Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 34

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

29 

Opinion of the Court 

ence  gives  content  to  terms  such  as  “substantial  risk”  or 
“substantial  harm,”  but  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  sub-
stantial deviation from a median map.  There is no way to
tell  whether  the  prohibited  deviation  from  that  map 
should  kick  in  at  25  percent  or  75  percent  or  some  other 
point.  The only provision in the Constitution that specifi-
cally  addresses  the  matter  assigns  it  to  the  political
branches.  See Art. I, §4, cl. 1. 

D 

The  North  Carolina  District  Court  further  concluded 
that  the  2016  Plan  violated  the  Elections  Clause  and 
Article I, §2.  We are unconvinced by that novel approach. 
Article  I,  §2,  provides  that  “[t]he  House  of  Representa-
tives  shall  be  composed  of  Members  chosen  every  second 
Year  by  the  People  of  the  several  States.”    The  Elections 
Clause  provides  that  “[t]he  Times,  Places  and  Manner  of
holding  Elections  for  Senators  and  Representatives,  shall
be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but
the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” 
Art. I, §4, cl. 1.

The District Court concluded that the 2016 Plan exceeded 
the  North  Carolina  General  Assembly’s  Elections  Clause
authority  because,  among  other  reasons,  “the  Elections
Clause did not empower State legislatures to disfavor the 
interests  of  supporters  of  a  particular  candidate  or  party 
in  drawing  congressional  districts.”  318  F. Supp.  3d,  at 
937.  The court further held that partisan gerrymandering 
infringes  the  right  of  “the  People”  to  select  their  repre-
sentatives.  Id.,  at  938–940.    Before  the  District  Court’s 
decision,  no  court  had  reached  a  similar  conclusion.   In 
fact,  the  plurality  in  Vieth  concluded—without  objection
from any other Justice—that neither §2 nor §4 of Article I 
“provides  a  judicially  enforceable  limit  on  the  political
considerations that the States and Congress may take into