Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026) 25 Opinion of the Court Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.” Ibid. Thus, in considering the constitutionality of a districting scheme, courts must treat partisan advantage like any other race-neutral aim: a constitutionally permissible criterion that States may rely on as desired. For this reason, as we have repeatedly made clear, when a State defends a districting scheme on the ground that it was drawn for partisan purposes, plaintiffs have a “ ‘special’ ” burden to overcome. Alexander, 602 U. S., at 9 (quoting Cooper, 581 U. S., at 308). “To prevail,” the plaintiff “must ‘disentangle race from politics’ by proving ‘that the former drove a district’s lines.’ ” 602 U. S., at 9 (quoting Cooper, 581 U. S., at 308). “That means, among other things, ruling out the competing explanation that political considerations dominated the legislature’s redistricting efforts. If either politics or race could explain a district’s contours, the plaintiff has not cleared its bar.” 602 U. S., at 9– 10; see Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234, 258 (2001) (Cromartie II ) (rejecting a racial gerrymandering claim when the plaintiffs failed to show “that the legislature could have achieved its legitimate political objectives in alternative ways that are comparably consistent with traditional districting principles”). A plaintiff may carry its disentanglement burden by offering an alternative map that achieves all the State’s objectives—including partisan advantage and any of the State’s other political goals—at least as well as the State’s map. See Alexander, 602 U. S., at 10; Cromartie II, 532 U. S., at 258. Today, §2 litigants almost always have the wherewithal to proffer such a map if there is one to be found. See Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 607 U. S. ___ (2025) (holding that the lack of an alternative map merits a “dispositive or near-dispositive adverse inference” against a racial-gerrymandering plaintiff ); Alexander, 602 U. S., at 10 (“[A]ny plaintiff with a strong case