Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Republicans  won  majorities  in  the  State  Assembly  in  the 
2012  and  2014  elections.    In  2012,  Republicans  won  60
Assembly seats with 48.6% of the two-party statewide vote 
for  Assembly  candidates.  In  2014,  Republicans  won  63 
Assembly  seats  with  52%  of  the  statewide  vote.    218 
F. Supp. 3d 837, 853 (WD Wis. 2016). 

In July 2015, twelve Wisconsin voters filed a complaint 
in  the  Western  District  of  Wisconsin  challenging  Act  43. 
The  plaintiffs  identified  themselves  as  “supporters  of  the 
public  policies  espoused  by  the  Democratic  Party  and  of
Democratic Party candidates.”  1 App. 32, Complaint ¶15.
They  alleged  that  Act  43  is  a  partisan  gerrymander  that 
“unfairly  favor[s]  Republican  voters  and  candidates,”  and 
that  it  does  so  by  “cracking”  and  “packing”  Democratic 
voters  around  Wisconsin.    Id.,  at  28–30,  ¶¶5–7.    As  they 
explained: 

“Cracking means dividing a party’s supporters among 
multiple districts so that they fall short of a majority
in each one.  Packing means concentrating one party’s
backers in a few districts that they win by overwhelm­
ing margins.”  Id., at 29, ¶5. 

Four  of  the  plaintiffs—Mary  Lynne  Donohue,  Wendy  Sue
Johnson,  Janet  Mitchell,  and  Jerome  Wallace—alleged 
that  they  lived  in  State  Assembly  districts  where  Demo­
crats  have  been  cracked  or  packed.    Id.,  at  34–36,  ¶¶20,
23, 24, 26; see id., at 50–53, ¶¶60–70 (describing packing 
and cracking in Assembly Districts 22, 26, 66, and 91).  All 
of  the  plaintiffs  also  alleged  that,  regardless  of  “whether
they  themselves  reside  in  a  district  that  has  been  packed
or cracked,” they have been “harmed by the manipulation 
of  district  boundaries”  because  Democrats  statewide  “do 
not have the same opportunity provided to Republicans to 
elect representatives of their choice to the Assembly.”  Id., 
at 33, ¶16.

The  plaintiffs  argued  that,  on  a  statewide  level,  the