Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 8

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

gressional  candidates  had  received  more  votes  on  a 
statewide  basis  than  Republican  candidates.”    Ibid.    The  
General  Assembly  was  not  swayed  by  that  objection  and
approved the 2016 Plan by a party-line vote.  Id., at 809. 

In  November  2016,  North  Carolina  conducted  congres-
sional  elections  using  the  2016  Plan,  and  Republican
candidates won 10 of the 13 congressional districts.  Id., at 
810.  In  the  2018  elections,  Republican  candidates  won
nine  congressional  districts,  while  Democratic  candidates
won three.  The Republican candidate narrowly prevailed 
in the remaining district, but the State Board of Elections
called a new election after allegations of fraud.

This  litigation  began  in  August  2016,  when  the  North
Carolina  Democratic  Party,  Common  Cause  (a  nonprofit 
organization),  and  14  individual  North  Carolina  voters 
sued  the  two  lawmakers  who  had  led  the  redistricting
effort  and  other  state  defendants  in  Federal  District 
Court. Shortly thereafter, the League of Women Voters of
North  Carolina  and  a  dozen  additional  North  Carolina 
voters  filed  a  similar  complaint.  The  two  cases  were 
consolidated. 

intentionally  diluting 

The  plaintiffs  challenged  the  2016  Plan  on  multiple
constitutional  grounds.  First,  they  alleged  that  the  Plan
violated  the  Equal  Protection  Clause  of  the  Fourteenth 
the  electoral 
Amendment  by 
strength of Democratic voters.  Second, they claimed that 
the Plan violated their First Amendment rights by retali-
ating  against  supporters  of  Democratic  candidates  on  the 
basis  of  their  political  beliefs.  Third,  they  asserted  that 
the  Plan  usurped  the  right  of  “the  People”  to  elect  their
preferred  candidates  for  Congress,  in  violation  of  the 
requirement  in  Article  I,  §2,  of  the  Constitution  that
Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  be  chosen  “by 
the  People  of  the  several  States.”    Finally,  they  alleged
that  the  Plan  violated  the  Elections  Clause  by  exceeding
the  State’s  delegated  authority  to  prescribe  the  “Times,