Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 60

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

15 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

black voting-age population above 40%.  Id., at 54, 67, 71–
72.    In  a  similar  vein,  Dr.  Duchin  testified  about  an  aca-
demic study in which she had randomly “generated 2 mil-
lion  districting  plans  for  Alabama”  using  a  race-neutral 
algorithm that gave priority to compactness and contiguity.  
2  App.  710; see  Duchin  &  Spencer  765.   She “found some 
[plans] with one majority-black district, but never found a 
second . . . majority-black district in 2 million attempts.”  2 
App. 710.  “[T]hat it is hard to draw two majority-black dis-
tricts by accident,” Dr. Duchin explained, “show[ed] the im-
portance of doing so on purpose.”  Id., at 714.9 
  The  plurality  of  Justices  who  join  Part  III–B–I  of  THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion appear to agree that the plain-
tiffs  could  not  prove  the  first  precondition  of  their 
statewide  vote-dilution  claim—that  black  Alabamians 
could constitute a majority in two “reasonably configured” 
districts, Wisconsin Legislature, 595 U. S., at ___ (slip op., 
at  3)—by  drawing  an  illustrative  map  in  which  race  was 
predominant.  See ante, at 25.  That should be the end of 
these cases, as the illustrative maps here are palpable ra-
cial  gerrymanders.    The  plaintiffs’  experts  clearly  applied 
“express racial target[s]” by setting out to create 50%-plus 
majority-black districts in both Districts 2 and 7.  Bethune-
Hill  v.  Virginia  State  Bd.  of  Elections,  580  U. S.  178,  192 
(2017).  And it is impossible to conceive of the State adopting 
the  illustrative  maps  without  pursuing  the  same  racially 
motivated goals.  Again, the maps’ key design features are: 
(1)  making  District  2  majority-black  by  connecting  black 

—————— 

9 The majority notes that this study used demographic data from the 
2010 census, not the 2020 one.  That is irrelevant, since the black popu-
lation share in Alabama changed little (from 26.8% to 27.16%) between 
the two censuses.  To think that this minor increase might have changed 
Dr.  Duchin’s  results  would  be  to  entirely  miss  her  point:  that  propor-
tional representation for any minority, unless achieved “by design,” is a 
statistical  anomaly  in  almost  all  single-member-districting  systems.  
Duchin & Spencer 764.