## Facts

- Wisconsin’s legislature consists of a state assembly and a state senate; the 99 assembly members are elected from single-member districts.
- State senators are also elected from single-member districts, drawn so that three assembly districts combine to form one senate district.
- The Wisconsin Constitution assigns the legislature responsibility for apportionment and redistricting after each census.
- After the 2010 census, a Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature enacted a new state assembly districting plan, Act 43, in 2011, and a Republican governor signed it into law.
- Following Act 43, Republicans won majorities in the Wisconsin Assembly in the 2012 and 2014 elections.
- In 2015, twelve Wisconsin voters who identified as supporters of the Democratic Party sued state election officials responsible for administering elections, challenging Act 43 as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The voters alleged Act 43 intentionally favored Republicans by “cracking” Democratic voters (splitting them among districts to prevent majorities) and “packing” Democratic voters (concentrating them into a few districts with oversized margins).
- The voters claimed their harm was not limited to their own districts; they also claimed statewide harm to Democrats’ ability to elect their preferred candidates and to influence the legislature’s overall policymaking.
- The voters relied in part on statewide measures of partisan advantage, including the “efficiency gap” (a measure based on each party’s “wasted votes”), to argue Act 43 created a large and unnecessary Republican advantage.
- A three-judge federal district court held Act 43 unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause and ordered Wisconsin to adopt a new map.
- The state officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge Wisconsin’s statewide assembly map based on alleged statewide partisan disadvantage to Democratic voters.
2. Whether a partisan gerrymandering vote-dilution claim requires proof that specific plaintiffs suffered a concrete, particularized injury in their own districts (such as being packed or cracked).
3. Whether the scope of a requested remedy (statewide redrawing) must correspond to the plaintiffs’ proven, personal injuries.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held the plaintiffs had not demonstrated Article III standing on the record as presented because they did not prove a concrete and particularized injury to their own voting power in their own districts.
- The Court treated the asserted statewide harm to Democratic electoral fortunes and overall representation as a generalized interest, insufficient by itself to establish standing for these plaintiffs.
- The Court explained that vote-dilution injuries from districting are ordinarily district-specific: a voter must show that the voter’s own district line-drawing harmed the voter’s ability to participate on equal terms.
- The Court stated it expressed no view on the merits of the partisan gerrymandering claims and did not decide what substantive standard would apply.
- The case was remanded to allow plaintiffs an opportunity to prove standing with evidence tied to particular plaintiffs and particular districts.
- Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, concurred, agreeing standing was not shown but describing how plaintiffs might prove district-level injury and pursue First Amendment associational theories with proper proof.
- Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred in part and in the judgment, agreeing standing was absent but favoring dismissal for lack of jurisdiction rather than vacatur and remand.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may act only when plaintiffs show Article III standing, including a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability.
- In redistricting litigation alleging vote dilution, the injury generally depends on how the plaintiff’s own district is drawn; statewide partisan imbalance alone does not automatically establish a voter’s personal injury.
- A plaintiff must show a personal burden on the plaintiff’s voting rights, not merely an asserted interest in a party’s statewide success or the legislature’s overall partisan makeup.
- Statewide statistical measures (such as partisan asymmetry measures and the efficiency gap) may inform the merits, but they do not substitute for proof that identified plaintiffs were packed, cracked, or otherwise harmed in their districts.
- Standing and remedy are linked: a court’s remedy must address and likely redress the plaintiff’s proven personal injury; plaintiffs cannot obtain broad relief based solely on unproven or generalized harms.

## Conclusion

In *Gill v. Whitford*, the Supreme Court vacated a three-judge court’s ruling that Wisconsin’s Act 43 was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander because the Democratic-voter plaintiffs had not proven Article III standing through concrete, district-specific vote-dilution injuries, and the Court remanded to allow an opportunity to develop proof tied to particular plaintiffs and districts without reaching the merits.


Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018)