Louisiana v. Callais · ¶174

The consequences of the new Callais requirements show up immediately, in the majority's disposition of this case. The District Court may have heard five days of testimony; may have properly applied the (old) Gingles factors; may have explained in 110 fact-intensive pages why the vote- dilution plaintiffs were likely to prevail. See supra, at 148– 149. But the majority thinks it “eas[y]” to overturn all that court's work in a few paragraphs. Ante, at 122. The plaintiffs funked the (new) first Gingles precondition because their illustrative map, although showing a reasonably con- fgured majority-minority district, “fail[ed] to meet the State's political goal[ ]” of protecting every incumbent Republican representative. Ante, at 123. The plaintiffs came up short on the (new) second and third preconditions because their showing of racially polarized voting—“that black and white voters…

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