Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-281_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 18

Cite as:  587 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

of a districting plan did not alter what the legislative body 
does, why would  there be  such  pitched  battles  over redis-
tricting efforts? 
  What the Court says on this point is striking.  According 
to the Court, “the House as an institution has no cogniza-
ble  interest  in  the  identity  of  its  members,”  and  thus 
suffers no injury from the imposition of a districting plan 
that  “may  affect  the  membership  of  the  chamber”  or  the 
“content  of  legislation  its  future  members  may  elect  to 
enact.”    Ante,  at  11,  and  n. 6 (emphasis deleted).    Really?  
It  seems  obvious  that  any  group  consisting  of  members 
who must work together to achieve the group’s aims has a 
keen interest in the identity of its members, and it follows 
that the group also has a strong interest in how its mem-
bers  are selected.    And  what  is  more  important  to  such  a 
group than the content of its work? 
  Apply  what  the  Court  says  to  a  group  other  than  a 
legislative  body  and  it  is  immediately  obvious  that  the 
Court is wrong.  Does a string quartet have an interest in 
the identity of its cellist?  Does a basketball team have an 
interest in the identity of its point guard?  Does a board of 
directors  have  an  interest  in  the  identity  of  its  chairper-
son?    Does  it  matter  to  these  groups  how  their  members 
are selected?  Do these groups care if the selection method 
affects their performance?  Of course. 
  The Virginia House of Delegates exists for a purpose: to 
represent  and  serve  the  interests  of  the  people  of  the 
Commonwealth.    The  way  in  which  its  members  are  se-
lected  has  a  powerful  effect  on  how  it  goes  about  this 
purpose1—a  proposition  reflected  by  the  Commonwealth’s 
choice to mandate certain districting criteria in its consti-

—————— 

1 The Court has not hesitated to recognize this link in other contexts.  
See, e.g., New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 
202  (2008);  Eu  v.  San  Francisco  County  Democratic  Central  Comm., 
489 U. S. 214, 229–230 (1989).