This will not stand, man. This aggression will not stand. Across this line you will not... Also, Don Blankenship, "Chinaman," is not the preferred nomenclature. I know he has nothing to do with this, but as long as I am quoting The Big Lebowski, I might as well add that in there, right?
Anyway, I really don't like those people on the Supreme Court. They make my job difficult sometimes. Here's the deal on redistricting plans. What are the basic constitutional requirements?
1) Equal population (since Baker v. Carr)
2) Contiguity-- you have to be able to get from anywhere in the district to anywhere in the district without leaving the district.
3) Race-- you have to... um... do... some... fuck, even I don't know, and I'm a published expert on this topic.
I'm not even mentioning partisan gerrymandering because those lily-livered cowards still won't make up their minds about that (currently, there is precedent stating that there could, in theory, be a plan that goes too far for constitutionality, but the Court has never said how far that is, nor struck down a plan for partisan gerrymandering, so I won't list it as a requirement, even though Gill v. Whitford was supposed to settle it!), but let's deal with the race issue. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been interpreted to mean that, when possible, states must draw "majority-minority" districts, or, districts in which a majority of the population is a racial or ethnic minority. Those are the only districts in which non-whites have a significant likelihood of getting elected. The issue here is what we call "descriptive representation." White people vote for white people, mostly. So, draw districts in which non-whites are majorities, and they can get their own representation. VRA. Then, we've got Shaw v. Reno, which says that race really shouldn't be the primary consideration in drawing districts.
So, race and redistricting? There is no legal coherence, and everything is challenged. Consequently, most plans are defended as partisan gerrymanders, which the Court won't strike down. Along comes Cooper v. Harris last year saying that, in the South in particular, race and party are the same fuckin' thing. So, you can't avoid a VRA challenge by claiming the partisan gerrymander defense.
Cooper v. Harris got stomped on yesterday by Alito's opinion in Abbott v. Perez. It all boiled down to "assume good faith on race from conservative southern whites, even when presented with direct evidence to the contrary." The whole point of Cooper v. Harris was to say that you can't hide behind partisanship in the fuckin' South. In the South, race and partisanship are too closely intertwined. So what does Alito do? He says, maybe they're innocent. Maybe it's not race. It's just party.
Cooper v. Harris, motherfucker. Cooper v. Harris. He just breezed on past that one.
What is permissible and what isn't?
Let's be blunt: whatever you can convince five SCOTUS justices to accept at the time is permissible. There is no real rule. That's it. I couldn't tell you what will pass muster and what won't, and I am an expert in this shit.
Will that ever change? No. Why? Because this is all bullshit. The Supreme Court is not a group of learned scholars passing judgment based on sage wisdom interpreting a sacred document passed down to us from on high. They're a bunch of weaselly politicians, making it up as they go. That leaves people like me, who truly do understand redistricting, scratching our heads in frustration at their inability to make up their minds and come up with a consistent standard.
My standard lecture on redistricting when it comes to race is to say that we have no federal standard. Everything gets challenged, and we can never say with certainty what SCOTUS will do because they can't make up their minds.
I like to bring dice into the classroom to demonstrate probability theory when I teach statistics. I think I'll start using dice to demonstrate the Supreme Court's decision-making process when it comes to redistricting. The Supremes do play dice with our political universe. Sorry, Al, but you were wrong.