenges to election procedures and practices it prompted now hinge centrally on successfully prosecuting a claim under Section 2 of the Act.' The Supreme Court opinion in Thornburg v. Gingles three decades ago established a three-prong test whereby a vote dilution claim can be substantiated. Translating judi cial guidance into real-world empirical analysis, however, is not always a straightforward process. To fill this gap, we present a primer on how to transform the three Gingles preconditions into a set of practical real-world tests. Our aim is to provide a working understanding of the operational steps involved in analyzing a vote dilution claim. This how-to practicum will illustrate the uses of demographic and statistical analyses to inform legal proceedings. We begin by providing the necessary legal background for experts undertaking a vote dilution analysis. We then consider each of the three necessary preconditions, termed the Gingles prongs, which a plaintiff must satisfy to sustain a vote dilution claim. In describing the 'Direct correspondence to M. V. Hood III, Department of Political Science, University of Georgia, 104 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA (th@uga.edu). M. V. Hood III and Peter A. Morrison served as expert witnesses in Rios-Andino v. Orange County. 'In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder declared the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. These formulas determine, in turn, which jurisdictions are subject to Section 5. Until Congress revises Section 4, Section 5 will continue to be unenforceable. As of this writing, it is unlikely that Congress will soon amend the coverage formulas in Section 4. There is both an interparty disagreement over what form a new coverage formula might take and intraparty dissention given that different formulas will produce a varying mix of covered jurisdictions. For an introduction to the previous Section 4 formulas and an interactive look at what jurisdictions would be covered under potential formulas, see "The Formula Behind the Voting Rights Act." New York Times ]nnc 22, SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY 2017 by the Southwestern Social Science Association DDI: /ssqu

19 2 Social Science Quarterly process for evaluating each prong, we draw on actual cases to illustrate accepted techniques experts typically employ.^ Legal Background Largely as a consequence of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the reenfranchisement of black Americans in the South resulted in substantial increases in black registration and turnout in the region (Bullock and Gaddie, 2009; Hood et al., 2012). Subsequent to these numerical gains following removal of formal barriers to the ballot box, a new issue surfaced: minority vote dilution. Davidson makes a clear distinction between disenjranchisement and dilution-. the later can take place even if the former is not present. He defines vote dilution as "a process whereby election laws or practices, either singly or in concert, combine with systematic bloc voting among an identifiable group to diminish the voting strength of at least one other group" (Davidson, 1994:22). Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act anticipated the potential for minority vote dilution in 1965: No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.^ Vote dilution has a multitude of potential causes, both blatant and subtle. They include electoral systems (at-large or multimember districts), how election districts are drawn (redistricting), the structure of elections (majority-vote requirements), voter requirements (presentation of government-issued photo identification), or how elections are administered (constraints on would-be voters, such as the length of the early in-person voting period). Each can abridge the right to vote specifically among members of certain groups. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (unlike Section 5) applies to jurisdictions nationwide and can be used to challenge existing electoral systems."^ Section 2, however, was viewed as little more than a redundancy to guarantees provided in the U.S. Constitution (14th and 15th Amendments) prior to actions on the part of Congress in 1982 (Lowenstein et al., 2012). In 1980, the Court ruled in City of Mobile v. Bolden that it was necessary to prove that a jurisdiction had intentionally erected an electoral system designed to dilute minority voting strength in order for a cause on the part of a plaintiff to be upheld.^ Two years later Congress responded to the Court s interpretation of Section 2 by amending the law, supplanting the intent standard with one based solely on ^ects. The 1982 amendment to Section 2 of the VRA allowed both the Department of Justice and private plaintiffs to challenge a host of election devices as having the effect of diluting minority voting strength. Following the 1982 amendments to Section 2, the Supreme Court clarified its interpre tation of this component of the Voting Rights Act as it applies to vote dilution involving election districts.'' In doing so, the Court also articulated a three-part test that plaintiffs must meet to sustain a vote dilution claim (see Bullock, 2010): ^Detailed applications of these methodologies are provided in a separate electronic appendix to this article. See also Morrison (1994). ^Amendments to the Voting Rights Act in 1975 added lai^uage defining minorities as a protected class (Bullock and Gaddie, 2009). Statute text from the Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives at ( library.clerk.house.gov). ''Note that unlike Section 5 litigation, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff in a Section 2 claim. ^ City of Mobile V. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). ''See Thornburgv. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).

