Louisiana v. Callais · ¶29

To succeed in proving a § 2 violation, Gingles taught, a plaintiff must make four showings. First, the plaintiff must show that the minority group in question is “sufficiently large and [geographically] compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably confgured district.” Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 595 U. S. 398, 402 (2022) (per curiam) (citing Gingles, 478 U. S., at 50–51). A district is reasonably confgured, we later explained, “if it comports with traditional districting criteria, such as being contiguous and reasonably compact.” Allen, 599 U. S., at 18. “Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive.” Gingles, 478 U. S., at 51. Third, “the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.” Ibid. “Finally, a plaintiff who…

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