(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 98­405. Argued April 26, 1999- Reargued October 6, 1999- Decided January 24, 2000* Bossier Parish, Louisiana, a jurisdiction covered by §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is thereby prohibited from enacting any change in a "voting qualification[,] prerequisite[,] standard, practice, or proce- dure" without first obtaining preclearance from either the Attorney General or the District Court. When, following the 1990 census, the Bossier Parish School Board submitted a proposed redistricting plan to the Attorney General, she denied preclearance. The Board then filed this preclearance action in the District Court. Section 5 authorizes preclearance of a proposed voting change that "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." Appellants conceded that the Board's plan did not have a prohibited "effect" under §5, since it was not "retrogressive," i.e., did not worsen the position of minority voters, see Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, but claimed that it violated §5 because it was enacted for a discriminatory "pur- pose." The District Court granted preclearance. On appeal, this Court disagreed with the District Court's proposition that all evi- dence of a dilutive (but nonretrogressive) effect forbidden by §2 was irrelevant to whether the Board enacted the plan with a retrogressive purpose forbidden by §5. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 520 U. S. 471, 486­487 (Bossier Parish I). This Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings as to the Board's purpose in adopting its plan, - - - - - - * Together with No. 98­406, Price et al. v. Bossier Parish School Bd., also on appeal from the same court. 2 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Syllabus id., at 486, leaving for the District Court the question whether the §5 purpose inquiry ever extends beyond the search for retrogressive in- tent, ibid. On remand, the District Court again granted preclear- ance. Concluding, inter alia, that there was no evidence of discrimi- natory but nonretrogressive purpose, the court left open the question whether §5 prohibits preclearance of a plan enacted with such a pur- pose. Held:1. The Court rejects the Board's contention that these cases are mooted by the fact that the 1992 plan will never again be used be- cause the next scheduled election will occur in 2002, when the Board will have a new plan in place based upon data from the 2000 census. In at least one respect, the 1992 plan will have probable continuing effect: it will serve as the baseline against which appellee's next vot- ing plan will be evaluated for preclearance purposes. Pp. 5­6. 2. In light of §5's language and Beer's holding, §5 does not prohibit preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose. Pp. 7­20. (a) In order to obtain preclearance, a covered jurisdiction must establish that the proposed change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." The covered jurisdiction bears the burden of persuasion on both points. See, e.g., Bossier Parish I, supra, at 478. In Beer, the Court concluded that, in the context of a §5 vote-dilution claim, the phrase "abridging the right to vote on account of race or color" limited the term "effect" to retrogressive effects. 425 U. S., at 141. Appellants' contention that in qualifying the term "purpose," the very same phrase does not impose a limitation to retrogression, but means discrimination more generally, is untenable. See Bank- America Corp. v. United States, 462 U. S. 122, 129. Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358, 378­379, distinguished. Appellants ar- gue that subjecting both prongs to the same limitation produces a purpose prong with a trivial reach, covering only "incompetent retro- gressors." If this were true- and if it were adequate to justify giving the very same words different meanings when qualifying "purpose" and "effect"- there would be instances in which this Court applied such a construction to the innumerable statutes barring conduct with a particular "purpose or effect," yet appellants are unable to cite a single case. Moreover, the purpose prong has value and effect even when it does not cover conduct additional to that of a so-called in- competent retrogressor: the Government need only refute a jurisdic- tion's prima facie showing that a proposed voting change does not have a retrogressive purpose, and need not counter the jurisdiction's evidence regarding actual retrogressive effect. Although virtually Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 3 Syllabus identical language in §2(a) and the Fifteenth Amendment has been read to refer not only to retrogression, but to discrimination more generally, giving the language different meaning in §5 is faithful to the different context in which in which the term "abridging" is used. Appellants' reading would exacerbate the "substantial" federalism costs that the preclearance procedure already exacts, Lopez v. Mon- terey County, 525 U. S. 266, 282, perhaps to the extent of raising con- cerns about §5's constitutionality, see Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 926­927. The Court's resolution of this issue renders it unnec- essary to address appellants' challenge to the District Court's factual conclusion that there was no evidence of discriminatory but nonret- rogressive intent. Pp. 7­16. (b) The Court rejects appellants' contention that, notwithstand- ing that Bossier Parish I explicitly "le[ft] open for another day" the question whether §5 extends to discriminatory but nonretrogressive intent, 520 U. S., at 486, two of this Court's prior decisions have al- ready reached the conclusion that it does. Dictum in Beer, 425 U. S., at 141, and holding of Pleasant Grove v. United States, 479 U. S. 462, distinguished. Pp. 16­20. 7 F. Supp. 2d 29, affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, Part II of which was unanimous, and Parts I, III, and IV of which were joined by REHNQUIST, C. J., and O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ Nos. 98­405 and 98­406 _________________ JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPELLANT 98­405 v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD GEORGE PRICE, ET AL., APPELLANTS 98­406 v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [January 24, 2000] JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases present the question whether §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §1973c, prohibits preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose. I This is the second time the present cases are before us, and we thus recite the facts and procedural history only in brief. Like every other political subdivision of the State of Louisiana, Bossier Parish, because of its history of dis- criminatory voting practices, is a jurisdiction covered by §5 of the Voting Rights Act. See 42 U. S. C. §§1973c, 1973b(a), (b); 30 Fed. Reg. 9897 (1965). It is therefore pro- hibited from enacting any change in "voting qualification 2 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or proce- dure with respect to voting," without first obtaining either administrative preclearance from the Attorney General or judicial preclearance from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 42 U. S. C. §1973c. Bossier Parish is governed by a 12-member Police Jury elected from single-member districts for 4-year terms. In the early 1990s, the Police Jury set out to redraw its elec- toral districts in order to account for demographic changes reflected in the decennial census. In 1991, it adopted a redistricting plan which, like the plan then in effect, con- tained no majority-black districts, although blacks made up approximately 20% of the parish's population. On May 28, 1991, the Police Jury submitted its new districting plan to the Attorney General; two months later, the Attor- ney General granted preclearance. The Bossier Parish School Board (Board) is constituted in the same fashion as the Police Jury, and it too un- dertook to redraw its districts after the 1990 census. During the course of that redistricting, appellant-inter- venor George Price, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), proposed that the Board adopt a plan with majority-black districts. In the fall of 1992, amid some controversy, the Board rejected Price's suggestion and adopted the Police Jury's 1991 redistricting plan as its own. On January 4, 1993, the Board submitted its redistrict- ing plan to the Attorney General for preclearance. Al- though the Attorney General had precleared the identical plan when submitted by the Police Jury, she interposed a formal objection to the Board's plan, asserting that "new information"- specifically, the NAACP plan proposed by appellant-intervenor Price- demonstrated that "black res- idents are sufficiently numerous and geographically com- pact so as to constitute a majority in two single-member Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 3 Opinion of the Court districts." App. to Juris. Statement in No. 98­405, p. 235a. The Attorney General disclaimed any attempt to compel the Board to "adopt any particular plan," but maintained that the Board was "not free to adopt a plan that unnecessarily limits the opportunity for minority voters to elect their candidates of choice." Ibid. After the Attorney General denied the Board's request for reconsideration, the Board filed the present action for judicial preclearance of the 1992 plan in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act authorizes preclearance of a pro- posed voting change that "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." 