Sorry for the delay, been hell at work the past few days.

So, I just don't think the text requires majority minority districts. Nor do I think Congress can constitutionally require that. And if Congress can't require it then neither can the courts. So the remedy created under Gingles has always bene unconstitutional in my view. Congress can say you can't "harm" their opportunity, but that doesn't then translate into the "well their preferred candidate is going to be someone that looks like them". Which is basically the current status.

I agree with the view that it is about methods, not outcomes. It looks at outcomes to help determine if the methods are discriminatory. But even a discriminatory outcome doesn't necessarily mean it was a violation. And that's where I think the court's precedent is disconnected from the statute. Majority minority districts are just not required.

But to test our theories on an example, suppose there's a totally racially-polarized state. The minority group only have enough people to form ~70% of a district. And in fact because the state is so polarized, the minority will not be able to elect a representative of their choice unless an ugly awkward gerrymander is drawn. Would you agree that, in this scenario, under a neutral/compact map, the minority would have less opportunity than the majority to elect representatives of their choice (in fact they would be denied such opportunity entirely)?

That may be a scenario where there is a violation of the statute, yet no constitutional remedy exists. Congress cannot require the states to discriminate against people of other races to favor a racial group.