Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

gerrymandering  claims  are  really  so  hamstrung—so  un-
able to carry out their constitutional duties—as the major-
ity thinks. 

A 
The plaintiffs here challenge two congressional district-
ing plans—one adopted by Republicans in North Carolina 
and  the  other  by  Democrats  in  Maryland—as  unconstitu-
tional partisan gerrymanders.  As I relate what happened 
in  those  two  States,  ask  yourself:  Is  this  how  American 
democracy is supposed to work?

Start  with  North  Carolina.    After  the  2010  census,  the 
North Carolina General Assembly, with Republican major-
ities in both its House and its Senate, enacted a new con-
gressional  districting  plan.    That  plan  governed  the  two
next  national  elections.    In  2012,  Republican  candidates
won 9 of the State’s 13 seats in the U. S. House of Repre-
sentatives,  although  they  received  only  49%  of  the 
statewide vote.  In 2014, Republican candidates increased 
their total to 10 of the 13 seats, this time based on 55% of 
the  vote.  Soon  afterward,  a  District  Court  struck  down 
two  districts  in  the  plan  as  unconstitutional  racial  gerry-
manders.  See  Harris  v.  McCrory,  159  F. Supp.  3d  600 
(MDNC  2016),  aff ’d  sub nom.  Cooper  v.  Harris,  581  U. S. 
___  (2017).   The  General  Assembly,  with  both  chambers
still  controlled  by  Republicans,  went  back  to  the  drawing 
board to craft the needed remedial state map.  And here is 
how the process unfolded: 

  The  Republican  co-chairs  of  the  Assembly’s  redis-
tricting  committee,  Rep.  David  Lewis  and  Sen. 
Robert  Rucho,  instructed  Dr.  Thomas  Hofeller,  a 
Republican  districting  specialist,  to  create  a  new 
map  that  would  maintain  the  10–3  composition  of 
the  State’s  congressional  delegation  come  what 
might.  Using sophisticated technological tools and