Louisiana v. Callais · ¶147

An “oft-cited” Senate Report explained just what the 1982 amendment had accomplished: The new Section 2 repudiated Bolden's intent requirement and adopted White's “results test.” Brnovich, 594 U. S., at 658; S. Rep. No. 97–417, p. 27 (1982) (Senate Report). An intent test, the Report stated, imposed “an inordinately difficult burden for plaintiffs.” Id., at 36. Even when state actors had purposefully discriminated, they would likely be “ab[le] to offer a non-racial rationalization,” supported by “a false trail” of “official resolutions” and “other legislative history eschewing any racial motive.” Id., at 37. The proof lay in what had happened after Bolden, when even suits involving “egregious” vote dilution had failed. Senate Report, at 37; see id., at 26–27, 37–39. And in any event, the Report continued, the Bolden intent test “ask[ed] the wrong question.” Senate Report, at 36. The…

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