Louisiana v. Callais · ¶191

And more fundamentally, the majority is wrong on its history. By 1982 (the year of Section 2's amendment), Congress well knew that “race is often correlated with party preference,” because that was increasingly the case. Ibid. Senate hearings were replete with testimony about that growing correlation, with opponents of the House's “results in” language (Senator Hatch and his camp) questioning witnesses about why “minority groups alone” should be “immune to partisan or ideological gerrymandering.” Senate Report, at 184; see id., at 172, n. 235; Hearings on S. 53 et al. before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 649, 964–965, 1255, 1376– 1377 (1982). But those proponents of Bolden, of course, did not get their way: The Dole proposal maintained the House's emphasis on results, not motives. See supra, at 140. So the majority's appeal to…

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