Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 32

6 

GILL v. WHITFORD 

KAGAN, J., concurring 

joined)—now  can  introduce  evidence  that  their  individual
districts  were  packed  or  cracked.    And  if  the  plaintiffs’ 
more  general  charges  have  a  basis  in  fact,  that  evidence
may  well  be  at  hand.    Recall  that  the  plaintiffs  here  al­
leged—and  the  District  Court  found,  see  218  F. Supp.  3d 
837,  896  (WD  Wis.  2016)—that  a  unified  Republican  gov­
ernment set out to ensure that Republicans would control 
as  many  State  Assembly  seats  as  possible  over  a  decade
(five  consecutive  election  cycles).  To  that  end,  the  gov­
ernment  allegedly  packed  and  cracked  Democrats 
throughout the State, not just in a particular district (see, 
e.g., Benisek v. Lamone, No. 17–333) or region.  Assuming
that  is  true,  the  plaintiffs  should  have  a  mass  of  packing 
and  cracking  proof,  which  they  can  now  also  present  in
district-by-district  form  to  support  their  standing. 
In 
other  words,  a  plaintiff  residing  in  each  affected  district
can  show,  through  an  alternative  map  or  other  evidence, 
that packing or cracking indeed occurred there.  And if (or 
to  the  extent)  that  test  is  met,  the  court  can  proceed  to 
decide all distinctive merits issues and award appropriate 
remedies. 

When the court addresses those merits questions, it can
consider  statewide  (as  well  as  local)  evidence.    Of  course, 
the  court  below  and  others  like  it  are  currently  debating, 
without guidance from this Court, what elements make up
a  vote  dilution  claim  in  the  partisan  gerrymandering 
context.   But assume  that the plaintiffs must prove illicit 
partisan  intent—a  purpose  to  dilute  Democrats’  votes  in
drawing  district  lines.    The  plaintiffs  could  then  offer
evidence  about  the  mapmakers’  goals  in  formulating  the 
entire statewide map (which would predictably carry down 
to  individual  districting  decisions).    So,  for  example,  the 
plaintiffs  here  introduced  proof  that  the  mapmakers
looked  to  partisan  voting  data  when  drawing  districts 
throughout  the  State—and  that  they  graded  draft  maps
according  to  the  amount  of  advantage  those  maps  con­