So I’ve got a question for you legal scholars. If it’s unconstitutional does that mean the people behind it broke laws or is this simply the court citing why the map was rejected?
And even though in the US such cases are often addressed to a single official, they ate sued in their professional capability. That means their legal bills, and any monetary judgements, are paid by the government.
All that doesn't preclude voters to draw their own conclusions. But you would have to look at every case individually: this case is pretty obvious, and it fits well with the existing narrative of the Republican party cutting corners to subvert basic mechanisms of democracy. But even actions that are well-intentioned and completely benign in their effects will occasionally be struck down by the courts when, for example, they are enacted by an agency when the courts believe legislative action is required.