But in all of these cases, there were Republican-leaning alternatives of seemingly comparable merit. Collectively, it’s a pattern of augmenting Democratic strength, inching the statewide map closer to partisan parity.

This does not necessarily mean the map amounts to a “Democratic gerrymander,” as some have suggested. Over all, it admirably adheres to traditional nonpartisan redistricting criteria, like compactness and the avoidance of unnecessary county splits. But the map makes Democratic-tilting choices so consistently that it is hard not to wonder whether it was part of an intentional effort to achieve partisan balance in a state that is fairly evenly divided.

It would be somewhat surprising, at least to me, if the court drew this map without that goal in mind. Nathaniel Persily, the Stanford professor who helped draw the map, has been barred by the court from discussing it.

A series of pro-Democratic choices would be necessary to create statewide partisan balance, since lopsided winning margins in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh put Democrats at a considerable disadvantage in translating their votes to seats statewide. In fact, the new map still slightly advantages the Republicans with respect to the statewide popular vote.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise if the court strove for partisan symmetry in the context of a partisan gerrymandering case. But the court order did not say that the maps should strive for partisan balance, and it seems that’s the reason Democrats did not strive for it, either.

Michael McDonald, an associate professor at the University of Florida, suggests Democrats held back from greater ambition in part because they were protecting incumbents. But there was only one plausibly vulnerable Democratic incumbent to protect, Matt Cartwright, and there is little reason to believe the effort to protect him weakened the Democratic proposals.

Mr. Cartwright’s new district voted for President Trump by 10 points; in the Democratic proposals, the district voted for Mr. Trump by an average of nine points. Just as important, even a concerted effort to protect him would have little effect on the overall statewide map. It would be enough to flip the old 15th District from Mr. Trump to Hillary Clinton (going by 2016 results) but no more. And it wouldn’t flip the 15th District in the other contests where Democrats generally fared better, like the 2012 presidential election.