Louisiana v. Callais · ¶190

Nor is the majority aided by what it terms the emergence of a “full-blown two-party system” in “the States where § 2 suits are most common.” Ante, at 117. As to that development, the majority reiterates its persistent theme: When racially polarized voting expresses itself in different party preferences, district lines may refect partisan rather than racial motives, and so Section 2 should drop out of the picture. See ante, at 117, 119–120, 121–122. But as an initial matter, the majority's newly formulated test will eliminate the lion's share of Section 2 claims even when racially polarized voting occurs within a single party—as in the Solicitor General's Harlem example, discussed above. See supra, at 154–155. The State could not then assert a partisan-gerrymandering defense, but it could invoke a host of other race-neutral justifications, like incumbency protection or district…

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