Louisiana v. Callais · ¶170

Yet more, the majority's reworking of Gingles's first precondition (contra its assurance) will doom vote-dilution suits even when majority and minority voters support different candidates within a single party. Take an example offered by the Solicitor General, whose ideas about how to upend Gingles the majority largely flches. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20–31. In that hypothetical, Black, Hispanic, and White voters residing in Harlem all vote mainly for Democrats, but have “different candidates of choice.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 119. The Solicitor General maintains that if the district lines “favor[ ] one of those racial groups”—let's say, the Black voters—“that's the sort of situation where Section 2 could come in.” Ibid. The majority agrees, because there the State's preference for one party could not explain the district lines drawn. See ante, at 117, 119. But under the…

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