Louisiana v. Callais · ¶184

I just called that claim “unprecedented,” and so it is: The majority has conjured it out of thin air. From before Section 2 was amended until today, Congress was understood to have constitutional power to ban practices resulting in unequal voting opportunities, irrespective of proof of racial motive. And likewise, Congress was understood to have power to prohibit vote-diluting practices even when a State could proffer some sort of plausible race-neutral justification. In this Court's seminal decisions, we explained that the phrase “appropriate legislation” in the Fifteenth Amendment grants Congress “the same broad powers expressed in the Necessary and Proper Clause.” Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 650 (1966); see Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 325–327. So Congress has “discretion” to determine “whether and what legislation is needed to secure” the Amendment's “guarantees.” Morgan, 384…

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