In policy terms, the usual absence of tradeoffs means that line-drawers can often have it all—maps that simultaneously comply with traditional criteria, treat the major parties fairly, lead to competitive elections, and properly represent minority voters.

Legally, it bolsters plaintiffs alleging partisan gerrymandering or racial vote dilution, because their objectives can typically be achieved without sacrificing other goals.

In most cases, progress along one dimension (like compactness, partisan fairness, or minority representation) requires no regression along another axis. This conclusion has sweeping implications for redistricting law and policy.

These ensembles cover all electoral levels for seven priority states as well as congressional maps for all states with two or more U.S. House districts.

The Article finds that, contrary to the conventional wisdom of courts and scholars, redistricting tradeoffs are generally weak to nonexistent.

This Article is the first to rigorously analyze the existence and extent of redistricting tradeoffs. The Article relies on ensembles of billions of district maps generated randomly by cutting-edge computer algorithms.

Here's the abstract:

The law of redistricting is built on the assumption that tradeoffs among line-drawing criteria are pervasive. This view helps explain crucial elements of partisan gerrymandering, racial vote dilution, and racial gerrymandering doctrine.

- More in the weeds, but the plaintiffs say the third Gingles precondition isn't satisfied in CA because minority-preferred candidates often win statewide races. But this analysis is always regional, not statewide, and the plaintiffs offer no more localized data.

- The plaintiffs want CA to return to its 2022 map. But their own argument is that 14 of that map's districts are unlawful racial gerrymanders! So that map is almost as bad, under the plaintiffs' theory, as the new map -- and can't be a valid remedy to any legal problem.

- Where's the plaintiffs' alternative map? CA's obvious defense is that its primary goal was partisan, not racial. Alexander says that, to refute a partisan defense, plaintiffs need a map that achieves the state's partisan aim without fixating on race. So where's their map?

2. The SG's proposal would doom Section 2 suits not just in the South but everywhere. That's because there's always SOME political objective a new majority-minority district would compromise. If a state named the right goal, no plaintiff could satisfy the first Gingles prong.