What is the evidence supporting the People's claim that the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the selection process was not intentional discrimination?

The record supports the conclusion that the underrepresentation of Hispanics was caused, in part, by their lower response rate to summonses, which cannot be considered a discriminatory factor in the selection process or in any way intentionally caused (cf. United States v. Clifford, 8 Cir., 640 F.2d 150, 156). Nor is the underrepresentation that was caused [60 N.Y.2d 414] by lower English literacy and by requests for exemptions based upon responsibilities to young children at home, the result of intentional discrimination. These, too, are nondiscriminatory factors with respect to Hispanics. Nothing in the record suggests that these criteria were applied in a discriminatory fashion.

The affirmed findings of fact that the selection process in general is racially neutral, that Hispanics respond to qualification summonses at a lower rate than non-Hispanics, and that there is a higher incidence among Hispanics of English illiteracy and exemptions based on child-care needs, are supported by sufficient evidence (see People v. Rizzo, 40 N.Y.2d 425, 430, 386 N.Y.S.2d 878, 353 N.E.2d 841). Given these facts, this court concludes that the People adequately established that the underrepresentation of Hispanics was not caused by intentional discrimination.