42 U. S. C. §1973c. Before the District Court, appellants conceded that the Board's plan did not have a prohibited "effect" under §5, since it did not worsen the position of minority voters. (In Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130 (1976), we held that a plan has a prohibited "effect" only if it is retrogressive.) Instead, appellants made two distinct claims. First, they argued that preclearance should be denied because the Board's plan, by not creating as many majority-black districts as it should create, violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars discriminatory voting practices. Second, they contended that, although the Board's plan would have no retrogressive effect, it nonetheless violated §5 because it was enacted for a discriminatory "purpose." The District Court granted preclearance. Bossier Parish School Bd. v. Reno, 907 F. Supp. 434 (DC 1995). As to the first of appellants' two claims, the District Court held that it could not deny preclearance of a proposed voting change under §5 simply because the change violated §2. More- over, in order to prevent the Government "[from doing] indirectly what it cannot do directly," the District Court stated that it would "not permit section 2 evidence to prove discriminatory purpose under section 5." Id., at 445. 4 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court As to the second of appellants' claims, the District Court concluded that the Board had borne its burden of proving that the 1992 plan was adopted for two legitimate, nondis- criminatory purposes: to assure prompt preclearance (since the identical plan had been precleared for the Police Jury), and to enable easy implementation (since the adopted plan, unlike the NAACP's proposed plan, required no redrawing of precinct lines). Id., at 447. Appellants filed jurisdictional statements in this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 517 U. S. 1232 (1996). On appeal, we agreed with the District Court that a proposed voting change cannot be denied preclearance simply because it violates §2, but disagreed with the proposition that all evidence of a dilutive (but nonretro- gressive) effect forbidden by §2 was irrelevant to whether the Board enacted the plan with a retrogressive purpose forbidden by §5. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 520 U. S. 471, 486­487 (1997) (Bossier Parish I). Since some language in the District Court's opinion left us uncertain whether the court had in fact applied that proposition in its decision, we vacated and remanded for further pro- ceedings as to the Board's purpose in adopting the 1992 plan. Id., at 486. In light of our disposition, we left open the additional question of "whether the §5 purpose inquiry ever extends beyond the search for retrogressive intent." Ibid. "The existence of such a purpose," we said, "and its relevance to §5, are issues to be decided on remand." Ibid. On remand, the District Court, in a comparatively brief opinion relying on, but clarifying, its extensive earlier opinion, again granted preclearance. 7 F. Supp. 2d 29 (DC 1998). First, in response to our invitation to address the existence of a discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose, the District Court summarily concluded that "the record will not support a conclusion that extends beyond the presence or absence of retrogressive intent." Id., at 31. Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 5 Opinion of the Court It noted that one could "imagine a set of facts that would establish a `non-retrogressive, but nevertheless discrimi- natory, purpose,' but those imagined facts are not present here." Ibid. The District Court therefore left open the question that we had ourselves left open on remand: namely, whether the §5 purpose inquiry extends beyond the search for retrogressive intent. Second, the District Court considered, at greater length, how any dilutive impact of the Board's plan bore on the question whether the Board enacted the plan with a retro- gressive intent. It concluded, applying the multifactor test we articulated in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous- ing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252 (1977), that allega- tions of dilutive effect and of discriminatory animus were insufficient to establish retrogressive intent. 7 F. Supp. 2d, at 31­32. In their jurisdictional statements in this Court, appel- lants contended, first, that the District Court's conclusion that there was no evidence of discriminatory but nonretro- gressive purpose was clearly erroneous, and second, that §5 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but non- retrogressive purpose. Appellants did not challenge the District Court's determination that there was no evidence of retrogressive intent. We again noted probable jurisdic- tion. 525 U. S. 1118 (1999). II Before proceeding to the merits, we must dispose of a challenge to our jurisdiction. The Board contends that these cases are now moot, since its 1992 plan "will never again be used for any purpose." Motion to Dismiss or Affirm 9. Under Louisiana law, school board members are elected to serve 4-year terms. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §17:52(A) (West 1995). One month after appellants filed the jurisdictional statements for this appeal, the sched- 6 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court uled 1998 election for the Board took place. The next scheduled election will not occur until 2002, by which time, as appellants concede, the data from the upcoming decennial census will be available and the Board will be required by our "one-man-one-vote" precedents to have a new apportionment plan in place. Accordingly, appellee argues, the District Court's declaratory judgment with respect to the 1992 plan is no longer of any moment and the dispute no longer presents a live "case or controversy" for purposes of Article III of the Constitution. Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U. S. 395, 401 (1975); Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653 (1895). Appellants posit several contingencies in which the Board's 1992 plan would be put to use- including resigna- tion or death of one of the 12 Board members before 2002, and failure to agree upon a replacement plan for the 2002 election. They also assert that, if we were to hold pre- clearance improper, they "could seek" an injunction void- ing the elections held under the 1992 plan and ordering a special election, Brief for Appellants Price et al. Opposing Motion to Dismiss or Affirm 3, and "might be entitled" to such an injunction, Brief for Appellant Reno in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or Affirm 2. We need not pause to consider whether the possibility of these somewhat specu- lative and uncertain events suffices to keep these cases alive, since in at least one respect the 1992 plan will have probable continuing effect: Absent a successful subsequent challenge under §2, it, rather than the 1980 predecessor plan- which contains quite different voting districts- will serve as the baseline against which appellee's next voting plan will be evaluated for the purposes of preclearance. Whether (and precisely how) that future plan represents a change from the baseline, and, if so, whether it is retro- gressive in effect, will depend on whether preclearance of the 1992 plan was proper. We turn, then, to the merits. Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 7 Opinion of the Court III Appellants press the two claims initially raised in their jurisdictional statements: first, that the District Court's factual conclusion that there was no evidence of discrimi- natory but nonretrogressive intent was clearly erroneous, and second, that §5 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a dis- criminatory but nonretrogressive purpose. Our resolution of the second claim renders it unnecessary to address the first. When considered in light of our longstanding inter- pretation of the "effect" prong of §5 in its application to vote dilution claims, the language of §5 leads to the con- clusion that the "purpose" prong of §5 covers only retro- gressive dilution. As noted earlier, in order to obtain preclearance under §5, a covered jurisdiction must demonstrate that the pro- posed change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." 