Louisiana v. Callais · ¶163
The majority today does just the opposite. Under the guise of “updat[ing]” the Gingles framework, ante, at 116, 118, 122, the majority transforms it—and in so doing, betrays Congress's choice. At each of Gingles's steps, the majority imposes new proof requirements, serving a common objective: to convert an effects test, as commanded by Congress, into a purpose test, as preferred by this Court. Nearly half a century ago, Congress amended Section 2 to repudiate Bol den's limitation of that provision's reach to intentional discrimination. See supra, at 139–142. Today's decision returns Section 2 to what it was under Bolden. Now, as then, vote-dilution plaintiffs will have to show more than vote dilution: They will have to show, as well, race-based motive. Now, as then, that requirement will make success in their suits nearly impossible, even if an electoral practice has in fact…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.