Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 70

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

31 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

Ante,  at  31;  see  League  of  Women  Voters  of  Florida  v. 
Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363 (2015).  And indeed, the majority 
might  have  added,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania 
last year did the same thing.  See League of Women Voters, 
___  Pa.,  at  ___,  178  A.  3d,  at  818.    But  what  do  those 
courts know that this Court does not?  If they can develop
and  apply  neutral  and  manageable  standards  to  identify
unconstitutional gerrymanders, why couldn’t we?6 

We could have, and we should have.  The gerrymanders
here—and they are typical of many—violated the constitu-
tional  rights  of  many hundreds  of  thousands  of  American 
citizens.  Those  voters  (Republicans  in  the  one  case,  De-
mocrats in the other) did not have an equal opportunity to
participate in the political process.  Their votes counted for 
far  less  than  they  should  have  because  of  their  partisan 
affiliation.    When  faced  with  such  constitutional  wrongs, 
courts  must  intervene:  “It  is  emphatically  the  province
and  duty  of  the  judicial  department  to  say  what  the  law 
is.”  Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803).  That 
is what the courts below did.  Their decisions are worth a 
read.  They (and others that have recently remedied simi-
lar  violations)  are  detailed,  thorough,  painstaking.  They 
—————— 

6 Contrary  to  the  majority’s  suggestion,  state  courts  do  not  typically 
have  more  specific  “standards  and  guidance”  to  apply  than  federal 
courts  have.  Ante,  at  31.  The  Pennsylvania  Supreme  Court  based  its 
gerrymandering decision on a constitutional clause providing only that
“elections shall be free and equal” and no one shall “interfere to prevent 
the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”  League of Women Voters, ___ 
Pa.,  at  ___–___,  178  A.  3d,  at  803–804  (quoting  Pa.  Const.,  Art.  I,  §5). 
And even the Florida “Free Districts Amendment,” which the majority 
touts, says nothing more than that no districting plan “shall be drawn 
with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party.”  Fla. Const., Art. 
III,  §20(a).  If  the  majority  wants  the  kind  of  guidance  that  will  keep
courts  from  intervening  too  far  in  the  political  sphere,  see ante,  at  15, 
that Amendment does not provide it: The standard is in fact a good deal 
less  exacting  than  the  one  the  District  Courts  below  applied.    In  any 
event,  only  a  few  States  have  a  constitutional  provision  like  Florida’s, 
so the majority’s state-court solution does not go far.