42 U. S. C. §1973c. A covered jurisdiction, therefore, must make two distinct showings: first, that the proposed change "does not have the pur- pose . . . of denying or abridging the right to vote on ac- count of race or color," and second, that the proposed change "will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." The cov- ered jurisdiction bears the burden of persuasion on both points. See Bossier Parish I, 520 U. S., at 478 (judicial preclearance); 28 CFR §51.52(a) (1999) (administrative preclearance). In Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130 (1976), this Court addressed the meaning of the no-effect requirement in the context of an allegation of vote dilution. The case pre- sented the question whether a reapportionment plan that would have a discriminatory but nonretrogressive effect on the rights of black voters should be denied preclearance. Reasoning that §5 must be read in light of its purpose of 8 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court "insur[ing] that no voting-procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise," we held that "a legislative re- apportionment that enhances the position of racial mi- norities with respect to their effective exercise of the elec- toral franchise can hardly have the `effect' of diluting or abridging the right to vote on account of race within the meaning of §5." Id., at 141. In other words, we concluded that, in the context of a §5 challenge, the phrase "denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color"- or more specifically, in the context of a vote-dilution claim, the phrase "abridging the right to vote on account of race or color"- limited the term it qualified, "effect," to retro- gressive effects. Appellants contend that in qualifying the term "pur- pose," the very same phrase does not impose a limitation to retrogression- i.e., that the phrase "abridging the right to vote on account of race or color" means retrogression when it modifies "effect," but means discrimination more generally when it modifies "purpose." We think this is simply an untenable construction of the text, in effect re- casting the phrase "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of x" to read "does not have the purpose of y and will not have the effect of x." As we have in the past, we refuse to adopt a construction that would attribute different meanings to the same phrase in the same sen- tence, depending on which object it is modifying. See BankAmerica Corp. v. United States, 462 U. S. 122, 129 (1983) (declining to give different meanings to the phrase "other than" when it modified "banks" and "common carri- ers" in the same clause). Appellants point out that we did give the purpose prong of §5 a broader meaning than the effect prong in Rich- mond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358 (1975). That case involved requested preclearance for a proposed annexation Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 9 Opinion of the Court that would have reduced the black population of the city of Richmond, Virginia, from 52% to 42%. We concluded that, although the annexation may have had the effect of cre- ating a political unit with a lower percentage of blacks, so long as it "fairly reflect[ed] the strength of the Negro community as it exist[ed] after the annexation" it did not violate §5. Id., at 371. We reasoned that this interpreta- tion of the effect prong of §5 was justified by the peculiar circumstances presented in annexation cases: "To hold otherwise would be either to forbid all such annexations or to require, as the price for approval of the annexation, that the black community be assigned the same proportion of council seats as before, hence perhaps permanently overrepresenting them and un- derrepresenting other elements in the community, in- cluding the nonblack citizens in the annexed area. We are unwilling to hold that Congress intended ei- ther consequence in enacting §5." Ibid. We refused, however, to impose a similar limitation on §5's purpose prong, stating that preclearance could be denied when the jurisdiction was acting with the purpose of effecting a percentage reduction in the black population, even though it could not be denied when the jurisdiction's action merely had that effect. Id., at 378­379. It must be acknowledged that Richmond created a discontinuity between the effect and purpose prongs of §5. We regard that, however, as nothing more than an ex necessitate limitation upon the effect prong in the par- ticular context of annexation- to avoid the invalidation of all annexations of areas with a lower proportion of minor- ity voters than the annexing unit. The case certainly does not stand for the proposition that the purpose and effect prongs have fundamentally different meanings- the latter requiring retrogression, and the former not- which is what is urged here. The approved effect of the redistrict- 10 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court ing in Richmond, and the hypothetically disapproved pur- pose, were both retrogressive. We found it necessary to make an exception to normal retrogressive-effect princi- ples, but not to normal retrogressive-purpose principles, in order to permit routine annexation. That sheds little light upon the issue before us here. Appellants' only textual justification for giving the purpose and effect prongs different meanings is that to do otherwise "would reduce the purpose prong of Section 5 to a trivial matter," Brief for Federal Appellant on Reargu- ment 13; would "effectively delet[e] the `purpose' prong," Reply Brief for Appellants Price et al. on Reargument 3; and would give the purpose prong "a trivial reach, limited to the case of the incompetent retrogressor," Reply Brief for Federal Appellant 9. If this were true- and if it were adequate to justify giving the very same words a different meaning when qualifying "purpose" than when qualifying "effect"- one would expect appellants to cite at least some instances in which this Court applied such muscular con- struction to the innumerable statutes barring conduct with a particular "purpose or effect." See, e.g., 7 U. S. C. §192(d) (prohibiting sale of any article "for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices" in the meatpacking industry); 12 U. S. C. §1467a(c)(1)(A) (bar- ring savings and loan holding companies from engaging in any activity on behalf of a savings association subsidiary "for the purpose or with the effect of evading any law or regulation applicable to such savings association"); 47 U. S. C. §541(b)(3)(B) (1994 ed., Supp. III) (prohibiting cable franchising authorities from imposing any require- ment "that has the purpose or effect of prohibiting, limit- ing, restricting, or conditioning the provision of a tele- communications service by a cable operator or an affiliate thereof"). They cite not a single one, and we are aware of none. It is true enough that, whenever Congress enacts a Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 11 Opinion of the Court statute that bars conduct having "the purpose or effect of x," the purpose prong has application entirely separate from that of the effect prong only with regard to unlikely conduct that has "the purpose of x" but fails to have "the effect of x"- in the present context, the conduct of a so- called "incompetent retrogressor." The purpose prong has value and effect, however, even when it does not cover additional conduct. With regard to conduct that has both "the purpose of x" and "the effect of x," the Government need only prove that the conduct at issue has "the purpose of x" in order to prevail. In the specific context of §5, where the covered jurisdiction has the burden of persua- sion, the Government need only refute the covered juris- diction's prima facie showing that a proposed voting change does not have a retrogressive purpose in order for preclearance to be denied. When it can do so, it is spared the necessity of countering the jurisdiction's evidence re- garding actual retrogressive effect- which, in vote-dilution cases, is often a complex undertaking. This advantage, plus the ability to reach malevolent incompetence, may not represent a massive addition to the effect prong, but it is enough to justify the separate existence of the purpose prong in this statute, and is no less than what justifies the separate existence of such a provision in many other laws.1 At bottom, appellants' disagreement with our reading of §5 rests not upon textual analysis, but upon their opposi- tion to our holding in Beer. Although they do not explicitly - - - - - - 1 JUSTICE SOUTER criticizes us for "assum[ing] that purpose is easier to prove than effect . . . in voting rights cases." Post, at 19, n. 10 (opin- ion dissenting in part). As is obvious from our discussion in text, we do not suggest that purpose is always easier to prove, but simply that it may sometimes be (which suffices to give force to the "purpose" prong without the necessity of doing violence to the English language). Indeed, JUSTICE SOUTER acknowledges that "intent to dilute is concep- tually simple, whereas a dilutive abridgment-in-fact is not readily defined and identified independently of dilutive intent." Post, at 28. 12 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court contend that Beer should be overruled, they all but do so by arguing that it would be "untenable" to conclude (as we did in Beer) that the phrase "abridging the right to vote on account of race or color" refers only to retrogression in §5, Reply Brief for Federal Appellant on Reargument 1, in light of the fact that virtually identical language else- where in the Voting Rights Act- and indeed, in the Fif- teenth Amendment- has never been read to refer only to retrogression. See §2(a) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. §1973(a) ("No voting [practice] shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . ."); U. S. Const., Amdt. 15, §1 ("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude").2 The - - - - - - 2 Appellants also cite §3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, which provides, with regard to a court that has found a violation of the right to vote guaranteed by the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment, that "the court . . . shall retain jurisdiction for such period as it may deem appropriate and during such period no voting [practice] different from that in force or effect at the time the proceeding was commenced shall be enforced unless and until the court ? nds that such [practice] does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color . . . ." 