Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 52

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

7 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

the decidedly nonneutral benchmark of proportional alloca-
tion of political power based on race. 

A 
  As we have long recognized, “the very concept of vote di-
lution implies—and, indeed, necessitates—the existence of 
an  ‘undiluted’  practice  against  which  the  fact  of  dilution 
may be measured.”  Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 520 
U. S. 471, 480 (1997).  In a challenge to a districting plan, a 
court must be able to compare a State’s enacted plan with 
“a  hypothetical,  undiluted  plan,”  ibid.,  ascertained  by  an 
“objective  and  workable  standard.”    Holder,  512  U. S.,  at 
881  (plurality  opinion);  see  also  id.,  at  887  (opinion  of 
O’Connor,  J.)  (noting  the  “general  agreement”  on  this 
point). 
  To be sure, it is no easy task to identify an objective, “un-
diluted”  benchmark  against  which  to  judge  a  districting 
plan.  As we recently held in the analogous context of par-
tisan gerrymandering, “federal courts are not equipped to 
apportion political power as a matter of fairness.”  Rucho v. 
Common Cause, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 17).  
Yet §2 vote-dilution cases require nothing less.  If §2 pro-
hibited only intentional racial discrimination, there would 
be no difficulty in finding a clear and workable rule of deci-
sion.  But the “results test” that Congress wrote into §2 to 
supersede  Mobile  v.  Bolden,  446  U. S.  55  (1980),  eschews 
intent as the criterion of liability.  See Bossier Parish School 
Bd., 520 U. S., at 482.  Accordingly, a §2 vote-dilution claim 
does not simply “as[k] . . . for the elimination of a racial clas-
sification.”  Rucho, 588 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 21).  It asks, 
instead,  “for  a  fair  share  of  political  power  and  influence, 
with all the justiciability conundrums that entails.”  Ibid.  
Nevertheless,  if  §2  applies  to  single-member  districts,  we 
must accept that some “objective and workable standard for 
choosing a reasonable benchmark” exists; otherwise, single-
member  districts  “cannot  be  challenged  as  dilutive  under