Florida Supreme Court upholds DeSantis-backed congressional district maps
The court ruled July 17 in a 5-1 opinion that the Legislature couldn't have kept the old Congressional District 5 intact without drawing it based on racial motives, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
'We uphold our state's congressional districting plan, because the federal Equal Protection Clause prohibits the racially gerrymandered district that the plaintiffs demand,' Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz wrote for the majority.
A group of voting-rights groups, including Black Voters Matter and the League of Women Voters of Florida, had challenged the new districts. They claimed the new maps violated Florida's anti-gerrymandering Fair Districts Amendment passed by voters in 2010, which bars the Legislature from drawing maps that diminish the ability of minority groups to elect a representative of their choice.
Justice Charles Canady recused himself from the case. He gave no reason but his wife Jennifer Canady is a Republican state House member, in line to become speaker of that chamber, who voted for the maps.
The old district was held by former U.S. Rep. Al Lawson, a Black Democrat from Tallahassee. The shape of the district was the result of a previous redistricting challenge, which resulted in the Florida Supreme Court essentially ordering the district in a 2016 ruling.
After the new maps were enacted Lawson ran in the district that encompassed Tallahassee, which stretched west to Panama City. He lost to incumbent U.S. Rep. Neil Dunn, a Panama City Republican.
"Let's be honest - this was Ron DeSantis's map, and every single justice who upheld it was appointed by him," Lawson said in a released statement. "These partisan judges owe their jobs to Ron DeSantis, and they continue to rubber-stamp whatever he wants. This isn't justice - it's political loyalty in robes."
In the latest decision, Muñiz stated the court erred in its previous decision: 'In fairness, we acknowledge our Court's role in leading the trial court astray,' he wrote.
But the change came after Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed five of the members of the state Supreme Court. The court in 2016 had a 5-2 liberal majority, but that has turned into a 6-1 conservative swing after DeSantis' appointments.
DeSantis was also behind the Legislature's drawing of the new districts.
The GOP-led Legislature originally passed a plan in 2022 with a backup set of maps in case the courts required them to redraw the old CD 5. But DeSantis vetoed that move and essentially ordered them to draw them without the Tallahassee-Jacksonville district.
"This was always the constitutionally correct map — and now both the federal courts and the FL Supreme Court have upheld it," DeSantis posted on X on July 17.
Justice Jorge Labarga dissented in the latest opinion, saying the case should have been sent back to a trial court.
The decision resolves one outstanding legal challenge to Florida's congressional maps, but another one is pending. Cubanos Pa'Lante, a progressive Cuban-American group, has sued in federal court over CD 26 in South Florida.
Gray Rohrer is a reporter with the USA TODAY Network-Florida Capital Bureau. He can be reached at grohrer@gannett.com. Follow him on X: @GrayRohrer.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: DeSantis-era court affirms GOP-drawn Florida congressional districts
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent
Columbia University's $200 million agreement with President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government "assault" on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme." - Federal oversight - The deal goes beyond addressing anti-Semitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions "represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy," said Pozen. "What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society," he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal "signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them." In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the "administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit." Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that "in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating." - 'First round' - Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a "template for other universities around the country." On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted "there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies" but were "priorities of the federal administration." Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities "has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history." While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be "weaponized" and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: "Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more." "There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round," he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for "major research universities to hold the line" compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and "fight back," including in the courts. "Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do," he said. "This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together." aks/wd
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries
As President Donald Trump unveiled a blitz of new tariffs across different countries on Thursday, the markets remained largely unfazed by the move. What Happened: On Thursday, in a post on X, The Kobeissi Letter highlighted the market's muted response to Trump's sweeping new moves on the trade and tariff front. The post notes that Trump 'randomly' increased tariffs on Canada, the largest trading partner of the United States, from 25% to 35%. Followed by a string of new tariffs on others, such as 'Vietnam, Switzerland, South Africa, Taiwan, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, and Venezuela.' Trending: 7,000+ investors have joined Timeplast's mission to eliminate microplastics—now it's your turn to Yet, the market response was underwhelming, with S&P 500 futures 'down a mere 10 points,' which the post attributes almost entirely to 'Amazon's weak earnings results.' It says that in April, when the 'Liberation Day' tariffs were first announced, such a move would have sent the S&P 500 lower by 3% or more. The post says 'the trade war has lost all credibility' in the market, and that it has lost the 'shock effect' that it had a couple of months ago. Why It Matters: This could be seen as a fallout of the 'TACO Trade' meme, or 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' where investors buy equities right after Trump makes a tariff threat, knowing fully well that he will eventually back out. Economist Peter Schiff recently called this 'a classic paradox,' since markets not reacting to Trump's tariffs, because they expect him to 'chicken out,' will eventually lead him to follow through on his threats. 'Investors assume Trump will cancel the August 1 tariffs before they kick in, so stocks aren't selling off,' he says, but since there isn't a dramatic market response to this, 'Trump won't chicken out again.' Read Next: $100k+ in investable assets? Match with a fiduciary advisor for free to learn how you can maximize your retirement and save on taxes – no cost, no obligation. Bezos' Favorite Real Estate Platform Launches A Way To Ride The Ongoing Private Credit Boom Photo courtesy: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article 'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries originally appeared on
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collision
By David Shepardson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday it is planning additional helicopter route changes near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after the January 29 mid-air collision of an American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter that killed 67 people. FAA official Nick Fuller said at a National Transportation Safety Board investigative hearing that an agency work group is planning changes on a key helicopter route near Reagan after imposing permanent restrictions on non-essential helicopter operations in March and further restricting where they could operate in June. NTSB officials at the hearing expressed concerns about a "disconnect" between front-line air traffic controllers and agency leaders and raised other questions about FAA actions before the fatal collision, including why earlier reports of close call incidents did not prompt safety improvements. Board members have also raised concerns about the failure of the FAA to turn over documents in a timely fashion during the investigation of the January collision. The NTSB received details on staffing levels at the time of the January 29 crash "after considerable confusion and a series of corrections and updates from the FAA," a board report said. The hearing has run more than 30 hours over three days and raised a series of troubling questions, including about the failure of the primary controller on duty to issue an alert to the American regional jet and the actions of an assistant controller who was supposed to assist the primary controller. "That did not occur and we're trying to understand why. And no one has been able to tell us what the individual was doing during that time," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said. Homendy said earlier this week the FAA had ignored warnings about serious safety issues. "Every sign was there that there was a safety risk, and the tower was telling you," Homendy said. "You transferred people out instead of taking ownership over the fact that everybody in FAA in the tower was saying there was a problem ... Fix it. Do better." FAA officials at the hearing vowed to work more collaboratively and address concerns. Senator Tim Kaine on Friday also cited concerns raised by an FAA manager about the volume of flights at the airport before the collision and the decision by Congress last year to add five additional daily flights to Reagan. "Congress must act to reduce dangerous congestion by removing flights into and out of (Reagan National)," Kaine said.