42 U. S. C. §1973a(c). This provision does not assist appellants' case because it is not at all clear that it confers the power to deny approval to nonretrogressive redis- tricting. That is to say, it may well contemplate that, once a court has struck down an unconstitutional practice and granted relief with regard to that practice, it may assume for that jurisdiction a function identical to that of the District Court for the District of Columbia in §5 preclear- ance proceedings. This is suggested by the fact that the State may avoid the court's jurisdiction in this regard by obtaining preclearance from the Attorney General; and that §3(c), like §5, explicitly leaves open the possibility that a proposed change approved by the court can be challenged as unconstitutional in a "subsequent action." Ibid. We of course intimate no holding on this point, but limit our conclusion to the Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 13 Opinion of the Court term "abridge," however- whose core meaning is "shorten," see Webster's New International Dictionary 7 (2d ed. 1950); American Heritage Dictionary 6 (3d ed. 1992)- necessarily entails a comparison. It makes no sense to suggest that a voting practice "abridges" the right to vote without some baseline with which to compare the practice. In §5 preclearance proceedings- which uniquely deal only and specifically with changes in voting proce- dures- the baseline is the status quo that is proposed to be changed: If the change "abridges the right to vote" relative to the status quo, preclearance is denied, and the status quo (however discriminatory it may be) remains in effect. In §2 or Fifteenth Amendment proceedings, by contrast, which involve not only changes but (much more commonly) the status quo itself, the comparison must be made with an hypothetical alternative: If the status quo "results in [an] abridgement of the right to vote" or "abridge[s] [the right to vote]" relative to what the right to vote ought to be, the status quo itself must be changed. Our reading of "abridging" as referring only to retrogres- sion in §5, but to discrimination more generally in §2 and the Fifteenth Amendment, is faithful to the differing contexts in which the term is used.3 - - - - - - nonprobative character of §3(c) with regard to the issue in the present cases. 3 Even if §5 did not have a different baseline than the Fifteenth Amendment, appellants' argument that §5 should be read in parallel with the Fifteenth Amendment would fail for the simple reason that we have never held that vote dilution violates the Fifteenth Amendment. See Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S. 146, 159 (1993) (citing Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 142­143, n. 14 (1976)). Indeed, contrary to JUSTICE SOUTER'S assertion, post, at 20, n. 11 (opinion dissenting in part), we have never even "suggested" as much. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960), involved a proposal to redraw the boundaries of Tuskegee, Alabama, so as to exclude all but 4 or 5 of its 400 black voters without excluding a single white voter. See id., at 341. Our 14 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court In another argument that applies equally to our holding in Beer, appellants object that our reading of §5 would require the District Court or Attorney General to preclear proposed voting changes with a discriminatory effect or purpose, or even with both. That strikes appellants as an inconceivable prospect only because they refuse to accept the limited meaning that we have said preclearance has in the vote-dilution context. It does not represent approval of the voting change; it is nothing more than a determination that the voting change is no more dilutive than what it replaces, and therefore cannot be stopped in advance under the extraordinary burden-shifting procedures of §5, but must be attacked through the normal means of a §2 action. As we have repeatedly noted, in vote-dilution cases §5 prevents nothing but backsliding, and preclear- ance under §5 affirms nothing but the absence of back- sliding. Bossier Parish I, 520 U. S., at 478; Miller v. John- son, 515 U. S. 900, 926 (1995); Beer, 425 U. S., at 141.4 - - - - - - conclusion that the proposal would deny black voters the right to vote in municipal elections, and therefore violated the Fifteenth Amend- ment, had nothing to do with racial vote-dilution, a concept that does not appear in our voting-rights opinions until nine years later. See Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 569 (1969). As for the other case relied upon by JUSTICE SOUTER, the plurality opinion in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 (1980), not only does that not suggest that the Fifteenth Amendment covers vote dilution, it suggests the opposite, rejecting the appellees' vote-dilution claim in the following terms: "The answer to the appellees' argument is that . . . their freedom to vote has not been denied or abridged by anyone. The Fifteenth Amendment does not entail the right to have Negro candidates elected . . . . Having found that Negroes in Mobile `register and vote without hindrance,' the District Court and Court of Appeals were in error in believing that the appellants invaded the protection of that Amend- ment in the present case." Id., at 65; see also id., at 84, n. 3 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment) (characterizing plurality opinion as con- cluding that "the Fifteenth Amendment applies only to practices that directly affect access to the ballot"). 4 In search of support for the argument that §5 prevents not just Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 15 Opinion of the Court This explains why the sole consequence of failing to obtain preclearance is continuation of the status quo. To deny preclearance to a plan that is not retrogressive- no matter how unconstitutional it may be- would risk leaving in effect a status quo that is even worse. For example, in the case of a voting change with a discriminatory but nonret- rogressive purpose and a discriminatory but ameliorative effect, the result of denying preclearance would be to preserve a status quo with more discriminatory effect than the proposed change. In sum, by suggesting that §5 extends to discriminatory but nonretrogressive vote-dilutive purposes, appellants ask us to do what we declined to do in Bossier Parish I: to blur the distinction between §2 and §5 by "shift[ing] the focus of §5 from nonretrogression to vote dilution, and . . . chang[ing] the §5 benchmark from a jurisdiction's existing plan to a hypothetical, undiluted plan." 520 U. S., at 480. Such a reading would also exacerbate the "substantial" federalism costs that the preclearance procedure already exacts, Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U. S. 266, 282 (1999), perhaps to the extent of raising concerns about §5's constitutionality, see Miller, supra, at 926­927. Most im- portantly, however, in light of our holding in Beer, appel- - - - - - - backsliding on vote dilution but all forms of vote dilution, JUSTICE SOUTER embarks upon a lengthy expedition into legislative history. Post, at 23­27 (opinion dissenting in part). He returns empty-handed, since he can point to nothing suggesting that the Congress thought §5 covered both retrogressive and nonretrogressive dilution. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the Congress that passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act even had the practice of racial vote-dilution in mind. As JUSTICE SOUTER acknowledges, this Court did not address the concept until 1969, see post, at 25, n. 13, and the legislative history of the 1969 extension of the Act, quoted by JUSTICE SOUTER, see post, at 25, refers to at-large elections and consolidation of counties as "new, unlawful ways to diminish the Negroes' franchise" developed since passage of the Act. H. R. Rep. No. 91­397, pp. 6­7 (1969). 16 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court lants' reading finds no support in the language of §5.5 IV Notwithstanding the fact that Bossier Parish I explicitly "le[ft] open for another day" the question whether §5 extends to discriminatory but nonretrogressive intent, see 520 U. S., at 486, appellants contend that two of this Court's prior decisions have already reached the con- clusion that it does. First, appellants note that, in Beer, this Court stated that "an ameliorative new legislative apportionment cannot violate §5 unless the apportionment itself so discriminates on the basis of race or color as to violate the Constitution." 