I was reading Nick Stephanopoulos’ amicus brief in the LA v. Callais case and was struck by this statement in his summary of argument:

“Based on these [the 2020 and 20240] elections’ results, Black vote-dilution plaintiffs would be unable to prove sufficient racial polarization in most places, and Hispanic litigants would be unable to do so almost everywhere.”

Because a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the redistricting context requires proof that voting is racially polarized (among other factors), that would mean, if Nick is right, that less is at stake as a practical matter in the Supreme Court’s Callais case than many commentators assume. As Nick concludes, in the deep South, polarized voting and residential segregation is still strong, which means this is where Sec. 2 is likely to continue to have its most significant effects.

In theory, intentional discrimination claims could still be brought, but if voting is not racially polarized, there would be less of a partisan motivation to engage in intentional discrimination in designing districts.