Cite as: 599 U. S. ____ (2023) 3 J., concurringpart KAVANAUGH KAVANAUGH , J., ,concurring If Gingles demanded a proportional number of majorityminority districts, States would be forced to group together geographically dispersed minority voters into unusually shaped districts, without concern for traditional districting criteria such as county, city, and town lines. But Gingles and this Court’s later decisions have flatly rejected that approach. See, e.g., Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 33–34); Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 979 (1996) (plurality opinion); Gingles, 478 U. S., at 50; see also Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 917–920 (1995); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 644–649 (1993); ante, at 18–22. 2 Third, Alabama argues that courts should rely on raceblind computer simulations of redistricting maps to assess whether a State’s plan abridges the right to vote on account of race. It is true that computer simulations might help detect the presence or absence of intentional discrimination. For example, if all of the computer simulations generated only one majority-minority district, it might be difficult to say that a State had intentionally discriminated on the basis of race by failing to draw a second majority-minority district. But as this Court has long recognized—and as all Members of this Court today agree—the text of §2 establishes an effects test, not an intent test. See ante, at 17; post, at 7 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); post, at 16 (ALITO, J., dissenting). And the effects test, as applied by Gingles to redistricting, requires in certain circumstances that courts account for the race of voters so as to prevent the cracking or packing—whether intentional or not—of large —————— 2 To ensure that Gingles does not improperly morph into a proportionality mandate, courts must rigorously apply the “geographically compact” and “reasonably configured” requirements. See ante, at 22 (§2 requirements under Gingles are “exacting”). In this case, for example, it is important that at least some of the plaintiffs’ proposed alternative maps respect county lines at least as well as Alabama’s redistricting plan. See ante, at 12.