Louisiana v. Callais · ¶153

“Gingles began,” as Allen recently noted, “by describing what § 2 guards against.” 599 U. S., at 17. “The essence of a § 2 claim,” Gingles explained, is that an electoral rule or practice “interacts with social and historical conditions,” generally caused by past intentional discrimination, “to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters.” 478 U. S., at 47. Such an inequality exists when the challenged rule “operates to minimize or cancel out [minority voters'] ability to elect their preferred candidates.” Id., at 48. And the risk of that “minimiz[ation]”—or dilution—is greatest when “minority and majority voters consistently prefer different candidates” and the minority voters are submerged in a majority voting population that “regularly defeat[s] [their] choices.” Ibid.; see Allen, 599 U. S., at 17–18.

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