Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

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

25 

Opinion of the Court 

remanded for the lower court to conduct the predominance 
analysis itself, explaining that “the use of an express racial 
target”  was  just  one  factor  among  others  that  the  court 
would have to consider as part of “[a] holistic analysis.”  Id., 
at  192.   JUSTICE  THOMAS  dissented in  relevant  part,  con-
tending  that  because  “the  legislature  sought  to  achieve  a 
[black voting-age population] of at least 55%,” race neces-
sarily  predominated  in  its  decisionmaking.    Id.,  at  198 
(opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).  But the 
Court did not join in that view, and JUSTICE THOMAS again 
dissents along the same lines today. 
  The second flaw in the dissent’s proposed approach is its 
inescapable  consequence:  Gingles  must  be  overruled.    Ac-
cording  to  the  dissent,  racial  predominance  plagues  every 
single illustrative map ever adduced at the first step of Gin-
gles.  For all those maps were created with an express tar-
get  in  mind—they  were  created  to  show,  as  our  cases  re-
quire, that an additional majority-minority district could be 
drawn.  That is the whole point of the enterprise.  The up-
shot of the approach the dissent urges is not to change how 
Gingles is applied, but to reject its framework outright. 
  The contention that mapmakers must be entirely “blind” 
to race has no footing in our §2 case law.  The line that we 
have  long  drawn  is  between  consciousness  and  predomi-
nance.  Plaintiffs adduced at least one illustrative map that 
comported with our precedents.  They were required to do 
no more to satisfy the first step of Gingles. 

2 
  The next condition Alabama would graft onto §2 is a re-
quirement that plaintiffs demonstrate, at the totality of cir-
cumstances  stage,  that  the  State’s  enacted  plan  contains 
fewer  majority-minority  districts  than  the  race-neutral 
benchmark.  Brief for Alabama 43.  If it does not, then §2 
should drop out of the picture.  Id., at 44. 
  Alabama argues that is what should have happened here.