After a redistricting treatise this morning, just a snippet of follow-up for now.
This morning, I suggested that the question on the substance of a First Amendment claim for the partisan gerrymandering cases — the question in line with First Amendment doctrine elsewhere — has to do with the invidious intent to injure or subjugate. (This isn’t the only right question: there are other, complementary, claims dealing with effect. But it’s a right question, and a sufficient one to address the claims before the Court.) And I pointed out that in Gill, Justice Kennedy repeatedly hammered a question on exactly these lines.