20 From Legal Theory to Practical Application 3 1. The minoriry group must be of sufficient size and geographically compact enough to allow for the creation of a single-member district for the group in question. 2. It must be demonstrated that the minority group is politically cohesive. 3. It must further be demonstrated that the candidate of choice for the minority group is typically defeated by the majority voting bloc. To prevail on a vote dilution claim, plaintiffs must present convincing evidence for all three preconditions. If, for example, the racial minority were not sufficiently numerous to constitute the majority in a single-member district for the jurisdiction in question, then the Court would be unable to grant relief. Likewise, proving the existence of racially polarized voting would not, of itself, constitute vote dilution. It must also be demonstrated that such bloc voting typically results in the defeat of the minority groups preferred candidate of choice.^ The 1982 VRA amendments and subsequent Supreme Court interpretations led to a torrent of challenges nationwide in jurisdictions with a sizable proportion of minority residents. These initial challenges targeted multimember, at-large, and mixed election systems. Legal challenges have ranged across all manner of office holding, from city council, school board, county commission, and judicial offices to state legislator. Section 2 vote dilution cases have challenged district compositions under single-member plans as well. For example, although most state legislative plans have shifted from using multimember districts to reliance on the single-member variety, such plans nevertheless have also been challenged under Section 2 (Weber, 2012). Establishing the three Gingles prongs is the primary path to sustain a vote dilution claim. More often than not, meeting these three prongs will likely enable a plaintiff to prevail at trial. Practitioners must understand both the legal foundation underlying each precondition and accepted measurement approaches for establishing it. Accordingly, we now turn to a primer on how to translate these legal preconditions into a set of practical tests. The First Gingles Precondition The first prong poses the question: Can the minority group in question constitute the majority of eligible voters in a hypothetical demonstration district? A demonstration district merely establishes the possibility of forming an aggregation of contiguous territory that would encompass the necessary number of total residents (e.g., one-fifth of a city's population with a five-member elected city council) and would sufficiently concentrate the minority group to comprise the majority of that territory's eligible voters.^ The two relevant populations here are (1) all residents irrespective of age, citizenship, and felony status and (2) all eligible voters. Can a Majority-Minority District be Drawn? We begin with a simple illustration. Historically, minorities and immigrants have estab lished recognizable local neighborhoods in American cities (Logan and Zhang, 2004). ^Additional evidence of lingering effects of previous discrimination, known as a totality-of-the-circumstances test, also can be used by the Court upon meeting the requirements as laid out by Gingles (sec Bullock, 2010). ^Contiguous territory means that a pedestrian within the district could walk to any other point within the district without leaving the district.

21 4 Social Science Quarterly These racial/ethnic neighborhoods typically emerge where people of the same back ground cluster and live together. The City of Gainesville, Georgia exemplifies this co alescence of an immigrant group. Gainesville has registered a sharp increase in Hispanics, altering the city's demographic landscape and buttressing Hispanics' presence among its residents. The impetus behind that increase employment opportunities in local poultry processing drew adult Hispanic workers who are not yet citizens and there fore ineligible to vote. As a consequence, Hispanics by 2010 comprised 42 percent of Gainesville's residents, but a mere 12 percent of those eligible to vote (citizens 18 and older). Gainesville's voters elect its five city council members at-large. A potential plaintiff demanded replacement with a single-member election system, claiming that the existing system prevents the Hispanic community from electing candidates of its choice. The city's initial line of defense centered on the first Gingles precondition: Are Hispanic eligible voters sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to constitute a majority of eligible voters within a hypothetical single-member election district encompassing one-fifth of the city's population? The stark disparity between Hispanics' demographic presence (among all residents) and their electoral presence among adult citizens cast doubt on that likelihood. A useful starting point is simply to gauge the mathematical possibility of meeting this first precondition (see Table 1): 1. For each census block in the jurisdiction, we calculate the percentage of the citizen voting-age population (CVAP) who are Hispanic (or the subject minority). 2. Next, we rank all census blocks in descending order of that percentage, starting with the highest percentage Hispanic. 3. Next, we calculate the cumulative percentage of the jurisdiction's total population, citizen voting-age ^o^\i\dix\ony Hispanic citizen population, and the Hispanic share of CVAP. 4. Note the row at which the cumulative total population approaches 20 percent of the city's 35,446 residents (19.2 percent in Table 1). 5. For this row, we note that the Hispanic share of CVAP (46.3 percent) defines the arithmetic upper limit of Hispanics' share of CVAP in any potential district drawn to encompass nearly 20 percent of the total resident population. As seen here, that upper limit is well below 50 percent, proving that it is arithmetically impossible to form any district (regardless of the contiguity of its blocks) affording Hispanics a majority of a district's eligible voters. In rare instances such as this, the first Gingles precondition can be proven arithmeti cally impossible. Oftentimes, though, a majority-minority district is numerically possible. In that case, other geographic concerns enter the equation, such as whether these cen sus blocks and block groups could be aligned so as to create a contiguous district (Butler and Cain, 1992). In addition to geographic contiguity, a court takes into account nu merous other "traditional districting criteria" relevant when considering a district's con stitutionality (see Bullock, 2010 and Butler and Cain, 1992 for a discussion of these criteria). One such criteria is a district's geographic compactness. A compact district minimizes the distance between all the parts of a constituency (Butler and Cain, 1992:157).^ Where race is an important consideration, the courts have viewed bizarrely shaped districts with low levels of compactness as a warning sign that the district may be an unconstitutional 'For an introduction to district compactness and its measurement, see Butler and Cain (1992).

