Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026) 1 THOMAS, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ Nos. 24–109 and 24–110 _________________ 24–109 LOUISIANA, APPELLANT v. PHILLIP CALLAIS, ET AL. 24–110 PRESS ROBINSON, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. PHILLIP CALLAIS, ET AL. ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA [April 29, 2026] JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, concurring. I join the Court’s opinion in full. This Court should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups “an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 93 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); see ante, at 23–24. By doing so, the Court led legislatures and courts to “systematically divid[e] the country into electoral districts along racial lines.” Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 905 (1994) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). “Blacks [we]re drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics [we]re drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on.” Ibid. That interpretation rendered §2 “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.” Id., at 905–906. Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence. Id., at 893.