Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 31

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

5 

KAGAN, J., concurring 

Curiae  12–14  (describing  computer  simulation  techniques 
for devising alternative maps).  For example, a Democratic 
plaintiff  living  in  a  75%-Democratic  district  could  prove
she  was  packed  by  presenting  a  different  map,  drawn 
without  a  focus  on  partisan  advantage,  that  would  place 
her in a 60%-Democratic district.  Or conversely, a Demo­
cratic plaintiff residing in a 35%-Democratic district could
prove she was cracked by offering an alternative, neutrally
drawn  map  putting  her  in  a  50–50  district.    The  precise
numbers  are  of  no  import.    The  point  is  that  the  plaintiff
can show, through drawing alternative district lines, that 
partisan-based packing or cracking diluted her vote. 

Here,  the  Court  is  right  that  the  plaintiffs  have  so  far 

failed  to  make  such  a  showing.    See  ante,  at  17–20.    Wil­
liam  Whitford  was  the  only  plaintiff  to  testify  at  trial
about  the  alleged  gerrymander’s  effects.  He  expressly 
acknowledged that his district would be materially identi­
cal  under  any  conceivable  map,  whether  or  not  drawn  to
achieve  partisan  advantage.    See  ante,  at  18,  20.    That 
means Wisconsin’s plan could not have diluted Whitford’s 
own  vote.  So  whatever  other  claims  he  might  have,  see 
infra, at 8–9, Whitford is not “among the injured” in a vote 
dilution  challenge.  Lujan,  504  U. S.,  at  563  (quoting 
Sierra  Club,  405  U. S.,  at  735).    Four  other  plaintiffs
differed  from  Whitford  by  alleging  in  the  complaint  that
they lived in packed or cracked districts.  But for whatever 
reason,  they  failed  to  back  up  those  allegations  with  evi­
dence as the suit proceeded.  See ante, at 17.  So they too
did  not  show  the  injury—a  less  valuable  vote—central  to
their vote dilution theory.

That  problem,  however,  may  be  readily  fixable.  The 
Court properly remands this case to the District Court “so
that  the  plaintiffs  may  have  an  opportunity”  to  “demon­
strate  a  burden  on  their  individual  votes.”  Ante,  at  21. 
That  means  the  plaintiffs—both  the  four  who  initially
made  those  assertions  and  any  others  (current  or  newly