Louisiana v. Callais · ¶182

And of course it is. Because, once more, the “less opportunity” standard was designed to focus on the “results” of a state practice, not on its justifications. § 10301(a). Congress had seen again and again—when it amended Section 2 in 1982, had seen for over a century—how race-neutral election procedures, including in districting, could produce discriminatory results. See supra, at 133–134, 139, 140–141. Congress knew States did not have to rely on impermissible, race-based criteria to “minimize[ ] or cancel[ ] out [minority] voting strength.” Allen, 599 U. S., at 25. So when this Court decided Bolden—which immunized race-neutral election procedures unless a plaintiff could produce smoking-gun evidence of discriminatory intent—Congress responded. It did not, as I've described, opt for proportional representation; it enacted a standard that would take some work to meet. See § 10301;…

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