Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

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

11 

KAGAN, J., concurring 

testimony  and  other  evidence  went  toward  establishing 
the  effects  of  rampant  packing  and  cracking  on  the  value
of  individual  citizens’  votes.  Even  their  proof  of  partisan
asymmetry was used for that purpose—although as noted 
above,  it  could  easily  have  supported  the  alternative  the- 
ory of associational harm, see supra, at 10.  The plaintiffs
joining  in  this  suit  do  not  include  the  State  Democratic 
Party  (or  any  related  statewide  organization).    They  did
not  emphasize  their  membership  in  that  party,  or  their
activities  supporting  it.    And  they  did  not  speak  to  any
tangible  associational  burdens—ways  the  gerrymander 
had debilitated their party or weakened its ability to carry 
out  its  core  functions  and  purposes,  see  supra,  at  8–9. 
Even  in  this  Court,  when  disputing  the  State’s  argument 
that  they  lacked  standing,  the  plaintiffs  reiterated  their 
suit’s  core  theory:  that  the  gerrymander  “intentionally, 
severely,  durably,  and  unjustifiably  dilutes  Democratic
votes.”  Brief for Appellees 29–30.  Given that theory, the
plaintiffs needed to show that their own votes were indeed 
diluted in order to establish standing. 

But  nothing  in  the  Court’s  opinion  prevents  the  plain­
tiffs  on  remand  from  pursuing  an  associational  claim,  or 
from  satisfying  the  different  standing  requirement  that
theory  would  entail.    The  Court’s  opinion  is  about  a  suit 
challenging  a  partisan  gerrymander  on  a  particular
ground—that  it  dilutes  the  votes  of  individual  citizens. 
That  opinion  “leave[s]  for  another  day  consideration  of 
other  possible  theories  of  harm  not  presented  here  and
whether  those  theories  might  present  justiciable  claims
giving  rise  to  statewide  remedies.”  Ante,  at  16.  And  in 
particular,  it  leaves  for  another  day  the  theory  of  harm 
advanced  by  JUSTICE  KENNEDY  in  Vieth:  that  a  partisan 
gerrymander interferes with the vital “ability of citizens to 
band together” to further their political beliefs.  541 U. S., 
at 314 (quoting California Democratic Party, 530 U. S., at 
574).  Nothing  about  that  injury  is  “generalized”  or  “ab­