General Discussion

There's competing interests in what that means. Does it describe the racial demographics? Mississippi has a black population of roughly 38%. So should the state be divided to have 1.5 majority minority districts, or should it be divided so each district has roughly 38% percent of the population be black? And to what extent does putting that 38% into 1 district result in worse representation? Historically in order to be likely to elect a Democrat a southern district had to be at least close to 50% black. But that leaves all the other districts mostly white/Republican. But if today it's say 35-40% black that's required to elect a Democrat maybe less likely to elect a black Democrat, but instead of an automatic x/1 split, it's a x/2 or x/3 split where more Democrats overall get elected, that's a consideration.

Should it be the partisan political demographics so if the state is split 65/35 like Tennessee or Massachusetts should the districts reflect that split. Because neither state does.

Should the districts be divided by rural/urban areas to keep the districts alike in that regard.

What about creating competitive districts that would likely reduce the impact of the extreme edge of the Republican party and have an outsized positive impact on minorities even if less likely to give them representation that looks like them?

I'm not saying that representation that looks like someone isn't important, only that it's a calculation that is harder than it appears to just say make it resemble the racial demographics. Because you can divide things in different ways that result in different splits.