8 LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS Opinion of the Court proving a §2 vote-dilution claim, plus a nonexhaustive list of factors to be considered in making a final decision as to whether the State had violated §2. See id., at 44–45, 48– 51, 80. To succeed in proving a §2 violation, Gingles taught, a plaintiff must make four showings. First, the plaintiff must show that the minority group in question is “sufficiently large and [geographically] compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district.” Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Comm’n, 595 U. S. 398, 402 (2022) (per curiam) (citing Gingles, 478 U. S., at 50–51). A district is reasonably configured, we later explained, “if it comports with traditional districting criteria, such as being contiguous and reasonably compact.” Allen, 599 U. S., at 18. “Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive.” Gingles, 478 U. S., at 51. Third, “the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” Ibid. “Finally, a plaintiff who demonstrates the three preconditions must also show, based on the ‘totality of circumstances,’ that the political process is not ‘equally open’ to minority voters.” Allen, 599 U. S., at 18 (quoting Gingles, 478 U. S., at 45–46). C In later cases, redistricting plans that States created to comply with the Voting Rights Act were themselves challenged as racial gerrymanders. This Court approached such cases by building on the framework from other racialdiscrimination cases under the Equal Protection Clause. In those cases, if race played a role in a decision made by a government actor, strict scrutiny applied. See Arlington Heights, 429 U. S., at 265–266. Under this standard, the government needed to assert a compelling interest that justified its use of race; and if the analysis progressed beyond this point, the government had to show that its use of race