Louisiana v. Callais · ¶35

Likewise, in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Ala bama, 575 U. S. 254, 259 (2015), we applied strict scrutiny to a race-predominant districting plan that the State had created for two purposes: first, to “come close to a one-person, one-vote ideal,” and second, to “ensure compliance” with § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. We held that, even if the Voting Rights Act could provide a compelling interest, the map did not satisfy strict scrutiny because it was not required by the Act. Id., at 277. Once again, we left open whether compliance with the Act “remain[ed] a compelling interest.” Id., at 279.

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