Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 34

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

27 

Opinion of the Court 

  But even if the maps created by Dr. Duchin and Dr. Imai 
were  adequate  comparators,  we  could  not  adopt  the  map-
comparison test that Alabama proposes.  The test is flawed 
in its fundamentals.  Districting involves myriad consider-
ations—compactness,  contiguity,  political  subdivisions, 
natural geographic boundaries, county lines, pairing of in-
cumbents,  communities  of  interest,  and  population  equal-
ity.  See Miller, 515 U. S., at 916.  Yet “[q]uantifying, meas-
uring, prioritizing, and reconciling these criteria” requires 
map drawers to “make difficult, contestable choices.”  Brief 
for Computational Redistricting Experts as Amici Curiae 8 
(Redistricting Brief ).  And “[i]t is easy to imagine how dif-
ferent criteria could move the median map toward different 
. . .  distributions,”  meaning  that  “the  same  map  could  be 
[lawful]  or  not  depending  solely  on  what  the  mapmakers 
said they set out to do.”  Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U. S. 
___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 27–28).  For example, “the 
scientific literature contains dozens of competing metrics” 
on the issue of compactness.  Redistricting Brief 8.  Which 
one of these metrics should be used?  What happens when 

—————— 
THOMAS, J.); see also post, at 15, n. 9, 16.  In doing so, that dissent ignores 
Dr. Duchin’s testimony that—when using the correct census data—the 
“randomized algorithms” she employed “found plans with two majority-
black districts in literally thousands of different ways.”  MSA 316–317.  
The  principal  dissent  and  the  dissent  by  JUSTICE  ALITO  also  ignore 
Duchin’s testimony that “it is certainly possible” to draw the illustrative 
maps she produced in a race-blind manner.  2 App. 713.  In that way, 
even the race-blind standard that the dissents urge would be satisfied 
here.  See post, at 21 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); post, at 6 (opinion of ALITO, 
J.).  So too could that standard be satisfied in every §2 case; after all, as 
Duchin explained, any map produced in a deliberately race-predominant 
manner would necessarily emerge at some point in a random, race-neu-
tral process.  2 App. 713.  And although JUSTICE ALITO voices support for 
an  “old-school  approach”  to  §2,  even  that  approach  cannot  be  squared 
with his understanding of Gingles.  Post, at 6.  The very reason a plaintiff 
adduces a map at the first step of Gingles is precisely because of its racial 
composition—that is, because it creates an additional majority-minority 
district that does not then exist.