>I guess dems should sit on their hands

Maryland, Illinois, Nevada.

In NY, they probably could have gotten away with a less aggressive one.

Edit: Someone asked if they actually would have gotten away with a less aggressive gerrymander.

This is a good question. It's my opinion, obviously, but let me explain my thinking.

1. Democrats blatantly failed to follow IRC procedures. That counted against them in the final decision. Specifically, there are guidelines on what to do if there is an impasse in the IRC, including deadlines etc. Democrats just jumped straight into forcing a new map through the legislature.

2. The original court decision basically told them this and said "fix this map by this date, and do it properly" and the Democrats just... ignored the court. The theory is that they thought they could run out the clock and the court would be forced to let them use the map they picked (this happened in Ohio for Republicans, but they didn't blatantly ignore the court). Ignoring the judiciary is also a point against you.

3. One judge only dissented in part. He basically outlines what Democrats should have done, which is pass their original IRC map. I want to highlight this because the map Democrats presented to the IRC is not what the legislature passed. The judge points out that there were big commonalities between the Republican IRC map and the Democratic one, especially regarding upstate. Some of the blatant gerrymandering was packing upstate votes.

4. Less specific, but I think if they passed the original IRC map, Republicans would have a more difficult time showing a gerrymander. According to 538, the result is +1 Democratic seats, -2 Republican seats, and while there are some gerrymanders, it is less obvious. In contrast, the Democratic gerrymander is +2 Democratic seats, -3 Republican seats.