Finally, the paucity of proof that Wilson presented regarding minority electoral success was inadequate to convince the district court that this factor favored a finding of vote dilution. As previously discussed, although Fifth Circuit precedent unequivocally states that evidence from elections for the office at issue is more probative than that of exogenous elections,
e.g., Clark II, 88 F.3d at 1397, it does not bar limited consideration of exogenous elections.
See Rangel, 8 F.3d at 247. Accordingly, the district court was well within its authority to consider the elections of Anderson and Banks as well as Murrell, McCrary, and Storey in its “ ‘intensely local appraisal’ of the social and political climate of the cities and counties in which” Wilson filed the instant Section 2 suit.
See LULAC IV, 999 F.2d at 867 (citing
White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 769, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973)). Because the district court “anchor[ed] its judgment in evidence [,]”
Clark II, 88 F.3d at 1397, we cannot declare implausible its conclusion that sufficient proof of minority electoral success exists to overcome Wilson's vote dilution claim. As such, in the instant dispute, irrespective of whether the district court correctly concluded that Wilson met the
Gingles prerequisites, he ultimately failed to prove vote dilution under the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, the district court did not commit clear error in dismissing Wilson's Section 2 vote dilution claim.