Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

at 905.  As to the third prong of its test, the District Court 
concluded  that  the  burdens  the  Act  43  map  imposed  on 
Democrats  could  not  be  explained  by  “legitimate  state 
prerogatives  [or]  neutral  factors.”  Id.,  at  911.    The  court 
recognized  that  “Wisconsin’s  political  geography,  particu­
larly the high concentration of Democratic voters in urban 
centers like Milwaukee and Madison, affords the Republi­
can Party a natural, but modest, advantage in the district­
ing  process,”  but  found  that  this  inherent  geographic 
disparity did not account for the magnitude of the Repub­
lican advantage.  Id., at 921, 924. 

Regarding  standing,  the  court  held  that  the  plaintiffs 
had  a  “cognizable  equal  protection  right  against  state-
imposed  barriers  on  [their]  ability  to  vote  effectively  for 
the party of [their] choice.”  Id., at 928.  It concluded that 
Act 43 “prevent[ed] Wisconsin Democrats from being able 
to translate their votes into seats as effectively as Wiscon­
sin  Republicans,”  and  that  “Wisconsin  Democrats,  there­
fore, have suffered a personal injury to their Equal Protec­
tion rights.”  Ibid.  The court turned away the defendants’ 
argument  that  the  plaintiffs’  injury  was  not  sufficiently 
particularized  by  finding  that  “[t]he  harm  that  the  plain­
tiffs  have  experienced  . . .  is  one  shared  by  Democratic
voters  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin.   The  dilution  of  their 
votes is both personal and acute.”  Id., at 930. 

Judge  Griesbach  dissented.  He  wrote  that,  under  this 
Court’s  existing  precedents,  “partisan  intent”  to  benefit
one  party  rather  than  the  other  in  districting  “is  not  ille­
gal, but is simply the consequence of assigning the task of 
redistricting  to  the  political  branches.”    Id.,  at  939.    He 
observed  that  the  plaintiffs  had  not  attempted  to  prove 
that  “specific  districts  . . .  had  been  gerrymandered,”  but
rather  had  “relied  on  statewide  data  and  calculations.” 
Ibid.  And he argued that the plaintiffs’ proof, resting as it 
did on statewide data, had “no relevance to any gerryman­
dering injury alleged by a voter in a single district.”  Id., at