Gill v. Whitford

Background

A group of twelve Wisconsin Democratic voters sued state election officials after the 2010 census map known as Act 43. They said the legislature drew district lines to 'pack' and 'crack' Democrats so that Democratic votes converted into fewer legislative seats. The plaintiffs relied on a statewide measure called the 'efficiency gap' and offered a Demonstration Plan as an alternative. A three-judge District Court found the map unconstitutional and ordered a new plan, and the state officials appealed.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court focused on whether the voters had Article III standing to sue in federal court. The Court explained that the alleged harm—dilution of a voter’s power by packing or cracking—is district specific because each person votes in one district. Statewide measures like the efficiency gap show party-level effects, not whether any particular voter’s district was packed or cracked. The lead plaintiff admitted his heavily Democratic district was not harmed, and other plaintiffs had pleaded district injuries but failed to prove them. For lack of individualized proof, the Court found no standing.

Real world impact

The Court vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case so plaintiffs can try to prove concrete, district-level injuries. The decision does not resolve whether courts may strike partisan gerrymanders on the merits. It makes clear challengers must present evidence that specific voters live in packed or cracked districts; statewide partisan statistics alone do not establish standing.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kagan, joined by three Justices, agreed with remand and explained plaintiffs could prove standing with district-specific evidence such as neutral alternative maps and suggested a separate associational theory might support statewide claims. Justice Thomas would have dismissed the case for lack of standing rather than remand.