{"id":214653,"date":"2026-04-29T21:56:24","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T21:56:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/214653\/"},"modified":"2026-04-29T21:56:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T21:56:24","slug":"read-supreme-courts-ruling-and-dissent-on-louisiana-voting-map-59","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/214653\/","title":{"rendered":"Read Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling and Dissent on Louisiana Voting Map"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>                  <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"g-doc-image lazyload\" src=\"https:\/\/static01.nyt.com\/packages\/flash\/multimedia\/ICONS\/transparent.png\" alt=\"Page 69 of 92\" aria-describedby=\"page-69-text\" data-src=\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/output-69.png\" width=\"1700\" height=\"2200\"\/><\/p>\n<p id=\"page-69-text\" class=\"g-doc-text\">Cite as: 608 U. S.&#13;<br \/>\n&#13;<br \/>\n(2026)&#13;<br \/>\n&#13;<br \/>\n25&#13;<br \/>\n&#13;<br \/>\nKAGAN, J., dissenting&#13;<br \/>\n&#13;<br \/>\nthe NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 9 (2024) and Cooper, 581 U. S., at 308). The plaintiff \u201cmust disentangle race from politics by proving that the former drove a district&#8217;s lines.&#8221; Ante, at 25 (quoting Alexander, 602 U. S., at 9, and Cooper, 581 U. S., at 308; emphasis deleted). In other words, he must show that the State, in drawing that district, had not a political but instead a racial motivation\u2014that it acted for the spe- cific purpose of weakening a minority group&#8217;s voting influ- ence. The new Callais requirements, as I&#8217;ll soon discuss, are all (concededly) designed to ensure that the plaintiff is held to that \u201cspecial burden\u201d\u2014which, as the Congress amending Section 2 well understood, is nearly insuperable.5&#13;<br \/>\n&#13;<br \/>\n5 In responding to this dissent, the majority (on its opinion&#8217;s penulti- mate page) appears to disclaim this reading. The majority notes first (and this is true enough) that &#8220;the dissent states over and over again that our decision requires a \u00a72 plaintiff to prove discriminatory intent.&#8221; Ante, at 35. And then the majority&#8217;s response: No, a vote-dilution plaintiff need show only that a redistricting &#8220;denies members of a racial group the same &#8216;opportunity&#8217; as other voters to elect the candidates they prefer.&#8221; Ibid. That formulation is right, and as shown above, it demands an inquiry into the effects of a scheme on voters&#8217; opportunity to elect candidates. See supra, at 14-15, 17-22. Similarly, the majority claims that it is doing just what White did. See ante, at 35. And White, recall, made an \u201cin- tensely local appraisal&#8221; of whether an electoral scheme, when &#8220;overlaid&#8221; on historical, social, and political &#8220;realities,&#8221; in fact operated to dilute minority voting strength-in other words, applied an effects test. See supra, at 10-12, and n. 1. So the majority closes its opinion by suggest- ing it is not requiring a vote-dilution plaintiff to present evidence of \u201cdis- criminatory intent.&#8221; Ante, at 35. Which, if true, would be welcome news. And welcomer still if lower courts took those last words seriously and allowed Section 2 claims to succeed even absent proof of race-based pur- pose. But I suspect they will not. Because they, like I, will have read the many pages leading up to the majority&#8217;s coda. And those pages, both in setting out and in explaining the Callais requirements, make clear that a Section 2 plaintiff has a \u201cspecial burden\u201d to \u201cdemonstrate\u201d that racial rather than political (or other) reasons \u201cdrove a district&#8217;s lines\u201d\u2014i.e., that &#8220;the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity.&#8221; Ante, at 25\u201326, 29 (emphasis added). So what the majority hopes to accomplish by its last-minute attempt to associate itself with an effects inquiry is something of a mystery. To try to disguise what it is<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Cite as: 608 U. S.&#13; &#13; (2026)&#13; &#13; 25&#13; &#13; KAGAN, J., dissenting&#13; &#13; the NAACP, 602 U.&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":214178,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[9,24,63,134,136,135],"class_list":["post-214653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-staten-island","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-city","tag-nyc","tag-staten-island","tag-staten-island-headlines","tag-staten-island-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214653\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/214178"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}