Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

State  in  the  country,  meanwhile,  “has  attained  a  propor-
tional share” of districts in which Hispanic-preferred candi-
dates are likely to prevail.  Id., at 3–4.  That is because as 
residential segregation decreases—as it has “sharply” done 
since  the  1970s—satisfying  traditional  districting  criteria 
such as the compactness requirement “becomes more diffi-
cult.”  T. Crum, Reconstructing Racially Polarized Voting, 
70 Duke L. J. 261, 279, and n. 105 (2020). 
  Indeed, as amici supporting the appellees emphasize, §2 
litigation in recent years has rarely been successful for just 
that reason.  See Chen Brief 3–4.  Since 2010, plaintiffs na-
tionwide  have  apparently  succeeded  in  fewer  than  ten  §2 
suits.  Id., at 7.  And “the only state legislative or congres-
sional  districts  that  were  redrawn  because  of  successful 
Section 2 challenges were a handful of state house districts 
near  Milwaukee  and  Houston.”    Id.,  at  7–8.    By  contrast, 
“[n]umerous  lower  courts”  have  upheld  districting  maps 
“where, due to minority populations’ geographic diffusion, 
plaintiffs  couldn’t  design  an  additional  majority-minority 
district” or satisfy the compactness requirement.  Id., at 15–
16 (collecting cases).  The same has been true of recent liti-
gation in this Court.  See Abbott, 585 U. S., at ___–___ (slip 
op., at 33–34) (finding a Texas district did not violate §2 be-
cause “the geography and demographics of south and west 
Texas do not permit the creation of any more than the seven 
Latino . . . districts that exist under the current plan”).4 

—————— 

4 Despite this all, the dissent argues that courts have apparently been 
“methodically carving the country into racially designated electoral dis-
tricts”  for  decades.   Post,  at 48  (opinion  of  THOMAS,  J.).  And  that,  the 
dissent inveighs, “should inspire us to repentance.”  Ibid.  But propor-
tional representation of minority voters is absent from nearly every cor-
ner of this country despite §2 being in effect for over 40 years.  And in 
case after case, we have rejected districting plans that would bring States 
closer to proportionality when those plans violate traditional districting 
criteria.  See supra, at 19–21.  It seems it is the dissent that is “quixoti-
cally  joust[ing]  with  an  imaginary  adversary.”    Post,  at  47  (opinion  of 
THOMAS, J.).