Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 23

18 

RUCHO v. COMMON CAUSE 

Opinion of the Court 

cracking  so  that  supporters  of  the  disadvantaged  party
have  a  better  shot  at  electing  their  preferred  candidates.
But  making  as  many  districts  as  possible  more  competi-
tive  could  be  a  recipe  for  disaster  for  the  disadvantaged 
party.  As Justice White has pointed out, “[i]f all or most of 
the  districts  are  competitive  . . .  even  a  narrow  statewide 
preference  for  either  party  would  produce  an  overwhelm-
ing  majority  for  the  winning  party  in  the  state  legisla-
ture.”  Bandemer, 478 U. S., at 130 (plurality opinion).

On  the  other  hand,  perhaps  the  ultimate  objective  of  a 
“fairer”  share  of  seats  in  the  congressional  delegation  is 
most readily achieved by yielding to the gravitational pull 
of  proportionality  and  engaging  in  cracking  and  packing,
to ensure each party its “appropriate” share of “safe” seats. 
See  id.,  at  130–131  (“To  draw  district  lines  to  maximize 
the  representation  of  each  major  party  would  require
creating  as  many  safe  seats  for  each  party  as  the  demo-
graphic and predicted political characteristics of the State 
would permit.”);  Gaffney, 412 U. S., at 735–738.  Such an 
approach,  however,  comes  at  the  expense  of  competitive 
districts  and  of  individuals  in  districts  allocated  to  the 
opposing party.

Or  perhaps  fairness  should  be  measured  by  adherence
to  “traditional”  districting  criteria,  such  as  maintaining
political  subdivisions,  keeping  communities  of  interest 
together, and protecting incumbents.  See Brief for Bipar-
tisan Group of Current and Former Members of the House 
of  Representatives  as  Amici  Curiae;  Brief  for  Professor 
Wesley Pegden et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 18–422.  But 
protecting incumbents, for example, enshrines a particular
partisan  distribution.  And  the  “natural  political  geogra-
phy”  of  a  State—such  as  the  fact  that  urban  electoral 
districts  are  often  dominated  by  one  political  party—can
itself lead to inherently packed districts.  As Justice Ken-
nedy  has  explained,  traditional  criteria  such  as  compact-
ness  and  contiguity  “cannot  promise  political  neutrality