Louisiana v. Callais · ¶167

5 In responding to this dissent, the majority (on its opinion's penultimate page) appears to disclaim this reading. The majority notes first (and this is true enough) that “the dissent states over and over again that our decision requires a § 2 plaintiff to prove discriminatory intent.” Ante, at 125. And then the majority's response: No, a vote-dilution plaintiff need show only that a redistricting “denies members of a racial group the same `opportunity' as other voters to elect the candidates they prefer.” Ibid. That formulation is right, and as shown above, it demands an inquiry into the effects of a scheme on voters' opportunity to elect candidates. See supra, at 140, 143–148. Similarly, the majority claims that it is doing just what White did. See ante, at 125. And White, recall, made an “intensely local appraisal” of whether an electoral scheme, when “overlaid” on historical,…

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