Except here in PA (not mentioned in that article), the SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge to the 2018 decision by the State Supreme Court related to the gerrymandering done in the past.
I.e., the requirement in the State Constitution being that legislative districts (state and federal) had to be "compact and contiguous", and when looking at the 2010 Congressional map, it was anything but. That particular map wasn't really challenged back when the lines were finalized in 2011 because the GOP had a trifecta (all branches in majority).
It was finally challenged "for real" in late 2017 (with both Executive and Judicial branches now majority Democratic), and not only did the PA State Supreme Court get involved, but they ended up redrawing the map (the one that is currently in effect).
They just did it again for the 2020 redistricting by essentially accepting what was their "old map" with the least amount of change to it (the one submitted by Eric Holder's NDRC represented by Marc Elias), which only needed enough of a tweak to adjust it for PA's loss of a Congressional seat.
What is also not mentioned is that article is that here in PA, we have elected members of the state Supreme Court and as of last year's election, we have maintained a 5(D) - R(2) advantage, with one (D) seat that will be up this fall when the current (D) Chief Justice turns 75. The others will be there with the earliest retention elections for them coming up in 2025. So even if the Chief Justice's slot gets replaced with a (R), Democrats would still have a 4(D) - 3(R) majority. IIRC, his term is up this December (2022) and I believe that the governor can appoint a replacement (of the same party - might be his last act since Wolf is a lame duck) to fill out the slot (but that person needs to be confirmed, which I expect the loons will balk at), but that individual can run for the full term at the next election.
What the GOP here has now started doing is to change the state Constitution by ramming through the changes (the process require doing such over 2 consecutive legislative sessions and their changes do not require a governor's signature) and then finishing it off with bizarrely-worded Ballot Questions that are added to Primary Election ballots (when the fewest number of people are voting) in order to trick the electorate into making the draconian changes.
= new reply since forum marked as read