Page:Allen v. Milligan.pdf/65

20 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. 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.

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