Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 52

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

13 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

policy  objectives”).  In  both  those  ways,  partisan  gerry-
manders  of  the  kind  we  confront  here  undermine  the 
protections  of  “democracy  embodied  in  the  First  Amend-
ment.”  Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 357 (1976) (internal 
quotation marks omitted). 

Though  different  Justices  have  described  the  constitu-
tional harm in diverse ways, nearly all have agreed on this
much: Extreme partisan gerrymandering (as happened in
North  Carolina  and  Maryland)  violates  the  Constitution. 
See, e.g., Vieth, 541 U. S., at 293 (plurality opinion) (“[A]n 
excessive  injection  of  politics  [in  districting]  is  unlawful” 
(emphasis  deleted));  id.,  at  316  (opinion  of  Kennedy,  J.) 
(“[P]artisan  gerrymandering  that  disfavors  one  party  is 
[im]permissible”);  id.,  at  362  (BREYER,  J.,  dissenting) 
(Gerrymandering  causing  political  “entrenchment”  is  a 
“violat[ion  of] 
the  Constitution’s  Equal  Protection 
Clause”);  Davis  v.  Bandemer,  478  U. S.  109,  132  (1986) 
(plurality  opinion)  (“[U]nconstitutional  discrimination” 
occurs “when the electoral system is arranged in a manner 
that  will  consistently  degrade  [a  voter’s]  influence  on  the 
political  process”);  id.,  at  165  (Powell,  J.,  concurring)
(“Unconstitutional  gerrymandering”  occurs  when  “the 
boundaries  of  the  voting  districts  have  been  distorted 
deliberately” to deprive voters of “an equal opportunity to 
participate  in  the  State’s  legislative  processes”).    Once 
again,  the  majority  never  disagrees;  it  appears  to  accept 
the “principle that each person must have an equal say in 
the election of representatives.”  Ante, at 20.  And indeed, 
without  this  settled  and  shared  understanding  that  cases 
like  these  inflict  constitutional  injury,  the  question  of
whether  there  are  judicially  manageable  standards  for 
resolving them would never come up. 

II 
So the only way to understand the majority’s opinion is 
as  follows:  In  the  face  of  grievous  harm  to  democratic