If you understood this fiasco of a decision, more power to you. 100+ pages of interlocking concurring and dissenting opinions, none of which make it any easier for the state legislatures or district courts to review Voting Rights Act claims.
The Roberts Court, it seems, is continuing the Rehnquist Court's inability to pen a decision that will make Americans less likely to foot the bill for lawyers. Instead, it continues the O'Connorish enumeration of factors and tests, which inevitably result in eternal suits and infernal unsettlement, with the legislators damned if they do or don't. Justice Kennedy, as usual, is there to solomonically split the difference, no matter how nonsensical doing so is.
Small wonder nobody respects lawyers, with this kind of gobbledygook emanating from the nominally Supreme Court. 99% of our state court judges could produce better than this bull.
I didn't read it. I was hoping some lawyers on this forum might interpret for us. IIRC, congressional redistricting by the state governments is still limited to one time per each decade's census, not counting any interim judicial settlement.
Scientific literature is bad enough. When lawyers get verbose, fagget about it. BTW, that's a NYC dialect.