Louisiana v. Callais · ¶99
In addition, our decision in Allen did not reach two pivotal issues that we now squarely address. First, we left open whether “race-based redistricting” under §2, even if permissible when the Voting Rights Act was amended in 1982, could “extend indefnitely into the future” despite significant changes in relevant conditions. 599 U. S., at 45 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part); see Shelby County, 570 U. S., at 557 (requiring assessment of the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in light of current conditions). Second, because the State in Allen did not cite partisan goals in defending its map, we did not address whether § 2 plaintiffs must disentangle race from politics in proving their case. Indeed, this is our first occasion to address the implications of Rucho in a vote-dilution case. Failing to account for political considerations in redistricting, as explained above, can…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.