Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 8

4 

GILL v. WHITFORD 

Opinion of the Court 

degree  to  which  packing  and  cracking  has  favored  one 
party  over  another  can  be  measured  by  a  single  calcula­
tion: an “efficiency gap” that compares each party’s respec­
tive “wasted” votes across all legislative districts.  “Wasted” 
votes  are  those  cast  for  a  losing  candidate  or  for  a  win- 
ning  candidate  in  excess  of  what  that  candidate  needs 
to  win.  Id.,  at  28–29, ¶5.    The  plaintiffs  alleged  that  Act
43  resulted  in  an  unusually  large  efficiency  gap  that  fa­
vored Republicans.  Id., at 30, ¶7.  They also submitted a 
“Demonstration  Plan”  that,  they  asserted,  met  all  of  the
legal criteria for apportionment, but was at the same time 
“almost  perfectly  balanced  in  its  partisan  consequences.” 
Id.,  at  31,  ¶10.  They  argued  that  because  Act  43  gener- 
ated a large and unnecessary efficiency gap in favor of Re- 
publicans, it violated the First Amendment right of associ­
ation of Wisconsin Democratic voters and their Fourteenth 
Amendment  right  to  equal  protection.    The  plaintiffs
named  several  members  of  the  state  election  commission 
as defendants in the action.  Id., at 36, ¶¶28–30. 

The  election  officials  moved  to  dismiss  the  complaint.
They  argued,  among  other  things,  that  the  plaintiffs
lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of Act 43
as  a  whole  because,  as  individual  voters,  their  legally
protected interests extend only to the makeup of the legis­
lative districts in which they vote.  A three-judge panel of
the  District  Court,  see  28  U. S. C.  §2284(a),  denied  the 
defendants’  motion. 
In  the  District  Court’s  view,  the 
plaintiffs  “identif[ied]  their  injury  as  not  simply  their
inability  to  elect  a  representative  in  their  own  districts, 
but  also  their  reduced  opportunity  to  be  represented  by 
Democratic  legislators  across  the  state.”    Whitford  v. 
Nichol, 151 F. Supp. 3d 918, 924 (WD Wis. 2015).  It there­
fore  followed, 
in  the  District  Court’s  opinion,  that 
“[b]ecause  plaintiffs’  alleged  injury  in  this  case  relates  to 
their statewide representation, . . . they should be permit­
ted to bring a statewide claim.”  Id., at 926.