Louisiana v. Callais · ¶171

Congress, as should by now be clear, made a different choice. In amending Section 2, Congress opted for the effects test of White over the purpose test of Bolden. See supra, at 139–142. And it did so largely because of the unfeasibility of countering a State's non-race-based justification for a given districting decision. See supra, at 140–142. Such a demand, the authors of the Senate compromise explained, would impose “an inordinately difficult burden,” precluding a remedy for even the most “egregious” cases of vote dilution. Senate Report, at 36–37. Yet that is exactly the burden the majority makes Section 2 plaintiffs bear—and at the first threshold condition. The majority makes no effort to explain how minority voters can meet its new requirement. How they can devise a map satisfying (at least as well as the State's own) each of the State's asserted political and other goals while…

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