Cite as: 602 U. S. ____ (2024) 3 THOMAS, J., concurring in part abandon our misguided efforts and leave districting to politicians. I Determining the proper shape of a district is a political question not suited to resolution by federal courts. The questions presented by districting claims are “ ‘nonjusticiable,’ or ‘political questions.’ ” Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267, 277 (2004) (plurality opinion). We have explained that a question is nonjusticiable when there is “ ‘a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving’ ” the issue or “ ‘a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.’ ” Id., at 277–278 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962)). In Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U. S. 684 (2019), we applied those principles to conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable. Partisan gerrymandering claims allege that a political map unduly favors one political party over another. We explained that partisan gerrymandering claims therefore present questions about how to “apportion political power as a matter of fairness,” despite the fact that “[t]here are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral.” Id., at 705, 707. We bolstered our conclusion by reference to “the Framers’ decision to entrust districting to political entities” in the Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1. Id., at 697, 701. Because courts “have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority,” we held that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable. Id., at 721. The same logic demonstrates that racial gerrymandering and vote dilution claims are also nonjusticiable. As with