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 considerations—compactness, contiguity, political subdivisions, natural geographic boundaries, county lines, pairing of incumbents, communities of interest, and population equality. See Miller, 515 U. S., at 916. Yet “[q]uantifying, measuring, 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 different 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-neutral 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.
