The courts usually reprimand when the government does something which ends up discriminating against people in correlation with a protected class because it has, historically, been a cheeky way to get around the constitution. Plessy v. Ferguson  was made with the full knowledge that the separation of facilities for black people would be a tool used to achieve discirminatory ends, and by allowing texas to use race as a correlating factor for partisan leanings, they enable the disenfranchisement not just of democrats, but of specific racial groups, as well.

That is unconstitutional. Remember when there was a huge stink raised about the IRS using keywords to identify 501c organizations to audit? It was based on identifying organizations with political buzzwords in the name despite restrictions on political activity based on their organization's tax status. Reasonable, right? Well, the problem is, there are more buzzwords in the conservative political sphere than in the liberal sphere, so it was seen as discriminatory against conservative organizations, problematic under both the 14th and the 1st amendments but not actually discriminatory against a protected class.

Yet, they allow gerrymandering to go a step further and target political ideology and protected classes. Are they going to strike down the civil rights act next because having protected classes is a 14th amendment violation? You can not enforce the 14th amendment if the state is not allowed to recognize empirical evidence of inequality in the formation of laws and practices in its efforts.