Page:Allen v. Milligan.pdf/110

14 questions about her work in this litigation, see 2 App. 710. If it was impossible to draw two such districts in 2010, it surely at least requires a great deal of intentional effort now.

The Court suggests that little can be inferred from Dr. Duchin’s two-million-map study because two million maps are not that many in comparison to the “trillion trillion” maps that are possible. See, and. In making this argument, the Court relies entirely on an amicus brief submitted by three computational redistricting experts in support of the appellees. See Brief for Computational Redistricting Experts 2, 6, n. 7. These experts’ argument concerns a complicated statistical issue, and I think it is unwise for the Court to make their argument part of our case law based solely on this brief. By the time this amicus brief was submitted, the appellants had already filed their main brief, and it was too late for any experts with contrary views to submit an amicus brief in support of appellants. Computer simulations are widely used today to make predictions about many important matters, and I would not place stringent limits on their use in VRA litigation without being quite sure of our ground. If the cases were remanded, the parties could take up this issue if they wished and call experts to support their positions on the extent to which the two million maps in the study are or can be probative of the full universe of maps.

In sum, based on my understanding of the current record, I am doubtful that the plaintiffs could get by the first Gingles precondition, but I would let the District Court sort this matter out on remand.

Despite the strong evidence that two majority-minority districts cannot be drawn without singular emphasis on race, a plurality nonetheless concludes that race did not predominate in the drawing of the plaintiffs’ illustrative