O'CONNOR, J., concurring JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring. I write separately to express my view on two points. First, compliance with the results test of §2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is a compelling state interest. Second, that test can coexist in principle and in practice with Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993), and its progeny, as elaborated in today's opinions. I As stated in the plurality opinion, ante, at 977 (O'CONNOR, J., joined by REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY, J.), this Court has thus far assumed without deciding that compliance with the results test of VRA §2(b) is a compelling state interest. See Shaw v. Hunt, ante, at 915 (Shaw II); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 920-921 (1995). Although that assumption is not determinative of the Court's decisions today, I believe that States and lower courts are entitled to more definite guidance as they toil with the twin demands of the Fourteenth Amendment and the VRA. The results test is violated if, "based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of [e. g., a racial minority group] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b). In the 14 years since the enactment of §2(b), we have interpreted and enforced the obligations that it places on States in a succession of cases, assuming but never directly addressing its constitutionality. See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997 (1994); Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874 (1994); Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S. 146 (1993); Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25, 37-42 (1993); Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U. S. 380 (1991); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986); cf. Chisom, O'CONNOR, J., concurring supra, at 418 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting) (noting that a constitutional challenge to the statute was not before the Court). Meanwhile, lower courts have unanimously affirmed its constitutionality. See United States v. Marengo County Comm'n, 731 F. 2d 1546, 1556-1563 (CA11), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 976 (1984); Jones v. Lubbock, 727 F. 2d 364, 372-375 (CA5 1984); Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. 408, 438 (EDNC 1994), aff'd, Shaw II, ante, p. 899; Prosser v. Elections Bd., 793 F. Supp. 859, 869 (WD Wis. 1992); Wesley v. Collins, 605 F. Supp. 802, 808 (MD Tenn. 1985), aff'd, 791 F. 2d 1255 (CA6 1986); Jordan v. Winter, 604 F. Supp. 807, 811 (ND Miss.), aff'd sub nom. Allain v. Brooks, 469 U. S. 1002 (1984); Sierra v. El Paso Independent School Dist., 591 F. Supp. 802, 806 (WD Tex. 1984); Major v. Treen, 574 F. Supp. 325, 342-349 (ED La. 1983); accord, Hartman, Racial Vote Dilution and Separation of Powers: An Exploration of the Conflict Between the Judicial "Intent" and the Legislative "Results" Standards, 50 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 689, 739-752 (1982). Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 (1966) (upholding the original VRA as a valid exercise of Congress' power under §2 of the Fifteenth Amendment); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U. S. 448, 477 (1980) (Katzenbach and its successors interpreting §2 of the Fifteenth Amendment "confirm that congressional authority extends beyond the prohibition of purposeful discrimination to encompass state action that has discriminatory impact perpetuating the effects of past discrimination"); White v. Alabama, 867 F. Supp. 1519, 1549 (MD Ala. 1994) (the results test "has not been held unconstitutional and complying with it remains a strong state interest"), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 74 F. 3d 1058, 1069 (CA11 1996) (noting that "Section 2 was enacted to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition against denying a citizen the right to vote 'on account of race'"). Against this background, it would be irresponsible for a State to disregard the §2 results test. The Supremacy Clause obliges the States to comply with all constitutional O'CONNOR, J., concurring exercises of Congress' power. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Statutes are presumed constitutional, see, e. g., Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283, 285 (1901), and that presumption appears strong here in light of the weight of authority affirming the results test's constitutionality. In addition, fundamental concerns of federalism mandate that States be given some leeway so that they are not "trapped between the competing hazards of liability." Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 291 (1986) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). We should allow States to assume the constitutionality of §2 of the VRA, including the 1982 amendments. This conclusion is bolstered by concerns of respect for the authority of Congress under the Reconstruction Amendments. See City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179 (1980). The results test of § 2 is an important part of the apparatus chosen by Congress to effectuate this Nation's commitment "to confront its conscience and fulfill the guarantee of the Constitution" with respect to equality in voting. S. Rep. No. 97-417, p. 4 (1982). Congress considered the test "necessary and appropriate to ensure full protection of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments rights." Id., at 27. It believed that without the results test, nothing could be done about "overwhelming evidence of unequal access to the electoral system," id., at 26, or about "voting practices and procedures [that] perpetuate the effects of past purposeful discrimination," id., at 40. And it founded those beliefs on the sad reality that "there still are some communities in our Nation where racial politics do dominate the electoral process." Id., at 33. Respect for those legislative conclusions mandates that the §2 results test be accepted and applied unless and until current lower court precedent is reversed and it is held unconstitutional. In my view, therefore, the States have a compelling interest in complying with the results test as this Court has interpreted it. O'CONNOR, J., concurring II Although I agree with the dissenters about §2's role as part of our national commitment to racial equality, I differ from them in my belief that that commitment can and must be reconciled with the complementary commitment of our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence to eliminate the unjustified use of racial stereotypes. At the same time that we combat the symptoms of racial polarization in politics, we must strive to eliminate unnecessary race-based state action that appears to endorse the disease. Today's decisions, in conjunction with the recognition of the compelling state interest in compliance with the reasonably perceived requirements of §2, present a workable framework for the achievement of these twin goals. I would summarize that framework, and the rules governing the States' consideration of race in the districting process, as follows. First, so long as they do not subordinate traditional districting criteria to the use of race for its own sake or as a proxy, States may intentionally create majority-minority districts, and may otherwise take race into consideration, without coming under strict scrutiny. See ante, at 958-959 (plurality opinion); post, at 1008-1011, and n. 8, 1025 (STEVENS, J., dissenting); post, at 1056, 1065, 1073 (SOUTER, J., dissenting). Only if traditional districting criteria are neglected and that neglect is predominantly due to the misuse of race does strict scrutiny apply. Ante, at 962, 964, 978 (plurality opinion). Second, where voting is racially polarized, §2 prohibits States from adopting districting schemes that would have the effect that minority voters "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to . . . elect representatives of their choice." §2(b). That principle may require a State to create a majority-minority district where the three Gingles factors are present-viz., (i) the minority group "is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a |