Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

8 

RUCHO v. COMMON CAUSE 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

And partisan gerrymandering can make it meaningless. 
At  its  most  extreme—as  in  North  Carolina  and  Mary-
land—the practice amounts to “rigging elections.”  Vieth v. 
Jubelirer,  541  U. S.  267,  317  (2004)  (Kennedy,  J.,  concur-
ring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted).  By
drawing  districts  to  maximize  the  power  of  some  voters
and minimize the power of others, a party in office at the 
right  time  can  entrench  itself  there  for  a  decade  or  more, 
no  matter  what  the  voters  would  prefer.    Just  ask  the 
people of North Carolina and Maryland.  The “core princi-
ple of republican government,” this Court has recognized,
is “that the voters should choose their representatives, not
the  other  way  around.”  Arizona  State  Legislature  v.  Ari-
zona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2015) (slip op., at 35) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Partisan  gerrymandering  turns  it  the  other  way  around.
By  that  mechanism,  politicians  can  cherry-pick  voters  to 
ensure their reelection.  And the power becomes, as Madi-
son put it, “in the Government over the people.”  4 Annals 
of Cong. 934.

The majority disputes none of this.  I think it important
to  underscore  that  fact:  The  majority  disputes  none  of 
what  I  have  said  (or  will  say)  about  how  gerrymanders 
undermine  democracy.    Indeed,  the  majority  concedes
(really, how could it not?) that gerrymandering is “incom-
patible  with  democratic  principles.”  Ante,  at  30  (quoting 
Arizona State Legislature, 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1)). 
And  therefore  what?  That  recognition  would  seem  to 
demand  a  response.  The  majority  offers  two  ideas  that
might  qualify  as  such.  One  is  that  the  political  process
can deal with the problem—a proposition so dubious on its
face  that  I  feel  secure  in  delaying  my  answer  for  some 
time.  See  ante,  at  31–33;  infra,  at  29–31.  The  other  is 
that  political  gerrymanders  have  always  been  with  us. 
See  ante,  at  8,  24.    To  its  credit,  the  majority  does  not 
frame that point as an originalist constitutional argument.