Cite as: 581 U. S. ____ (2017)
15
Opinion of the Court
a legislature undertaking a redistricting must assess
whether the new districts it contemplates (not the old ones
it sheds) conform to the VRA’s requirements. And true
too, an inescapable influx of additional voters into a district may suggest the possibility that its former track
record of compliance can continue only if the legislature
intentionally adjusts its racial composition. Still, North
Carolina too far downplays the significance of a longtime
pattern of white crossover voting in the area that would
form the core of the redrawn District 1. See Gingles, 478
U. S., at 57 (noting that longtime voting patterns are
highly probative of racial polarization). And even more
important, North Carolina can point to no meaningful
legislative inquiry into what it now rightly identifies as
the key issue: whether a new, enlarged District 1, created
without a focus on race but however else the State would
choose, could lead to §2 liability. The prospect of a significant population increase in a district only raises—it does
not answer—the question whether §2 requires deliberate
measures to augment the district’s BVAP. (Indeed, such
population growth could cut in either direction, depending
on who comes into the district.) To have a strong basis in
evidence to conclude that §2 demands such race-based
steps, the State must carefully evaluate whether a plaintiff could establish the Gingles preconditions—including
effective white bloc-voting—in a new district created
without those measures. We see nothing in the legislative
record that fits that description.5
——————
5 North Carolina calls our attention to two expert reports on voting
patterns throughout the State, but neither casts light on the relevant
issue. The first (by Dr. Thomas Brunell) showed that some elections in
many of the State’s counties exhibited “statistically significant” racially
polarized voting. App. 1001. The second (by Dr. Ray Block) found that
in various elections across the State, white voters were “noticeably” less
likely than black voters to support black candidates. Id., at 959. From
those far-flung data points—themselves based only on past elections—