Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

12 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

Opinion of the Court 

1086 etc., p. 253 (MSA).  The plaintiffs adduced eleven il-
lustrative maps—that is, example districting maps that Al-
abama could enact—each of which contained two majority-
black  districts  that  comported  with  traditional  districting 
criteria.  With respect to compactness, for example, the Dis-
trict  Court  explained  that  the  maps  submitted  by  one  of 
plaintiffs’ experts, Dr. Moon Duchin, “perform[ed] generally 
better on average than” did HB1.  582 F. Supp. 3d, at 1009.  
A map offered by another of plaintiffs’ experts, Bill Cooper, 
produced districts roughly as compact as the existing plan.  
Ibid.  And none of plaintiffs’ maps contained any “tentacles, 
appendages, bizarre shapes, or any other obvious irregular-
ities that would make it difficult to find” them sufficiently 
compact.  Id., at 1011.  Plaintiffs’ maps also satisfied other 
traditional districting criteria.  They contained equal popu-
lations,  were  contiguous,  and  respected  existing  political 
subdivisions,  such  as  counties,  cities,  and  towns.    Id.,  at 
1011, 1016.  Indeed, some of plaintiffs’ proposed maps split 
the same number of county lines as (or even fewer county 
lines than) the State’s map.  Id., at 1011–1012.  We agree 
with the District Court, therefore, that plaintiffs’ illustra-
tive  maps  “strongly  suggest[ed]  that  Black  voters  in  Ala-
bama” could constitute a majority in a second, reasonably 
configured, district.  Id., at 1010. 
  The State nevertheless argues that plaintiffs’ maps were 
not  reasonably  configured  because  they  failed  to  keep  to-
gether a traditional community of interest within Alabama.  
See, e.g., id., at 1012.  A “community of interest,” according 
to Alabama’s districting guidelines, is an “area with recog-
nized similarities of interests, including but not limited to 
ethnic, racial, economic, tribal, social, geographic, or histor-
ical identities.”  Ibid.  Alabama argues that the Gulf Coast 
region in the southwest of the State is such a community of 
interest,  and  that  plaintiffs’  maps  erred  by  separating  it 
into two different districts.  Ibid. 
  We  do  not  find  the  State’s  argument  persuasive.    Only