I want to avoid Rick Hasen's attribution to me of the view that Larios somehow implicitly overruled Vieth.  That was not my claim at all.  The claim is that Larios suggests partisan gerrymandering is an impermissible basis for state action, and that courts will address this where there is a managable remedy.  On that point, Larios can be viewed as clarifying an ambiguity in Vieth or confirming what is already stated in Vieth.  The plurality in Vieth, after all, expressly agrees with Stevens that "an excessive injection of politics is unlawful.  So it is, and so does our opinion assume."  To the extent summary affirmances are meaningful, and this one obviously involved more internal discussion than many, Larios confirms that partisan gerrymandering is a constitutional wrong and that Vieth is about the remedial problems only.