DeSantis says a census redo could be in works amid state redistricting wars
Florida picked up an extra congressional seat after the last U.S. Census. DeSantis, however, has maintained that the census — which was largely conducted during the first Trump term with the results announced by President Joe Biden's administration — under-counted Florida, which he contends cost the state an additional House seat.
During remarks made at a Tampa roundtable on education, the governor said he was he 'told at the tail end of the [first] Trump administration that we were going to get at least two seats and so we were shocked when it came out.' DeSantis said he considered suing but ultimately decided against it. He said, however, he has had discussions with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and 'they agree that Florida did not get the population that it should have gotten.'
In his remarks he said 'I know they've considered doing another census,' and that if it's done that it would not include anyone who had entered the country illegally. The first Trump administration tried multiple times to find ways to exclude some immigrants from the 2020 apportionment count, but ultimately abandoned the idea after a U.S. Supreme Court loss and pandemic-related delays pushed the data release until after his term ended.
'I hope that they do redo the census, I think Florida would benefit if they redid the census. But even short of that I do think we are going to be looking at the pathways to be able do the redistricting here in Florida,' DeSantis said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Abbott threatens to remove Texas Democrats over walkout
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) threatened to remove Texas House Democrats from the legislature after they left the state on Sunday in a bid to stop Republicans from proceeding with a redistricting effort that would give the GOP five more opportunities to gain seats in the 2026 midterms. 'This truancy ends now. The derelict Democrat House members must return to Texas and be in attendance when the House reconvenes at 3:00 PM on Monday, August 4, 2025. For any member who fails to do so, I will invoke Texas Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0382 to remove the missing Democrats from membership in the Texas House,' Abbott wrote in a statement issued Sunday. The Texas Democrats said they were denying Republicans a quorum, or the minimum number of lawmakers needed present in order to conduct legislative business, following a similar tactic they employed the last time the GOP pursued midcycle redistricting effort in 2003. Most of them traveled to Illinois, New York and Massachusetts, all of which are Democratic-led states, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is supporting their effort. Abbott also said in his statement that any Democrat who receives funds 'to evade the fines they will incur under House rules' may be in violation of felony bribery charges. He made the same threat against those who offer or give funds to Democrats. Abbott pledged to use his 'full extradition authority to demand the return to Texas of any potential out-of-state felons.' 'Real Texans do not run from a fight. But that's exactly what most of the Texas House Democrats just did,' Abbott wrote in his statement. 'Rather than doing their job and voting on urgent legislation affecting the lives of all Texans, they have fled Texas to deprive the House of the quorum necessary to meet and conduct business.' Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a similar threat to 'Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards,' saying they 'should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.' 'We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law,' Paxton added, in a post on the social platform X.
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas' gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP
The brazen partisan redistricting underway in Texas, with Republicans attempting to entrench themselves in office and Democrats weighing a counter-offensive in blue states, was greenlit by the US Supreme Court six years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion for a 5-4 court, declared that federal judges could not review extreme partisan gerrymanders to determine if they violated constitutional rights. Roberts' opinion reversed cases that would have allowed such districts – drawn to advantage one political party over another irrespective of voters' interests – to be challenged as violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and association and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The justices split among the familiar ideological lines, with the five conservatives ruling against partisan gerrymanders and the four liberals dissenting. 'Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one,' dissenting justices warned in 2019, 'The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.' That decision in Rucho v. Common Cause has generated a new era of partisan rivalry with vast repercussions for American democracy. The decision resonates as profoundly as the Roberts Court's decision last year in Trump v. United States, which granted presidents substantial immunity from criminal prosecution (also delivered among partisan lines). Trump has taken the 2024 ruling as a blank check, tearing through democratic norms. The gerrymandering case also lifted a federal guardrail. Lawsuits challenging extreme partisan gerrymanders can still be brought before state court judges. But state laws vary widely in their protections for redistricting practices and state judges differ in their ability to police the thorny political process. Roberts may have failed to foresee the consequences in 2019 and then in 2024. Or, alternatively, perhaps he understood and simply believed the effects were not properly the concern of the federal judiciary. In his opinion, Roberts acknowledged the apparent unfairness of gerrymandered districts. 'Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,' he wrote. But, he said, 'the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles,' … does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.' The chief justice said no constitutional authority exists for judges to oversee the politics of redistricting, nor are there standards for their decisions, that is, to know when state lawmakers have gone too far in what is an inherently political process. Roberts wrote: ''How much is too much?' At what point does permissible partisanship become unconstitutional?' The current redistricting controversy arises from Trump's pressure on fellow Republicans to generate as many GOP-controlled districts as possible before the 2026 midterm elections for the US House of Representatives. Right now, the focus is on Texas where legislators broke from the usual cycle of post-census redistricting that happens every 10 years and suddenly proposed a new map intended to push several Democrats out of office and buttress the chances that Republicans keep their majority, now hanging by a thread, in Congress. The audacious Texas effort has prompted liberals to consider a counterattack in Democratic-controlled states such as California to create new maps that could boost their numbers. But politicians' effort to draw lines to their advantage have never been free of controversy. The paired cases before the justices six years ago involved extreme gerrymanders by Republicans in North Carolina and by Democrats in Maryland. Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote was crucial. A year earlier, Kavanaugh had succeeded Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had previously left the door open to federal court challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Justice Elena Kagan, taking the lead for dissenters, insisted workable standards existed and had been used by lower US court judges. 'For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation,' she wrote, pointing up the stakes. 'The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives,' Kagan added. She was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who remains on the bench, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020, and Stephen Breyer, who retired in 2022. Echoing a line from redistricting precedent that appears apt as Texas legislators divide voters for predetermined results, Kagan wrote that a core principle of government is 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.'
CNBC
12 minutes ago
- CNBC
Fmr. Acting Labor Secretary: Firing of BLS head puts the integrity of our statistical system at risk
Seth Harris, former Acting Labor Secretary under President Obama, and Mick Mulvaney, former White House chief of staff under President Trump, join 'Squawk Box' to discuss President Trump's firing of the head of Bureau of Labor Statistics.
