I thought about such a restriction, and now I think the "extreme outlier" approach is better, as it gets closer to the actual goal. People controlling redistri

I thought about such a restriction, and now I think the "extreme outlier" approach is better, as it gets closer to the actual goal. People controlling redistricting will push back all the way, it's not surprising. If courts don't provide a remedy - and with current political structure in USA, courts behavior is depending on which party is long time in power - then theoretically the only reasonable approach would be rebellion, as people need to put in power those who'd redistrict for fair elections, and select judges who'd judge more objectively, and - more importantly - put mechanisms in place which would prevent a party, even the one long time in power, from changing this. That's usually a matter of constitution change, and there is push back, and there is matter of relative urgency - some things which should be there, aren't in a constitution for centuries, so more expedient approaches are needed.