The district court also considered factors that weigh against a finding of vote dilution. The district court noted that our prior holding upheld the trial court's finding that Montana had not used voting practices that may enhance discrimination,
id., and that the parties had presented no new evidence on this factor. The district court recited that, as we noted in
Old Person I, Montana has no slating process, and again, there was no contrary evidence; we must conclude that Native Americans have not been denied access to such a process.
Old Person I, 230 F.3d at 1129. The district court adhered to its prior conclusion, also previously affirmed by us, that Montana officials are “generally responsive” to the needs of Native American voters. Again, the district court said that no evidence introduced on remand would lead it to change the prior finding of responsiveness. But the district court, echoing our prior views, thought this of “limited relevance” under a result-based (rather than intent-based) test.
Old Person I, 230 F.3d at 1129 n. 14. The district court also found, in accord with our prior determination upholding the district court's prior finding, that the policy underlying the creation of the existing district boundaries was not tenuous. On this point, again, nothing new was presented. All these findings weigh against vote dilution. There was no error in any of these findings, for all were the law of the case, and none fell within the limited exceptions to that doctrine, particularly absent supervening evidence to the contrary.