Louisiana v. Callais · ¶97
Nothing in Allen dictates a result that differs from the one we reach today. The decision in that case was based on the State of Alabama's specific argument that its “race-neutral benchmark” was “necessary in any redistricting case.” Brief for Appellants in Allen v. Milligan, O. T. 2022, Nos. 21–1086 etc., pp. 43–44 (Brief for Alabama). Alabama argued that deriving this benchmark—the “median or average number of majority-minority districts” in a race-blind “multimillion-map set,” Allen, 599 U. S., at 23—required “computer simulations that are technically complicated, expensive to produce, and available to `[o]nly a small cadre of university researchers [that] have the resources and expertise to run' them,” id., at 36 (quoting Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28). Nonetheless, the State contended that its race-neutral benchmark was “the only plausible test” to ensure that § 2…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.