Louisiana v. Callais · ¶166

At their base, all those requirements have the same function: They force a vote-dilution plaintiff to prove that a State adopted an election rule with racially discriminatory intent. On the majority's view, a rule diluting minority votes—even making them count for nothing—poses no problem if motivated by “nonracial factors.” Ante, at 114. So a State has free rein to “use traditional districting factors” even when they minimize or cancel out minority votes. Ibid. And yet more practically important, a State may (so says the majority) draw districts for any political purpose, including for a purely “partisan purpose[ ]”—that is, to increase one party's electoral strength—no matter their racial effects. Ante, at 115. For that reason, the majority insists, a Section 2 plaintiff has “a special burden to overcome.” Ibid. (quoting Alex ander v. South Carolina State Conference of NAACP, 602 U.…

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