425 U. S., at 141. Appellants contend that this suggests that, at least in some cases in which the covered jurisdiction acts with a discriminatory but nonretrogressive dilutive purpose, the covered juris- diction should be denied preclearance because it is acting unconstitutionally. We think that a most implausible interpretation. At the time Beer was decided, it had not been established that discriminatory purpose as well as discriminatory effect - - - - - - 5 JUSTICE SOUTER asserts that "[t]he Justice Department's long- standing practice of refusing to preclear changes that it determined to have an unconstitutionally discriminatory purpose, both before and after Beer," is entitled to deference. Post, at 29 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part); accord, post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But of course before Beer the Justice Department took the position that even the effects prong was not limited, in redistricting cases, to retro- gression. Indeed, that position had been the basis for its denial of preclearance in Beer, see 425 U. S., at 136, and was argued in its brief before us as the basis for sustaining the District Court's denial, see Brief for United States in Beer v. United States, O. T. 1975, No. 73­ 1869, pp. 17­18. We rejected that position as to the effects prong, and there is even more reason to reject it in the present case, whose out- come depends as much upon the implication of one of our prior cases (as to which we owe the Department no deference) as upon a raw interpre- tation of the statute. Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 17 Opinion of the Court was necessary for a constitutional violation, compare White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765­766 (1973), with Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 238­245 (1976). If the statement in Beer had meant what appellants suggest, it would either have been anticipating (without argument) that later holding, or else would have been gutting Beer's holding (since a showing of discriminatory but nonretro- gressive effect would have been a constitutional violation and would, despite the holding of Beer, have sufficed to deny preclearance). A much more plausible explanation of the statement is that it referred to a constitutional vio- lation other than vote dilution- and, more specifically, a violation consisting of a "denial" of the right to vote, rather than an "abridgement." Although in the context of denial claims, no less than in the context of abridgement claims, the antibacksliding rationale for §5 (and its effect of avoid- ing preservation of an even worse status quo) suggests that retrogression should again be the criterion, arguably in that context the word "deny" (unlike the word "abridge") does not import a comparison with the status quo.6 In any event, it is entirely clear that the statement in Beer was pure dictum: The Government had made no con- - - - - - - 6 JUSTICE BREYER suggests that "[i]t seems obvious . . . that if Missis- sippi had enacted its `moral character' requirement in 1966 (after enactment of the Voting Rights Act), a court applying §5 would have found `the purpose . . . of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,' even if Mississippi had intended to permit, say, 0.4%, rather than 0.3%, of the black voting age population of Forrest County to register." Post, at 3­4 (dissenting opinion). As we note above, however, our holding today does not extend to violations consisting of an outright "denial" of an individual's right to vote, as opposed to an "abridgement" as in dilution cases. In any event, if Mississippi had attempted to enact a "moral character" requirement in 1966, it would have been precluded from doing so under §4, which bars certain types of voting tests and devices altogether, and the issue of §5 preclearance would therefore never have arisen. See 42 U. S. C. §§1973b(a)(1), (c). 18 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court tention that the proposed reapportionment at issue was unconstitutional. Beer, supra, at 142, n. 14. And though we have quoted the dictum in subsequent cases, we have never actually applied it to deny preclearance. See Bossier Parish I, supra, at 481; Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 912 (1996) (Shaw II); Miller, supra, at 924. We have made clear, on the other hand, what we reaffirm today: that proceedings to preclear apportionment schemes and pro- ceedings to consider the constitutionality of apportionment schemes are entirely distinct. "Although the Court concluded that the redistrict- ing scheme at issue in Beer was nonretrogressive, it did not hold that the plan, for that reason, was im- mune from constitutional challenge. . . . Indeed, the Voting Rights Act and our case law make clear that a reapportionment plan that satisfies §5 still may be enjoined as unconstitutional." Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 654 (1993) (Shaw I) (emphasis added). See also City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U. S. 125, 134 (1983) (describing the holding of Beer as follows: "Although the new plan may have remained discrimina- tory, it nevertheless was not a regressive change. . . . Since the new plan did not increase the degree of dis- crimination against blacks, it was entitled to §5 preclear- ance"); Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 549­ 550 (1969) ("Once the State has successfully complied with the §5 approval requirements, private parties may enjoin the enforcement of the new enactment only in traditional suits attacking its constitutionality . . ."). As we noted in Shaw I, §5 explicitly states that neither administrative nor judicial preclearance " `shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement' of [a change in voting practice]." 509 U. S., at 654 (quoting 42 U. S. C. §1973c). That fully available remedy leaves us untroubled by the possibility that §5 could produce preclearance of an unconstitution- Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 19 Opinion of the Court ally dilutive redistricting plan. Second, appellants contend that we denied preclearance on the basis of a discriminatory but nonretrogressive pur- pose in Pleasant Grove v. United States, 479 U. S. 462 (1987). That case involved an unusual fact pattern. The city of Pleasant Grove, Alabama- which, at the time of the District Court's decision, had 32 black inhabitants, none of whom was registered to vote and of whose existence city officials appear to have been unaware, id., at 465, n. 2- sought to annex two parcels of land, one inhabited by a few whites, and the other vacant but likely to be inhabited by whites in the near future. We upheld the District Court's conclusion that the city acted with a discrimina- tory purpose in annexing the land, rejecting the city's contention that it could not have done so because it was unaware of the existence of any black voters against whom it could have intended to discriminate: "[The city's] argument is based on the incorrect as- sumption that an impermissible purpose under §5 can relate only to present circumstances. Section 5 looks not only to the present effects of changes, but to their future effects as well . . . . Likewise, an impermissible purpose under §5 may relate to anticipated as well as present circumstances. "It is quite plausible to see [the annexation] as mo- tivated, in part, by the impermissible purpose of minimizing future black voting strength. . . . This is just as impermissible a purpose as the dilution of pre- sent black voting strength." Id., at 471­472 (citation and footnote omitted). Appellants assert that we must have viewed the city's purpose as discriminatory but nonretrogressive because, as the city noted in contending that it lacked even a dis- criminatory purpose, the city could not have been acting to worsen the voting strength of any present black residents, 20 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of the Court since there were no black voters at the time. However, as the above quoted passage suggests, we did not hold that the purpose prong of §5 extends beyond retrogression, but rather held that a jurisdiction with no minority voters can have a retrogressive purpose, at the present time, by intending to worsen the voting strength of future minority voters. Put another way, our holding in Pleasant Grove had nothing to do with the question whether, to justify the denial of preclearance on the basis of the purpose prong, the purpose must be retrogressive; instead, it involved the question whether the purpose must be to achieve retro- gression at once or could include, in the case of a jurisdic- tion with no present minority voters, retrogression with regard to operation of the proposed plan (as compared with operation of the status quo) against new minority voters in the future. Like the dictum from Beer, therefore, Pleasant Grove is simply inapposite here. * * * In light of the language of §5 and our prior holding in Beer, we hold that §5 does not prohibit preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but non- retrogressive purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. It is so ordered. Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 1 THOMAS, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ Nos. 98­405 and 98­406 _________________ JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPELLANT 98­405 v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD GEORGE PRICE, ET AL., APPELLANTS 98­406 v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [January 24, 2000] JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. The Bossier Parish School Board first sought preclear- ance of the redistricting plan at issue in this case almost seven years ago. The Justice Department and private appellants opposed that effort, arguing throughout this litigation that a "safe" majority-minority district is neces- sary to ensure the election of a black school board mem- ber. Ironically, while this litigation was pending, three blacks were elected from majority-white districts to serve on the Bossier Parish School Board. Although these elec- tion results are not part of the record, they vividly illus- trate the fact that the federal intervention that spawned this litigation was unnecessary. Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 1 Opinion of SOUTER, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ Nos. 98­405 and 98­406 _________________ JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPELLANT 98­405 v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD GEORGE PRICE, ET AL., APPELLANTS 98­406 v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [January 24, 2000] JUSTICE SOUTER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Under §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. §1973c, a jurisdiction required to obtain preclearance of changes to its voting laws must show that a proposed amendment will not have the effect, and does not reflect a purpose, to deny or abridge the vote on account of race. I respectfully dissent1 from the Court's holding that §5 is indifferent to a racially discriminatory purpose so long as a change in voting law is not meant to diminish minority voting strength below its existing level. It is true that today's decision has a precursor of sorts in Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130 (1976), which holds that the only anticipated redistricting effect sufficient to bar preclear- ance is retrogression in minority voting strength, however dilutive of minority voting power a redistricting plan may - - - - - - 1 I agree with the Court's conclusion on the matter of mootness. 2 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of SOUTER, J. otherwise be. But if today's decision achieves a symmetry with Beer, the achievement is merely one of well-matched error. The Court was mistaken in Beer when it restricted the effect prong of §5 to retrogression, and the Court is even more wrong today when it limits the clear text of §5 to the corresponding retrogressive purpose. Although I adhere to the strong policy of respecting precedent in statutory interpretation and so would not reexamine Beer, that policy does not demand that recognized error be compounded indefinitely, and the Court's prior mistake about the meaning of the effects requirement of §5 should not be expanded by an even more erroneous interpretation of the scope of the section's purpose prong. The Court's determination that Congress intended preclearance of a plan not shown to be free of dilutive intent (let alone a plan shown to be intentionally discrimi- natory) is not, however, merely erroneous. It is also highly unconvincing. The evidence in these very cases shows that the Bossier Parish School Board (School Board or Board) acted with intent to dilute the black vote, just as it acted with that same intent through decades of resistance to a judicial desegregation order. The record illustrates exactly the sort of relentless bad faith on the part of majority-white voters in covered jurisdictions that led to the enactment of §5. The evidence all but poses the ques- tion why Congress would ever have meant to permit pre- clearance of such a plan, and it all but invites the answer that Congress could hardly have intended any such thing. While the evidence goes substantially unnoticed on the Court's narrow reading of the purpose prong of §5, it is not only crucial to my resolution of these cases, but insistent in the way it points up the implausibility of the Court's reading of purpose under §5. I In Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Develop- Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 3 Opinion of SOUTER, J. ment Corp., 429 U. S. 252 (1977), this Court set out a checklist of considerations for assessing evidence going to discriminatory intent: the historical background of a challenged decision, its relative impact on minorities, specific antecedent events, departures from normal proce- dures, and contemporary statements of decisionmakers. Id., at 266­268. We directed the District Court to follow that checklist in enquiring into discriminatory intent following remand in these cases, Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 520 U. S. 471, 488 (1997) (Bossier Parish I). The Arlington Heights enquiry reveals the following ac- count of Bossier Parish School Board's redistricting activ- ity and of the character of the parish in which it occurred. The parish's institution of general governance is known as the Police Jury, a board of representatives chosen from districts within the parish. After the 1990 census showed a numerical malapportionment among those districts, the Police Jurors prepared a revised districting plan, which they submitted to the Attorney General of the United States with a request for the preclearance necessary under §5 of the Voting Rights Act before the parish, a covered jurisdiction, could modify its voting district lines. Based on information then available to the Department of Jus- tice, the Attorney General understood the parish to have shown that the new plan would not have the effect and did not have the purpose of abridging the voting rights of the parish's 20% black population, and the revised Police Jury plan received preclearance in the summer of 1991. In fact, as the parish's School Board has now admitted, the Police Jury plan thus approved dilutes the voting strength of the minority population, Plaintiff's Brief on Remand 12; that is, the plan discriminates by abridging the rights of mi- nority voters to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 46­47 (1986). The same population shifts that required the Police Jury 4 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of SOUTER, J. to reapportion required the elected School Board to do the same. Although the Board had approached the Police Jury about the possibility of devising a joint plan of dis- tricts common to both Board and jury, the jury rebuffed the Board, see App. to Juris. Statement 172a (Stipulations 83­84), and the Board was forced to go it alone. History provides a good indication of what might have been ex- pected from this endeavor. As the parties have stipulated, the School Board had applied its energies for decades in an effort to "limit or evade" its obligation to desegregate the Parish schools. Id., at 216a (Stipulation 237). When the Board first re- ceived a court order to desegregate the parish's schools in the mid-1960's, it responded with the flagrantly defiant tactics of that era, see id., at 216a­217a (Stipulations 236­ 237), and the record discloses the Board's continuing obstructiveness down to the time covered by these cases. During the 1980's, the degree of racial polarization in the makeup of the parish's schools rose, id., at 218a (Stipula- tions 241­243), and the disproportionate assignment of black faculty to predominantly black schools increased, id., at 217a­218a (Stipulation 240). While the parish's superintendent testified that the assignment of black faculty to predominantly black schools came in response to black parents' requests for positive black examples for their children, see App. 289, the black leaders who testi- fied in these cases uniformly rejected that claim and in- sisted that, in accord with the parish's desegregation de- cree, black faculty were to be distributed throughout the parish's schools, to serve as models for white as well as black students, see id., at 326­327; 2 Tr. 126­128. Other evidence of the Board's intransigence on race centers on the particular terms of the integration decree that since 1970 has required the Board to maintain a "Bi- Racial Advisory Review Committee" made up of an equal number of black and white members in order to " `recom- Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 5 Opinion of SOUTER, J. mend to the . . . Board ways to attain and maintain a unitary system and to improve education in the parish.' " App. to Juris. Statement 182a (Stipulation 111). Although the Board represented to the District Court overseeing desegregation that the committee was in place, see 2 Tr. 16 (testimony of Superintendent William T. Lewis), the committee actually met only two or three times in the mid-1970's and then with only its black members in at- tendance, see App. to Juris. Statement 183a (Stipulation 112). In 1993, the Board set up a short-lived "Community Affairs Committee" to replace the "Bi-Racial Committee." Despite the Board's resolution charging the committee " `with the responsibility of investigating, consulting and advising the court and school board periodically with respect to all matters pertinent to the retention [sic] of a unitary school system,' " ibid. (Stipulation 114), the Board disbanded the committee after only three months because, as a leading Board member put it, " `the tone of the com- mittee made up of the minority members of the committee quickly turned toward becoming involved in policy,'" id., at 184a (Stipulation 116). "Policy," however, was inevitably implicated by the committee's purpose, and the subjects of its recommendations (such as methods for more effective recruitment of black teachers and their placement throughout the school system in accord with the terms of the desegregation decree, see id., at 183a­184a (Stipula- tion 115)) fell