Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 44

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

3 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

  If Gingles demanded a proportional number of majority-
minority districts, States would be forced to group together 
geographically  dispersed  minority  voters  into  unusually 
shaped districts, without concern for traditional districting 
criteria such as county, city, and town lines.  But Gingles 
and  this  Court’s  later  decisions  have  flatly  rejected  that 
approach.  See, e.g., Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___ 
(2018) (slip op., at 33–34); Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 979 
(1996) (plurality opinion); Gingles, 478 U. S., at 50; see also 
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 917–920 (1995); Shaw v. 
Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 644–649 (1993); ante, at 18–22.2 
  Third, Alabama argues that courts should rely on race-
blind computer simulations of redistricting maps to assess 
whether a State’s plan abridges the right to vote on account 
of  race.    It  is  true  that  computer  simulations  might  help 
detect 
intentional 
discrimination.    For  example,  if  all  of  the  computer 
simulations generated only one majority-minority district, 
it  might  be  difficult  to  say  that  a  State  had  intentionally 
discriminated  on  the  basis  of  race  by  failing  to  draw  a 
second majority-minority district. 
  But  as  this  Court  has  long  recognized—and  as  all 
Members  of  this  Court  today  agree—the  text  of  §2 
establishes an effects test, not an intent test.  See ante, at 
17; post, at 7 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); post, at 16 (ALITO, 
J., dissenting).  And the effects test, as applied by Gingles 
to  redistricting,  requires  in  certain  circumstances  that 
courts  account  for  the  race  of  voters  so  as  to  prevent  the 
cracking or packing—whether intentional or not—of large 

the  presence 

absence 

or 

of 

—————— 

2 To  ensure  that  Gingles  does  not  improperly  morph  into  a 
the 
courts  must 
proportionality  mandate, 
“geographically  compact”  and  “reasonably  configured”  requirements.  
See ante, at 22 (§2 requirements under Gingles are “exacting”).  In this 
case,  for  example,  it  is  important  that  at  least  some  of  the  plaintiffs’ 
proposed  alternative  maps  respect  county  lines  at  least  as  well  as 
Alabama’s redistricting plan.  See ante, at 12. 

rigorously  apply