Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶68

As we have recognized in other contexts, that sort of evidence may include an evaluation of the facts on the ground and statistical analyses. See, e. g., Department of Com merce v. New York, 588 U. S. 752, 767–768 (2019) (concluding that States had standing to challenge the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census, in light of statistical evidence “establish[ing] that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates” and “that if noncitizen households [were] undercounted by as little as 2%” those States would “lose out on federal funds”). In the electoral arena, preelection polling will often provide a relevant data set. Candidates could also rely on historical data about how a particular rule has affected those who have run similar campaigns in the past. And the relative advantages or disadvantages of various electoral processes can be scrutinized…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.