TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – A state appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday regarding North Florida’s congressional lines.
Leon County Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh ruled in September that the overhaul of Congressional District 5 violated a 2010 state constitutional amendment that barred drawing districts that would “diminish” the ability of minorities to “elect representatives of their choice.”
District 5 in the past stretched more than 200 miles to connect Black voters in Jacksonville and in the majority Black county of Gadsden about 200 miles to the west. DeSantis vetoed maps the Legislature drew, which would have preserved a Black district, and forced the Legislature to approve one his staff drew.
DeSantis cited the equal-protection issue as he effectively took control of the congressional redistricting process.
“The governor pushed and pushed and pushed,” said attorney Greg Baker. “He pressed his argument by sound bite bullying.”
The result was a map that helped Republicans earn a majority in the House and left Black voters in north Florida with only white representation in Washington. That area stretches about 360 miles from the Alabama border to the Atlantic Ocean and south from the Georgia border to Orlando in central Florida.
Now the appeals court will decide whether to uphold Marsh’s ruling that the congressional redistricting plan backed by DeSantis violated the Florida Constitution. The appeals court will hold what is known as an “en banc” hearing of the full court, rather than using the typical process of a three-judge panel hearing arguments.
In an 86-page brief, filed last week with the 1st District Court of Appeal, attorneys for the plaintiffs pointed to a 2015 Florida Supreme Court precedent that they said proved last year’s plan violated what is known as the “non-diminishment” standard in the state Constitution.
The brief said that while state officials “may choose to ignore the law and the facts that govern this appeal, this court cannot overrule existing precedent, nor does it have a basis to disturb the trial court’s (Marsh’s) well-supported — and often undisputed — factual findings.”
Ultimately, appellants’ (Byrd, the House and Senate) arguments are nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters of a straightforward constitutional challenge,” the brief said. “The trial court’s holding that the enacted plan diminishes minority voting strength in North Florida in violation of the Florida Constitution was compelled by the stipulated facts and binding Florida Supreme Court precedent. This (appeals) court is similarly bound.”
But in a brief filed early this month at the Tallahassee-based appeals court, attorneys for Secretary of State Cord Byrd contended that designing a district to help elect a Black candidate would be a racial gerrymander that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“Plaintiffs would see race reign supreme in Florida’s redistricting efforts,” the brief said. “The Florida Constitution does not compel that result, and the U.S. Constitution would not permit it in any event.”
“The enacted plan is compact, contiguous and equalized, and it respects traditional political boundaries while maintaining communities of interest,” the brief said. “Most important, it was drawn without considering race, which resulted in it eliminating the racially gerrymandered versions of CD-5 (Congressional District 5).”
Under procedural rules, the state’s appeal triggered an automatic stay of Marsh’s Sept. 2 decision while the case continues to play out.
Attorneys for both sides said in a filing last month that they would like a ruling from the appeals court by Nov. 22. That would give time for lawmakers to pass a new redistricting plan, if necessary, during the legislative session that will start in January.
“A ruling by November 22 will also provide time for either party to seek Florida Supreme Court review and for the Florida Supreme Court to render a decision in time for the Legislature to take up any remedial plan, if necessary, during the 2024 regular legislative session, and before the Legislature’s scheduled adjournment on March 8, 2024,” the filing said.