Louisiana v. Callais · ¶92

The facts of Gingles afford a good example of how a § 2 plaintiff can properly meet these preconditions. There, as discussed, black and white voters had dramatically different voting patterns within the Democratic party. 478 U. S., at 59. This type of intra-party racial-bloc voting pattern helps to demonstrate that the minority plaintiffs have “less opportunity” than their majority counterparts because of race, not just because of partisan affliation. 52 U. S. C. § 10301(b). By contrast, simply pointing to inter-party racial polarization proves nothing, because “ `a jurisdiction may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering, even if it so happens that the most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats and even if the State were conscious of that fact.' ” Alex ander, 602 U. S., at 9 (quoting Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U. S. 541, 551 (1999)).

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