Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

intent” inquiry to determine whether race was, in fact, the
reason particular district boundaries were drawn the way 
they were.  If district lines were drawn for the purpose of
separating  racial  groups,  then  they  are  subject  to  strict
scrutiny because “race-based decisionmaking is inherently 
suspect.”  Miller, 515 U. S., at 915.  See Bush, 517 U. S., at 
959  (principal  opinion).    But  determining  that  lines  were
drawn  on  the  basis  of  partisanship  does  not  indicate  that 
the  districting  was  improper.  A  permissible  intent— 
securing  partisan  advantage—does  not  become  constitu-
tionally  impermissible,  like  racial  discrimination,  when
that permissible intent “predominates.” 

The District Court tried to limit the reach of its test by
requiring  plaintiffs  to  show,  in  addition  to  predominant
partisan  intent,  that  vote  dilution  “is  likely  to  persist”  to
such a degree that the elected representative will feel free
to  ignore  the  concerns  of  the  supporters  of  the  minority 
party.   318  F. Supp.  3d,  at  867.   But  “[t]o  allow  district 
courts to strike down apportionment plans on the basis of
their prognostications as to the outcome of future elections 
. . . invites ‘findings’ on matters as to which neither judges
nor anyone else can have any confidence.”  Bandemer, 478 
U. S.,  at  160  (opinion  of  O’Connor,  J.).    See  LULAC,  548 
U. S.,  at  420  (opinion  of  Kennedy,  J.)  (“[W]e  are  wary  of 
adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map 
based on unfair results that would occur in a hypothetical 
state  of  affairs.”).  And  the  test  adopted  by  the  Common 
Cause  court  requires  a  far  more  nuanced  prediction  than
simply  who  would  prevail  in  future  political  contests. 
Judges must forecast with unspecified certainty whether a
prospective winner will have a margin of victory sufficient 
to  permit  him  to  ignore  the  supporters  of  his  defeated
opponent  (whoever  that  may  turn  out  to  be).    Judges  not
only have to pick the winner—they have to beat the point 
spread.

The  appellees  assure  us  that  “the  persistence  of  a