@tc_morekindness If the court based its argument for its authority on the idea that the state has a proportional election system, when we both agree that it doesn't, then it was factually wrong.

It seems like you're agreeing about the facts of the case, but really don't want to accept the implication that the old court getting the facts wrong means that the ruling was in error and therefore cannot legally stand.

But again, we don't even have to go that far. If it's true that the state has a proportional election system, then the court cannot have ordered the resolution. It did to adjust districting without contradicting itself, so again, the ruling cannot stand legally.

Any path taken to try to get around the fact that the state does not have a proportional election system leads to a dead end. That fact simply can't be waived away, and again, I stress that it's a fact we both agree on.