Florida Supreme Court rejects constitutional challenge to state congressional map

Miami Herald

2 days ago

Three years after Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed a congressional redistricting plan through the Legislature, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge by voting-rights groups that argued part of the plan violated the state Constitution.
Justices, in a 5-1 decision, said an alternative requested by voting-rights groups for a North Florida district would violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because it would involve racial gerrymandering.
The case centered on Congressional District 5, which in the past stretched from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee, and elected Black Democrat Al Lawson. During the 2022 redistricting process, DeSantis argued that keeping such a district would be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and successfully pressured lawmakers to overhaul the district.
The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as DeSantis, saying there 'is no plausible, non-racial explanation for using a nearly 200-mile-long land bridge to connect the Black populations of Jacksonville and Tallahassee.'
The case involved the Equal Protection Clause and a 2010 state constitutional amendment, known as the Fair Districts Amendment, that prohibited drawing districts that would 'diminish' the ability of minorities to 'elect representatives of their choice' — what is often called the amendment's 'non-diminishment' clause.
The voting-rights groups argued that the District 5 overhaul violated that requirement because it effectively prevented Black voters in North Florida from electing a candidate of their choice. White Republicans won all North Florida congressional districts in 2022 after the plan was adopted.
But the Supreme Court's 48-page majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, said that in redistricting, the Legislature's 'obligation to comply with the non-diminishment clause was bounded by its superior obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause.'
'The Legislature's obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause is superior to its obligation to comply with the non-diminishment clause as interpreted by our court,' Muñiz wrote in the opinion joined by Justices John Couriel, Jamie Grosshans, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso. 'The plaintiffs did not prove the possibility of complying with both the non-diminishment clause and the Equal Protection Clause in North Florida. Therefore, they did not meet their burden to prove the invalidity of the enacted plan.'
Justice Jorge Labarga wrote a dissenting opinion that said the Supreme Court should have sent the case back to a circuit judge for a trial on the equal protection issue. He called the majority opinion 'highly consequential.'
'Although the majority conducts an as-applied equal protection analysis (of Congressional District 5), make no mistake — this decision lays the groundwork for future decisions that may render the non-diminishment clause practically ineffective or, worse, unenforceable as a matter of law,' Labarga wrote.
He added, 'By foreclosing further litigation, the majority's decision now allows to remain in place a congressional redistricting plan that is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution.'
Justice Charles Canady recused himself from the case. Canady, as is common, did not explain the decision, but he is married to state Rep. Jennifer Canady, R-Lakeland.
The overhauled Congressional District 5 includes parts of Duval and St. Johns counties and is represented by Republican John Rutherford. The old Congressional District 5 was broken up into other districts. For example, Republican Neal Dunn represents the Tallahassee area in what is Congressional District 2.
The plaintiffs, such as the League of Women Voters of Florida and Equal Ground Education Fund, challenged the redistricting plan in 2022 in Leon County circuit court. Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh agreed with the plaintiffs that the redistricting plan violated the Fair Districts amendment.
But the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned that decision in December 2023, prompting the voting-rights groups to go to the Supreme Court.
The appeals court's main opinion said protection offered under the non-diminishment clause and under the federal Voting Rights Act 'is of the voting power of 'a politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group.'' It said linking voters across a large stretch of North Florida did not meet such a definition of cohesiveness.
While the Supreme Court upheld the redistricting plan Thursday, it disagreed with the appeals court's reasoning. It also pointedly said the appeals court had ignored Supreme Court precedents related to the Fair Districts Amendment.
'The district court cited no authority for the proposition that decisions this (Supreme) Court issues in its original jurisdiction are not binding on lower courts,' Muniz wrote. 'And there is no reason why such decisions are not binding. The district courts' duty to follow our precedents stems from the hierarchical structure established in our Constitution and from this (Supreme) Court's express authority to review certain district court decisions, including those that conflict with our decisions or that expressly construe constitutional provisions.'