Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

18 

GILL v. WHITFORD 

Opinion of the Court 

First,  the  plaintiffs  presented  the testimony  of  the  lead
plaintiff,  Professor  Whitford.  But  Whitford’s  testimony
does not support any claim of packing or cracking of him­
self as a voter.  Indeed, Whitford expressly acknowledged
that Act 43 did not affect the weight of his vote.  147 Rec­
ord 37.  His testimony points merely to his hope of achiev­
ing  a  Democratic  majority  in  the  legislature—what  the 
plaintiffs  describe  here  as  their  shared  interest  in  the 
composition  of  “the  legislature  as  a  whole.”    Brief  for  Ap­
pellees  32.    Under  our  cases  to  date,  that  is  a  collective 
political interest, not an individual legal interest, and the
Court  must  be  cautious  that  it  does  not  become  “a  forum 
for generalized grievances.”  Lance, 549 U. S., at 439, 441. 
Second,  the  plaintiffs  provided  evidence  regarding  the
mapmakers’  deliberations  as  they  drew  district  lines.  As 
the  District  Court  recounted,  the  plaintiffs’  evidence 
showed  that  the  mapmakers  “test[ed]  the  partisan
makeup  and  performance  of  districts  as  they  might  be
configured  in  different  ways.”    218  F.  Supp.  3d,  at  891. 
Each  of  the  mapmakers’  alternative  configurations  came 
with  a  table  that  listed  the  number  of  “Safe”  and  “Lean” 
seats for each party, as well as “Swing” seats.  Ibid.  The 
mapmakers also labeled certain districts as ones in which
“GOP  seats  [would  be]  strengthened  a  lot,”  id.,  at  893;  2 
App.  344,  or  which  would  result  in  “Statistical  Pick  Ups”
for  Republicans.  218  F.  Supp.  3d,  at  893  (alterations 
omitted).  And they identified still other districts in which 
“GOP seats [would be] strengthened a little,” “weakened a
little,” or were “likely lost.”  Ibid. 

The District Court relied upon this evidence in conclud­
ing that, “from the outset of the redistricting process, the
drafters  sought  to  understand  the  partisan  effect  of  the 
maps they were drawing.”  Id., at 895.  That evidence may
well be pertinent with respect to any ultimate determina­
tion  whether  the  plaintiffs  may  prevail  in  their  claims
against  the  defendants,  assuming  such  claims  present  a