Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 43

4 

RUCHO v. COMMON CAUSE 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

precinct-level  election  results  selected  to  predict 
voting behavior, Hofeller drew district lines to min-
imize  Democrats’  voting  strength  and  ensure  the 
election of 10 Republican Congressmen.  See Com-
mon Cause v. Rucho, 318 F. Supp. 3d 777, 805–806 
(MDNC 2018). 

  Lewis  then  presented  for  the  redistricting  commit-
tee’s (retroactive) approval a list of the criteria Ho-
feller  had  employed—including  one  labeled  “Parti-
san  Advantage.”    That  criterion,  endorsed  by  a
party-line  vote,  stated  that  the  committee  would
make  all  “reasonable  efforts  to  construct  districts” 
to  “maintain  the  current  [10–3]  partisan  makeup”
of the State’s congressional delegation.  Id., at 807. 

  Lewis explained the Partisan Advantage criterion to 
legislators  as  follows:  We  are  “draw[ing]  the  maps 
to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and 
3 Democrats because [I] d[o] not believe it[’s] possi-
ble to draw a map with 11 Republicans and 2 Dem-
ocrats.” 
Id.,  at  808  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted). 

  The committee and the General Assembly later en-
acted, again on a party-line vote, the map Hofeller 
had drawn.  See id., at 809. 

  Lewis  announced:  “I  think  electing  Republicans  is
better than electing Democrats.  So I drew this map 
to  help  foster  what  I  think  is  better  for  the  coun-
try.”  Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

You  might  think  that  judgment  best  left  to  the  American
people.  But give Lewis credit for this much: The map has 
worked just as he planned and predicted.  In 2016, Repub-