Page:Allen v. Milligan.pdf/65

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

20

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN

Thomas, J., dissenting

considerations”). The plurality thus affirms the District Court’s finding only in part and with regard to Mr. Cooper’s plans alone.

In doing so, the plurality acts as if the only relevant evidence were Mr. Cooper’s testimony about his own mental state and the State’s expert’s analysis of Mr. Cooper’s maps. See ante, at 23–24. Such a blinkered view of the issue is unjustifiable. All 11 illustrative maps follow the same approach to creating two majority-black districts. The essential design features of Mr. Cooper’s maps are indistinguishable from Dr. Duchin’s, and it is those very design features that would require race to predominate. None of the plaintiffs’ maps could possibly be drawn by a mapmaker who was merely “aware of,” rather than motivated by, “racial demographics.” Miller, 515 U. S., at 916. They could only ever be drawn by a mapmaker whose predominant motive was hitting the “express racial target” of two majority-black districts. Bethune-Hill, 580 U. S., at 192.^[1]

The plurality endeavors in vain to blunt the force of this obvious fact. See ante, at 24–25. Contrary to the plurality’s apparent understanding, nothing in Bethune-Hill suggests

↑ The plurality’s reasoning does not withstand scrutiny even on its own terms. Like Dr. Duchin, Mr. Cooper found it “necessary to consider race” to construct two majority-black districts, 2 App. 591, and he frankly acknowledged “reconfigur[ing]” the southern part of the State “to create the second African-American majority district,” id., at 610. Further, his conclusory statement that race did not “predominate” in his plans, id., at 595, must be interpreted in light of the rest of his testimony and the record as a whole. Mr. Cooper recognized communities of interest as a traditional districting principle, but he applied that principle in a nakedly race-focused manner, explaining that “the minority population in and of itself” was the community of interest that was “top of mind as [he] was drawing the plan[s].” Id., at 601. As noted, he also testified that he considered “minority voting strengt[h]” to be a “traditional redistricting principl[e]” in its own right. Id., at 591. His testimony therefore buttresses, rather than undermines, the conclusion already obvious from the maps themselves: Only a mapmaker pursuing a fixed racial target would produce them.

[1] The plurality’s reasoning does not withstand scrutiny even on its own terms. Like Dr. Duchin, Mr. Cooper found it “necessary to consider race” to construct two majority-black districts, 2 App. 591, and he frankly acknowledged “reconfigur[ing]” the southern part of the State “to create the second African-American majority district,” id., at 610. Further, his conclusory statement that race did not “predominate” in his plans, id., at 595, must be interpreted in light of the rest of his testimony and the record as a whole. Mr. Cooper recognized communities of interest as a traditional districting principle, but he applied that principle in a nakedly race-focused manner, explaining that “the minority population in and of itself” was the community of interest that was “top of mind as [he] was drawing the plan[s].” Id., at 601. As noted, he also testified that he considered “minority voting strengt[h]” to be a “traditional redistricting principl[e]” in its own right. Id., at 591. His testimony therefore buttresses, rather than undermines, the conclusion already obvious from the maps themselves: Only a mapmaker pursuing a fixed racial target would produce them.

[1]