By: Liv Caputo, The Florida Phoenix
Pushing the Florida Legislature to approve his redrawn congressional maps, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office is using the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to trash a Louisiana congressional map as evidence that Florida’s anti-gerrymandering amendment is invalid.
“Florida’s intentional compliance with the [Fair Districts Amendment] … would require Florida to ‘satisfy the extraordinarily onerous standard of proving that its use of race was narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest,’” announced DeSantis’ general counsel, David Axelman, in a letter to lawmakers as they debated whether to approve the governor’s map.
He quoted from the high-court’s 6-3 decision to strike down a Louisiana map that created a second majority-Black district, delivered just minutes earlier. In a highly-anticipated move, the Supreme Court also ruled that the federal Voting Rights Act alone does not justify race-based redistricting.
While the court’s overhaul doesn’t strike down the Civil Rights era law, it creates a much higher bar to draw lines to benefit minority populations.
DeSantis says this decision invalidates Florida’s Fair Districts Amendments. Approved by 63% of voters in 2010, the amendments (one covering legislative seats, the other congressional ones) prohibit drawing districts that diminish minorities’ ability to elect candidates of their choice or that favor one political party over another.
Because the national opinion invalidates Fair Districts’ racial provision, “the rest cannot be saved” either, DeSantis’ top elections attorney told lawmakers earlier this week.
The debate comes amid an unusual nationwide push for mid-decade redistricting, escalating state-by-state in a tightening competition. States rushed to redistrict after President Trump — hoping to pad the GOP’s slim congressional majority — told Texas Republicans to redraw their map.
A political domino effect ensued.
In Florida, that means a map that could produce four extra GOP seats, shifting the state delegation’s balance to 24-4, GOP to Democratic. The Republican-dominated Florida House voted its approval Wednesday, even though the public isn’t on board, as the Phoenix previously reported.
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to retaliate by creating more Democratic seats in his state. Democrats in Illinois, Virginia, and Maryland have discussed redrawing their congressional maps, as have GOP lawmakers in Nebraska and Kansas. Many of the cases have been tied up in court, awaiting guidance from the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, it came.
What is Louisiana v. Callais?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Louisiana case provides new legal guidance that could shape those disputes.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said allowing race to influence government decision-making represents a “departure” from constitutional principles. The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents dissented.
“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it,” Alito continued. “Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s … precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”
Specifically, the court decided that states can’t dress up their “political gerrymandering claims in racial garb.” The justices have taken a hands-off approach to partisan gerrymandering.
Still, advocates for Florida’s amendment say the ruling does not affect the state’s ability to ban partisan gerrymandering. Florida is one of eight states that explicitly ban using redistricting to politically favor one party over another.
“The ruling that came down today does not change the fact that states have a right to make partisan gerrymandering illegal,” said Amy Keith, executive director of Common Cause Florida. “That is what the people of Florida did in 2010, and that is what makes the map under consideration unconstitutional.”
Be the first to leave a comment on this article.