Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 61

16 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

residents  in  one  metropolitan  area  (Montgomery)  with 
parts of the rural Black Belt and black residents in another 
metropolitan area (Mobile); (2) leaving enough of the Black 
Belt’s majority-black rural areas for District 7 to maintain 
its majority-black status; and (3) reducing District 1 to the 
white remainder of the southern third of the State. 
  If the State did this, we would call it a racial gerryman-
der, and rightly so.  We would have no difficulty recognizing 
race as “the predominant factor motivating [the placement 
of] significant number[s] of voters within or without” Dis-
tricts 1, 2, and 7.  Miller, 515 U. S., at 916.  The “stark splits 
in the racial composition of populations moved into and out 
of ”  Districts  1  and  2  would  make  that  obvious.    Bethune-
Hill, 580 U. S., at 192.  So would the manifest absence of 
any  nonracial  justification for  the  new District  1.   And so 
would the State’s clear intent to ensure that both Districts 
2 and 7 hit their preordained racial targets.  See ibid. (not-
ing that “pursu[it of] a common redistricting policy toward 
multiple districts” may show predominance).  That the plan 
delivered proportional control for a particular minority—a 
statistical  anomaly  that  over  2  million  race-blind  simula-
tions  did  not  yield  and  20,000  race-conscious  simulations 
did not even approximate—would be still further confirma-
tion. 
  The State could not justify such a plan simply by arguing 
that it was less bizarre to the naked eye than other, more 
elaborate  racial  gerrymanders  we  have  encountered.    See 
ante, at 19–20 (discussing cases).  As we held in Miller, vis-
ual “bizarreness” is not “a necessary element of the consti-
tutional wrong,” only “persuasive circumstantial evidence.”  
515 U. S., at 912–913.10 

—————— 

10 Of course, bizarreness is in the eye of the beholder, and, while labels 
like “ ‘tentacles’ ” or “ ‘appendages’ ” have no ultimate legal significance, 
it  is  far  from  clear  that  they  do  not  apply  here.    See  ante,  at  12.    The 
tendrils with which the various versions of illustrative District 2 would