Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 1 J., concurringpart KAVANAUGH KAVANAUGH , J., ,concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ Nos. 21–1086 and 21–1087 _________________ WES ALLEN, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL., APPELLANTS 21–1086 v. EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WES ALLEN, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL., PETITIONERS 21–1087 v. MARCUS CASTER, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT [June 8, 2023] JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in all but Part III–B–1. I agree with the Court that Alabama’s redistricting plan violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act as interpreted in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986). I write separately to emphasize four points. First, the upshot of Alabama’s argument is that the Court should overrule Gingles. But the stare decisis standard for this Court to overrule a statutory precedent, as distinct from a constitutional precedent, is comparatively strict. Unlike with constitutional precedents, Congress and the President may enact new legislation to alter statutory precedents such as Gingles. In the past 37 years, however, Congress and the President have not disturbed Gingles, even as they have made other changes to the Voting Rights Act. Although statutory stare decisis is not absolute, “the