Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 9

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

The  case  proceeded  to  trial,  where  the  plaintiffs  pre­
sented  testimony  from  four  fact  witnesses.    The  first  was 
lead plaintiff William Whitford, a retired law professor at 
the  University  of  Wisconsin  in  Madison.    Whitford  testi­
fied  that  he  lives  in  Madison  in  the  76th  Assembly  Dis­
trict, and acknowledged on cross-examination that this is, 
under  any  plausible  circumstances,  a  heavily  Democratic 
district.    Under  Act  43,  the  Democratic  share  of  the  As­
sembly  vote  in  Whitford’s  district  is  81.9%;  under  the 
ideal  map—their  Demonstration  Plan—the 
plaintiffs’ 
projected Democratic share of the Assembly vote in Whit­
ford’s district would be 82%.  147 Record 35–36.  Whitford 
therefore  conceded  that  Act  43  had  not  “affected  [his]
ability  to  vote  for  and  elect  a  Democrat  in  [his]  district.” 
Id.,  at  37.  Whitford  testified  that  he  had  nevertheless 
suffered  a  harm  “relate[d]  to  [his]  ability  to  engage  in
campaign  activity  to  achieve  a  majority  in  the  Assembly
and the Senate.”  Ibid.  As he explained, “[t]he only practi­
cal  way  to  accomplish  my  policy  objectives  is  to  get  a 
majority of the Democrats in the Assembly and the Senate 
ideally in order to get the legislative product I prefer.”  Id., 
at 33. 

The plaintiffs also presented the testimony of legislative
aides  Adam  Foltz  and  Tad  Ottman,  as  well  as  that  of 
Professor  Ronald  Gaddie,  a  political  scientist  who  helped 
design the Act 43 districting map, regarding how that map 
was  designed  and  adopted.  In  particular,  Professor  Gad-
die testified about his creation of what he and the District 
Court called “S curves”: color-coded tables of the estimated 
partisan  skew  of  different  draft  redistricting  maps.    See 
218  F. Supp.  3d,  at  850,  858.    The  colors  corresponded 
with  assessments  regarding  whether  different  districts
tilted  Republican  or  Democratic  under  various  statewide
political  scenarios.  The  S  curve  for  the  map  that  was 
eventually  adopted  projected  that  “Republicans  would 
maintain  a  majority  under  any  likely  voting  scenario,”