22 TABLE 1 Evaluating the Arithmetic Possibility of Forming One Majority-Hispanic District in a Five-District Plan Total Population CVAP { ) Cumulative CVAP ( ) Cumulative Percentage of Percentage of Census Block Number Percentage Number Hispanic Hispanic Number Hispanic Hispanic continued 2 a <2i ' <-4

23 TABLE 1 Continued Census Block Total Population CVAP ( ) Cumulative CVAP ( ) Cumulative Percentage of Percentage of Number Percentage Number Hispanic Hispanic Number Hispanic Hispanic , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,985 1, ,126 1, ,130 1, ,272 1, ,284 1, % of Total Population continued

24 TABLE 1 Continued Total Population CVAP ( ) Cumulative CVAP ( ) Cumulative Percentage of Census Block Number Percentage Number Hispanic Hispanic Total, City of 35, ,940 2, Gainesville Number 2,311 2,317 2,325 2,344 2,398 2,437 2,445 2,511 2,827 2,902 2,951 2,961 2,971 17,940 Hispanic Percentage of Hispanic 1, , , , , , , ,163 iifiinrnwr 1, , , ,271 42,9 1, , % of Total Population Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census PL block data (using pdst-2010 city boundaries); 2013 American Community Survey five-year file. Tables and , allocating block group data to individual blocks based on 2010 block-level VAP full-count data.

25 8 Social Science Quarterly racial gerrymander^^ Even a majority-minority district that is mathematically possible may be viewed as constitutionally questionable if it is noncontiguous and/or is not compact. Evaluating a Demonstration District Only rarely can a defendant rule out the mathematical possibility of forming a majorityminority district. Typically, the plaintiff will have crafted an illustrative majority-minority district, which can then be evaluated by experts on behalf of the defendant governmental entity. While district apportionment is based on the official decennial census count of total population, it may be necessary in a Section 2 claim to evaluate a hypothetical district based on additional criteria. Among such criteria might be the actual voting strength of a minority group, based on its share of the voting-age population (VAP) or the citizen voting-age population (CVAP). The latter may be particularly salient for racial/ethnic groups composed of large percentages of noncitizens. One might draft a hypothetical majority-minority district based on that group's share of the total population, but such a district might fail to function as a majority-minority group based on other measures. In this section, we examine how experts evaluate such criteria and distinguish the key considerations and issues that arise. A vote dilution challenge to the six-member Board of County Commissioners (BCC) in Orange County, Florida exemplifies the circumstance in which experts employ competing methodologies to gauge the voting strength of a minority group within a district. The six members of Orange County's BCC are elected from single-member districts. Following the 2010 Census, the county adopted a redistricting plan that adjusted existing district boundaries to the changed distribution of the county's population. A group of plaintiffs then sued the county, alleging that the enacted redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the VRA. Below, we focus on the first Gingles precondition, involving the plaintiffs' claim that the adopted plan failed to create a majority-fiispanic commission district in a county that had registered substantial Hispanic population growth. Plaintiffs specifically asserted that Commission District 3 could have been drawn to afford Hispanics a majority of the district's eligible voters. Their expert constructed an illustrative six-district plan in which Hispanics purportedly constituted a majority (50.19 percent) of the CVAP in District 3. The defendant's expert disputed this claim, asserting that what the demonstration district encompasses is less than a majority. The opposing conclusion hinged on a methodological point, which exemplifies the judgment an expert must exercise in evaluating a vote dilution claim. Both experts drew on the same two bodies of U.S. Census Bureau data routinely used for redistricting applications: (1) the 2010 decennial PL data, furnishing the official "complete count" of the voting-age population of individual areas as small as a census blacky and (2) the five-year American Community Survey file (ACS ), furnishing the Bureau's official estimate of the citizen voting-age population of individual areas as small as a census block group. The Census Bureau publishes the five-year American Community Survey file precisely for applications such as redistricting, which need maximum spatial resolution. ' See Bullock (2010) and Pildes and Niemi (1993) on the constitutionality of districts and the issue of compactness. Rios-Andino v. Orange County, 51 F. Supp.3d 1215 (M.D. Florida 2014).

