Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 93

48 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

courts  [have  been]  engaged  in  methodically  carving  the 
country into racially designated electoral districts” for dec-
ades now.  Holder, 512 U. S., at 945 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).  
But that fact should inspire us to repentance, not resigna-
tion.  I am even more convinced of the opinion that I formed 
29 years ago: 

  “In  my  view,  our  current  practice  should  not  con-
tinue.  Not for another Term, not until the next case, 
not for another day.  The disastrous implications of the 
policies we have adopted under the Act are too grave; 
the dissembling in our approach to the Act too damag-
ing to the credibility of the Federal Judiciary.  The ‘in-
herent tension’—indeed, I would call it an irreconcila-
ble  conflict—between  the  standards  we  have  adopted 
for evaluating vote dilution claims and the text of the 
Voting Rights Act would itself be sufficient in my view 
to warrant  overruling  the  interpretation  of §2 set  out 
in  Gingles.    When  that  obvious  conflict  is  combined 
with  the  destructive  effects  our  expansive  reading  of 
the Act has had in involving the Federal Judiciary in 
the  project  of  dividing  the  Nation  into  racially  segre-
gated electoral districts, I can see no reasonable alter-
native  to  abandoning  our  current  unfortunate  under-
standing of the Act.”  Id., at 944. 

  I respectfully dissent.