Would SCOTUS scrap HR1 if enacted into law?

[I’m not Stu]

Yes, SCOTUS would completely scrap HR1. This SCOTUS also thinks this map of Alabama I made is legal.

AL-01: Jerry Carl (safe R)
AL-02: Barry Moore (safe R)
AL-03: Robert Aderholt (safe R)
AL-04: Gary Palmer (safe R)
AL-05: Mike Rogers (safe R)
AL-06: OPEN (safe R)
AL-07: Mo Brooks (safe R)

[I’m not Stu]

Forget HR1, the current SCOTUS has five justices who believe Section 2 of the VRA can't even be used to challenge racial gerrymanders, although such a case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet.

[I’m not Stu]

The redistricting provisions probably , the other parts id say probably not

For state legislative seats and local government districts, I agree, but why would regulating US House districts be a constitutional problem?  Those are federal elections.  For example, there is an existing federal law requiring that states draw single member districts.  Is that constitutional?

HR 1 still requires states to establish the independent redistricting commissions, which is iffy on anti-commandeering grounds.

I feel like that'd be a bit of a stretch (though maybe not for this Court), wouldn't all federal election reform that ever required anything of the states (e.g., UOCAVA) be unconstitutional were that logic to be extended in such a fashion?

Yes, they would all be unconstitutional under that logic. Under that logic, Alabama can have a 7R-0D House map.