26 From Legal Theory to Practical Application 9 A demonstration district (like the one here) is composed of numerous geographic units for which the Census Bureau reports population data. The first, and smallest, unit is the census block (typically corresponding to a city block in urban settings). The second geographic unit is the census block group (BG), made up of multiple census blocks.'^ The plaintiffs' expert deemed citizenship rates for Hispanics and non-hispanics to be reliable only at the county level. Accordingly, he calculated the countywide proportion of all voting-age persons and Hispanic voting-age persons who were citizens. These countywide proportions were then applied to the corresponding total and Hispanic voting-age populations residing within the illustrative District 3. This estimation technique (hereafter. Method 1) assumes that citizenship rates are invariant across subareas within the county. Were that assumption invalid, the resulting estimates would be inaccurate. For a large and diverse area such as Orange County, it is quite plausible that the proportion of adults who are citizens would vary geographically, and that proved to be the case. The defendant's expert adopted an alternative approach to capture this spatial variation. That approach (hereafter, Method 2) leveraged data from the American Community Survey, along with the decennial "complete count" population data, to estimate citizenship down to the BG level. The boundary of plaintiffs' demonstration District 3 encompassed both whole BGs and some individual census blocks. This distinction is noteworthy because the Census Bureau's official CVAP estimate from the ACS is published for whole BGs, not individual census blocks. For a district composed of both individual blocks and whole BGs, standard demographic practice favors allocating the total CVAP of a parent BG to those individual blocks within the district based on the YAP counted in each block. For example, assume a BG is composed of two blocks (A and B) and contains 500 voting-age persons. If 400 reside in Block A and the other 100 reside in Block B, then one assigns 80 percent of the BG's CVAP to Block A and the other 20 percent to Block B. The rationale here is that the known distribution of VAP (from the decennial census) best reflects the distribution of CVAP across the individual blocks of a given BG. Likewise, one allocates the Hispanic CVAP of a parent BG to those individual blocks based on the fraction of Hispanic VAP in each block. To derive the Hispanic share of CVAP for District 3 using this methodology, one tabulates the Hispanic CVAP estimate and the total CVAP estimate for all BGs and blocks within District 3, and then divides the former by the latter. Table 2 compares the estimates of the Hispanic share of CVAP for District 3 using these two methods. Using Method 1 (assuming Hispanic citizenship rates are invariant across Orange County), Hispanics would comprise percent of the total CVAP of the illustrative District 3. Using Method 2 (accounting for variations in the citizenship share across BGs), Hispanics would constitute less than a majority (48.04 percent) of District 5' }^ Depending on which method is employed, then, Hispanics may or may not comprise a majority of District 3 CVAP. If Hispanics are not a voting-eligible majority within the demonstration district, then the district cannot actually function as a majorityminority district. Clearly, underlying technical assumptions can make for legally significant differences that support opposite conclusions on issues of law. Best practices call for using '^See 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts for more discussion on the geographic hierarchy the Census employs ({ "This methodology accords with standard demographic practice for apportioning the population of a geographic unit (e.g., block group) among its subareas (e.g., blocks). Its logic follows the U.S. Census Bureau s procedures and adheres to a key principle that "all of the estimates we produce must be consistent across geography." See U.S. Census Bureau (2014:2). One could calculate confidence intervals for these estimates as well. Even if the CVAP estimate for a group constitutes a majority, it is possible that the confidence interval may fall below the 50 percent threshold level.