squarely within its mandate. It is thus unsurprising that the Board has not achieved a unitary school system and remains under court order to this day. See id., at 217a (Stipulation 239); App. 139 (testimony of S. P. Davis). About the time the Board appointed its "Community Affairs Committee," it sought preclearance under §5 from the Attorney General for the redistricting plan before us now. The course of the Board's redistricting efforts tell us much about what it had in mind when it proposed its plan. 6 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of SOUTER, J. Following the rebuff from the Police Jury, the Board was able to follow a relaxed redistricting timetable, there being no Board elections scheduled before 1994. While the Board could simply have adopted the Police Jury plan once the Attorney General had precleared it, the Board did not do so, App. to Juris. Statement 147a (Stipulation 11), despite just such a proposal from one Board member at the Board's September 5, 1991, meeting. No action was then taken on the proposal, id., at 174a (Stipulations 89­ 90), and although the Board issued no explanation for its inaction, it is noteworthy that the jury plan ignored some of the Board's customary districting concerns. Whereas one of those concerns was incumbency protection, see App. 251; cf. App. to Juris. Statement 152a (Stipulation 26), the jury plan would have pitted two pairs of incumbents against each other and created two districts in which no incumbent resided. Id., at 181a­182a (Stipulation 109).2 The jury plan disregarded school attendance zones, and even included two districts containing no schools. Id., at 174a, 151a, 191a (Stipulations 88, 24, 141). The jury plan, moreover, called for a total variation in district popula- tions exceeding the standard normally used to gauge satisfaction of the "one person, one vote" principle, see id., at 162a­163a (Stipulation 58); App. 231­232; 1 Tr. 147, four of its districts failed the standard measure of com- pactness used by the Board's own cartographer, id., at 174­176, and one of its districts contained noncontiguous elements, App. 234­235. In addressing the need to devise a plan of its own, the Board hired the same redistricting consultant who had - - - - - - 2 While two of the incumbents were considering stepping down by the time the Board subsequently adopted the plan, at least one of those decisions was anything but firm. See App. 103; 4 Record, Doc. No. 72, in Civ. Action No. 94­1495 (D. D. C.), pp. 60­61 (joint designations of portions of deposition of David Harvey); 1 Tr. 85. Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 7 Opinion of SOUTER, J. advised the Police Jury, Gary Joiner. Joiner and the Board members (according to Joiner's testimony) were perfectly aware of their responsibility to avoid vote dilu- tion in accordance with the Voting Rights Act, see Record, Doc. No. 38 (direct testimony of Joiner 5), and he esti- mated that it would take him between 200 to 250 hours to devise a plan for the Board. The Board then spent nearly a year doing little in public about redistricting, while its members met in private with Joiner to consider alterna- tives. In March 1992, George Price, president of the par- ish's branch of the National Association for the Advance- ment of Colored People (NAACP), wrote to the superintendent of parish schools asking for a chance to play some role in the redistricting process. App. 184. Although the superintendent passed the letter on to the Board, the Board took no action, and neither the superin- tendent nor the Board even responded to Price's request. App. to Juris. Statement 175a (Stipulation 93). In August, Price wrote again, this time in concert with a number of leaders of black community organizations, again seeking an opportunity to express views about the redistricting process, as well as about a number of Board policies bear- ing on school desegregation. App. 187­189; see also App. to Juris. Statement 175a (Stipulation 94). Once again the Board made no response. Being frustrated by the Board's lack of responsiveness, Price then asked for help from the national NAACP's Redistricting Project, which sent him a map showing how two compact black-majority districts might be drawn in the parish. Id., at 177a (Stipulation 98). When Price showed the map to a school district official, he was told it was unacceptable because it failed to show all 12 districts. At Price's request, the Redistricting Project then provided a plan showing all 12 districts, which Price presented to the Board at its September 3, 1991, meeting, explaining that it showed the possibility of drawing black-majority 8 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of SOUTER, J. districts. Id., at 177a­178a (Stipulations 99­100). Sev- eral Board members said they could not consider the NAACP plan unless it was presented on a larger map, id., at 178a (Stipulation 100), and both the Board's cartogra- pher and their legal advisor, the parish district attorney, dismissed the plan out of hand because it required pre- cinct splits, id., at 179a (Stipulation 102). There is evidence that other implications of the NAACP proposal were objectionable to the Board. According to one black leader, Board member Henry Burns told him that while he personally favored black representation on the Board, a number of other Board members opposed the idea.3 App. 142. According to George Price, Board mem- ber Barry Musgrove told him that the Board was hostile to the creation of a majority black district. Id., at 182.4 Although the NAACP plan received no further public consideration, the pace of public redistricting activity suddenly speeded up. At the Board's September 17, 1992, meeting, without asking Joiner to address the possibility of creating any majority-black district, the Board abruptly passed a statement of intent to adopt the Police Jury plan. App. to Juris. Statement 179a­180a (Stipulation 106). At a public hearing on the plan one week later, attended by an overflow crowd, a number of black voters spoke against - - - - - - 3 One other Board member, Marguerite Hudson, when asked to ex- plain why two of the schools in Plain Dealing, one of the parish's towns, were predominantly black, stated: "[T]hose people love to live in Plain Dealing. . . . And most of them don't want to get a big job, they would just rather stay out there in the country, and stay on Welfare, and stay in Plain Dealing." App. 118. 4 Musgrove denied making the statement. See 1 Tr. 56. If, as the District Court majority suggested, the significance of the latter state- ment is uncertain, see Bossier Parish School Bd. v. Reno, 907 F. Supp. 434, 448 (DC 1995) (Bossier Parish I), it was tantamount to opposition to the most obvious cure for the admitted dilution; there was in any event nothing ambiguous about the Burns statement. Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 9 Opinion of SOUTER, J. the plan, and Price presented the Board with a petition bearing over 500 signatures urging consideration of mi- nority concerns. No one spoke in favor of the plan, Bossier Parish School Bd. v. Reno, 907 F. Supp. 434, 439 (DC 1995) (Bossier Parish I), and Price explained to the Board that preclearance of the jury plan for use by the Police Jury was no guarantee of preclearance of the same plan for the Board. App. to Juris. Statement 180a­181a (Stipulation 108). Nonetheless, at its October 1 meeting, the voting members of the Board unanimously adopted the Police Jury plan, with one member absent and the Board's only black member (who had been appointed just two weeks earlier to fill a vacancy) abstaining. Id., at 181a­ 182a (Stipulation 109). The Board did not submit the plan for preclearance by the Attorney General until January 4, 1993. Id., at 182a (Stipulation 110). II The significance of the record under §5 is enhanced by examining in more detail several matters already men- tioned as free from dispute, by testing some of the Board's stated reasons for refusing to consider any NAACP plan, and by looking critically at the District Court's reasons for resolving disputed issues in the School Board's favor. A The parties stipulate that for decades before this redis- tricting the Board had sought to "limit or evade" its obliga- tion to end segregation in its schools, an obligation specifi- cally imposed by Court order nearly 35 years ago and not yet fulfilled. The Board has also conceded the discrimina- tory impact of the Police Jury plan in falling "more heavily on blacks than on whites," Plaintiff's Brief on Remand in Civ. Action No. 94­1495 (D. D. C.), p. 12, and in diluting "black voting strength," id., at 21. Even without the stipulated history, the conceded dilution would be evi- 10 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of SOUTER, J. dence of a correspondingly discriminatory intent. With the history, the implication of intent speaks louder, and it grows more forceful still after a closer look at two aspects of the dilutive impact of the Police Jury plan. First, the plan includes no black-majority districts even though residential and voting patterns in Bossier Parish meet the three conditions we identified in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S., at 50­51, as opening the door to draw- ing majority-minority districts to put minority voters on an equal footing with others. The first Gingles condition is that "the minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to con- stitute a majority in a single-member district." Id., at 50. The Board does not dispute that black voters in Bossier Parish satisfy this criterion. The Board joined in a stipu- lation of the parties that in 1991, "it was obvious that a reasonably compact black-majority district could be drawn within Bossier City," App. to Juris. Statement 154a­155a (Stipulation 36); see also 1 Tr. 60 (statement of Board member Barry Musgrove), and that the NAACP plan demonstrated that two such districts could have been drawn in the parish, see App. to Juris. Statement 192a (Stipulation 143).5 As to the second and third Gingles conditions, that the minority population be politically cohesive and that the white-majority block voting be enough to defeat the minority's preferred candidate, see Gingles, supra, at 51, the Government introduced expert - - - - - - 5 While the cartographer hired by the Board stated during the redis- tricting process that the parish's black population was too dispersed to draw a black-majority district, he later acknowledged that in fact two such districts could be drawn, see App. to Juris. Statement 160a­161a (Stipulations 52, 53), and not only the original NAACP plans but also the Cooper Plans, two alternative plans developed by an expert for the defendant-intervenors, demonstrated as much, see App. 238 (Cooper Plans); App. to Juris. Statement 193a (Stipulation 147). Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 11 Opinion of SOUTER, J. testimony showing such polarization in Bossier Parish's voting patterns. See App. to Juris. Statement 201a­207a (Stipulations 181­196); App. 163­173 (declaration of Dr. Richard Engstrom). While acknowledging the some- what limited data available for analysis, the expert con- cluded that "African American voters are likely to have a realistic opportunity to elect candidates of their choice to the . . . Board only in districts in which they constitute a majority of the voting age population." Id., at 174.6 Second, the Police Jury plan diluted black votes by dividing neighboring black communities with common interests in and around at least two of the Parish's mu- nicipalities, thereby avoiding the creation of a black- majority district.7 See id., at 154­156 (declaration of George J. Castille III); id., at 141 (testimony of S. P. Davis). Even the Board's own cartographer conceded that one of these instances " `appear[ed]' " to constitute " `fracturing,' " App. to Juris. Statement 191a (Stipulation 138), which he defined as "divid[ing] a `population that has a traditional cohesiveness, lives in the same general area, - - - - - - 6 The parties agreed that black candidates for other offices have been able to win from white-majority districts in the parish, see id., at 201a (Stipulation 180), but those instances all involved districts in which the presence of an Air Force base, see id., at 206a­207a (Stipulation 196), meant both that the effective percentage of black voters was considera- bly higher than the raw figures suggested and, in the view of all the successful black candidates, that the degree of hostility to black candi- dates among white voters was lower than in the rest of the parish, see App. 131­132 (statement of Jeff Darby), 133­134 (statement of Jerome Darby), 143­144 (statement of Johnny Gipson). 7 Counsel for the Board suggested in cross-examining one of the Gov- ernment's experts that one of the instances of dividing black communi- ties arose from a state-law prohibition on the Board's "split[ting] existing corporate lines." 2 Tr. 189. He offered no authority for that proposition. But in any case, the example the expert gave did not involve dividing a municipality, but including in a single district areas both within the municipality and outside it. 12 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of SOUTER, J. [and] has a lot of commonalties' . . . with `[the] intent to . . . fracture that population into adjoining white districts,' " id., at 189a­190a (Stipulation 133). B The Board's cartographer and lawyer objected that the NAACP plan was unacceptable because it split precincts in violation of state law. And yet the Board concedes that school boards were free to seek precinct changes from the police juries of their parishes, as they often successfully did. See App. to Juris. Statement 150a­151a (Stipulations 22­23). One of the Government's experts, see App. 214, 217, 354, and the Board's own cartographic consultant, see App. to Juris. Statement 151a (Stipulation 23), acknowl- edged this practice. Indeed, the parties agree that Joiner advised the Board about the option of going to the Police Jury for precinct changes, see id., at 174a (Stipulation 89); see also id., at 179a (Stipulation 102), but that the Board never asked him to pursue that possibility, see id., at 188a (Stipulation 128).8 Judge Kessler in the District Court was - - - - - - 8 The District Court majority stated that it was not merely the fact that the NAACP plan required precinct splits, but that it required a large number of splits that made it unappealing. This claim is unten- able for several reasons. First, again it assumes that the act to be explained is the rejection of the NAACP plan rather than the adoption of the Police Jury plan. While the NAACP plan required 46 precinct splits, see App. to Juris. Statement 194a­195a (Stipulation 151), the Cooper II plan, which also included two black-majority districts meet- ing traditional districting criteria, required only 27, ibid., and the establishment of a single black-majority district would have required just 14, see App. 269­270, 277. Second, and more importantly, the Board's cartographer and lawyer stated that they told the Board the NAACP plan was unacceptable because it split any precincts at all, not because it split lots of them, see App. to Juris. Statement 179a (Stipula- tion 102), and a leading supporter of the Police Jury plan on the Board, see 1 Tr. 129, and the Board's interim black member at the time of redistricting, see App. 130, agree on that score. Cite as: 528 U. S. ____ (2000) 13 Opinion of SOUTER, J. therefore surely correct that the Board's claimed inability to divide precincts was no genuine obstacle to a plan with a majority-black district. See Bossier Parish I, 907 F. Supp., at 460­461 (opinion concurring in part and dis- senting in part). It becomes all the clearer that the prospect of splitting precincts was no genuine reason to reject the NAACP plan (or otherwise to refuse to consider creating any black- majority districts) when one realizes that from early on in the Board's redistricting process it gave serious thought to adopting a plan that would have required just such pre- cinct splits. When the Board hired Joiner as its cartogra- pher in May 1991, his estimate of 200 to 250 hours to prepare a plan for the Board, see App. to Juris. Statement 173a (Stipulation 86), indicated that there was no intent simply to borrow the recently devised Police Jury plan or to build on the precincts established by the Police Jury, a possibility that Joiner thought could be explored in "[s]everal hours at least," App. 271. It seems obvious that from the start the Board expected its plan to require pre- cinct splitting, and Joiner acknowledged in his testimony that any plan "as strong as" the Police Jury plan in terms of traditional districting criteria would require precinct splits. Ibid. Splitting precincts only became an insuper- able obstacle once the NAACP made its proposal to create black-majority districts. C1 Despite its stated view that the record would not sup- port a conclusion of nonretrogressive discriminatory in- tent, the District Court majority listed a series of "alleg- edly dilutive impacts" said to point to discriminatory intent: "[t]hat some of the new districts have no schools, that the plan ignores attendance boundaries, that it does not respect communities of interest, that there is one 14 RENO v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BD. Opinion of SOUTER, J. outlandishly large district, that several of them are not compact, that there is a lack of contiguity, and that the population deviations resulting from the jury plan are greater than the limits (+ 5%) imposed by Louisiana law." 7 F. Supp. 2d 29, 32 (DC 1998) (Bossier Parish II). The District Court found this evidence "too theoretical, and too attenuated" to be probative of retrogressive intent in the absence of corroborating evidence of a "deliberate at- tempt." Ibid. But whatever the force of such evidence may be on the issue of intent to cause retrogression, there is nothing "theoretical" or "attenuated" in its significance as showing intent to dilute generally. 2 If we take the District Court opinions in Bossier Parish I and Bossier Parish II together and treat the court's §5 discussions as covering nonretrogressive discriminatory intent, it is clear that the court rested on two reasons for finding that the plan's dilutive effect could not support an inference of nonretrogressive discriminatory intent. First, the court thought any such inference inconsistent with the view expressed in Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 924 (1995), that a refusal to adopt a plan to maximize the number of majority-minority districts is insufficient alone to support an inference of intentional discrimination. Miller is not on point, however. In Miller, Georgia had already adopted a plan that clearl