Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 68

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

29 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

not so.  The plaintiffs objected to one specific practice—the 
extreme  manipulation  of  district  lines  for  partisan  gain.
Elimination of that practice could have led to proportional
representation.  Or  it  could  have  led  to  nothing  close.
What was left after the practice’s removal could have been 
fair,  or  could  have  been  unfair,  by  any  number  of 
measures.  That was not the crux of this suit.  The plain-
tiffs  asked  only  that  the  courts  bar  politicians  from  en-
trenching  themselves  in  power  by  diluting  the  votes  of
their rivals’ supporters.  And the courts, using neutral and 
manageable—and  eminently  legal—standards,  provided
that  (and  only  that)  relief.  This  Court  should  have 
cheered,  not  overturned,  that  restoration  of  the  people’s 
power to vote. 

III 
This  Court  has  long  understood  that  it  has  a  special
responsibility to remedy violations of constitutional rights 
resulting  from  politicians’  districting  decisions.    Over  50 
years  ago,  we  committed  to  providing  judicial  review  in 
that sphere, recognizing as we established the one-person-
one-vote rule that “our oath and our office require no less.” 
Reynolds,  377  U. S.,  at  566.    Of  course,  our  oath  and  our 
office require us to vindicate all constitutional rights.  But 
the  need  for  judicial  review  is  at  its  most  urgent  in  cases 
like  these.    “For  here,  politicians’  incentives  conflict  with
voters’  interests,  leaving  citizens  without  any  political 
remedy for their constitutional harms.”  Gill, 585 U. S., at 
___ (KAGAN, J., concurring) (slip op., at 14).  Those harms 
arise because politicians want to stay in office.  No one can 
look to them for effective relief. 

The  majority  disagrees,  concluding  its  opinion  with  a 
paean  to  congressional  bills  limiting  partisan  gerryman-
ders.  “Dozens  of  [those]  bills  have  been  introduced,”  the 
majority says.  Ante, at 33.  One was “introduced in 2005 
and has been reintroduced in every Congress since.”  Ibid.