Florida court to consider whether new US House map violates state ban on partisan gerrymandering

New U.S. House districts that could help Republicans win several additional seats in Florida are set to face their first test in court Friday against assertions that they violate a state constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering.

Lawsuits filed on behalf of voters ask a state judge to block the districts from being used in the midterm elections. The move would create a significant wrinkle in President Donald Trump’s attempt to hold on to a narrow House majority by redrawing voting districts to the GOP’s advantage.

Republicans already hold 20 of Florida’s 28 U.S. House seats. New voting districts signed into law by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis after a swift two-day special legislative session could improve the GOP’s chances to win four additional seats in the November elections.

Florida’s Legislature approved the new House map on April 29 — the same day the U.S. Supreme Court weakened federal Voting Rights Act protections for minorities while striking down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana. Since then, several Southern states have taken steps to try to eliminate minority districts that have elected Democrats.

Congressional districts typically are redrawn once a decade, after each census, to rebalance populations. But since Trump urged mid-decade redistricting last year, Republicans think they could gain as many as 15 seats from new House maps in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama. Democrats, meanwhile, think they could gain six seats from new maps in California and Utah.

Democrats had counted on winning up to four additional seats in Virginia. But the Virginia Supreme Court last week struck down a Democratic redistricting plan approved by voters, ruling the legislature violated procedural requirements when placing it on the ballot.

Florida bans partisan map-making

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that it has no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. But it said partisan gerrymandering claims could continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws.

Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment in 2010 that prohibits U.S. House districts from being drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent. The amendment bars districts from diminishing the ability of racial or language minorities to elect the representatives of their choice. It also requires districts to be compact and, where feasible, use existing political and geographic boundaries.

Lawsuits filed on behalf of voters seek a temporary injunction against the new U.S. House map for violating that amendment. The suits focus heavily on political favoritism.

“The plan takes the state’s partisan skew to an unprecedented extreme,” said one of three lawsuits filed in Leon County.

A legal brief filed on behalf of the Florida Senate argues that partisan intent has not been proven and a temporary injunction against the new districts is not appropriate in advance of a fully developed trial.

Though DeSantis called lawmakers into session before the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Louisiana case, he anticipated an eventual outcome weakening Voting Rights Act protections for minority districts. Among other changes, Florida’s new map reshapes a southeastern Florida district that DeSantis’ office said was created to help elect a Black representative in an attempt to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

DeSantis’ office said no racial data was used to prepare the new map he presented to the Legislature. In a memo to lawmakers, DeSantis’ General Counsel David Axelman asserted that Florida’s constitutional provision about racial redistricting violates the U.S. Constitution. If one element is invalid, Axelman wrote, then the entire 2010 amendment is void, including provisions barring partisan gerrymandering.

___

Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri, and Schneider from Orlando, Florida.