Louisiana v. Callais · ¶22

Members of Congress evidently shared these concerns. In 1982, shortly after Bolden, Congress sought to abrogate that decision by amending § 2. A House bill was “originally passed . . . under a loose understanding that § 2 would prohibit all discriminatory `effects' of voting practices, and that intent would be `irrelevant,' ” but “[t]his version met stiff resistance in the Senate.” Mississippi Republican Execu tive Comm. v. Brooks, 469 U. S. 1002, 1010 (1984) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 97–227, p. 29 (1981)). Critics worried that an effects test would lead to “mandat[ory] racial proportionality in elections,” a scenario “regarded by many as intolerable.” Allen, 599 U. S., at 12. The House and Senate eventually compromised, and the final product included both an effects test in § 2(a) and a “robust disclaimer against proportionality” in § 2(b). Id., at 13.

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