Louisiana v. Callais · ¶112

First, the dissent states over and over again that our decision requires a § 2 plaintiff to prove discriminatory intent. Post, at 132, 149–152, 155–158, 162, 164–166, 170–171. What must be shown is exactly what the 1982 amendment of § 2 called for. A § 2 plaintiff in a vote dilution case must show that a districting scheme denies members of a racial group the same “opportunity” as other voters to elect the candidates they prefer. Supra, at 110–112. When that is shown, the circumstances are comparable to those in White, 412 U. S. 755, the decision from which the new language added by Congress in 1982 was drawn. That is, the circumstances must give rise to a strong inference of racial discrimination. See supra, at 113–116.

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