I’m going to have to comment on this one:
Yes, during the 1960s, the Courts tightened up allowed variance in population. This resulted in carving up of counties and municipalities. Basically, we shifted out of compact districts and communities of interest, into gerrymandered districts.
Then, the Congress in the VRA put a racial twist to this. Because of disparities in voting rates, minorities could be clumped into grotesquely gerrymandered districts so they would constitute a large majority within those districts and gain representation.
So far, I’m affirming Michael Barone, which is a good thing because he is a walking encyclopedia of American politics.
Now I’m going to diverge: The Courts are drifting away from the VRA district and grotesque gerrymanders because voting rates of blacks and whites have converged.
In this case, state laws requiring compact districts and communities of interest (in practice, counties and municipalities) must be more heavily considered by state legislatures and amalgamating minorities by crossing communities of interest less considered, or at least not considered as a means of diminishing minority representation.
In the Alabama cases, there was some evidence that the state legislature concentrated minorities into districts in order to gain a partisan advantage. The evidence, in my opinion, was kind of weak, but we’re not talking about a criminal proceeding where you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for this Wisconsin case, I think the state will prevail. The Democrats are trying to float a whole new theory of “equal protection,” namely, that parties (not individuals) should have equal protection. I think this argument will be rejected by the Supreme Court.
The Reynolds one man one vote was a horrible decision enabled by the 17th Amendment.