Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026) 7 Opinion of the Court within that party, had engaged in “ ‘racial campaign tactics in white precincts to defeat candidates who had the overwhelming support of the black community,’ ” thereby “ ‘effectively exclud[ing]’ ” the black community “ ‘from participation in the Democratic primary selection process.’ ” White, 412 U. S., at 766–767. The Court likewise cited evidence that the legislature had “invidiously excluded Mexican-Americans from effective participation in political life, specifically in the election of representatives to the Texas House of Representatives.” Id., at 769. Thus, White presented a situation in which circumstantial evidence suggested very strongly that the State had created multimember districts for the purpose of diluting minority votes. A few years later, when Congress looked for language that would abrogate Mobile v. Bolden’s interpretation of §2, it selected terms that were nearly identical to language used in White. The accompanying Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee explained that the amendment’s purpose was to repudiate Bolden and establish a new votedilution test based on White. See S. Rep. No. 97–417, pp. 2, 15–16, 27 (1982). B This Court first construed the amended version of §2 in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986). Gingles concerned a challenge to North Carolina’s multimember districting scheme on the ground that it diluted the vote of black citizens. Id., at 34–36. Gingles was decided at a time when this Court often paid insufficient attention to the language of statutory provisions, and Justice Brennan’s opinion for the Court followed this pattern. Instead of analyzing what the statute said, the opinion simply “quoted the text of amended §2 and then jumped right to the Senate Judiciary Committee Report.” Brnovich, 594 U. S., at 667; see Gingles, 478 U. S., at 42–46. Relying heavily on that Report, the opinion set out three threshold requirements for