TALLAHASSEE 鈥� 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鈥檚 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 鈥渋s no plausible, non-racial explanation for using a nearly 200-mile-long land bridge to connect the Black populations of Jacksonville and Tallahassee.鈥�
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 鈥渄iminish鈥� the ability of minorities to 鈥渆lect representatives of their choice鈥� 鈥� what is often called the amendment鈥檚 鈥渘on-diminishment鈥� 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鈥檚 48-page majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Carlos Muniz, said that in redistricting, the Legislature鈥檚 鈥渙bligation to comply with the non-diminishment clause was bounded by its superior obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause.鈥�
鈥淭he Legislature鈥檚 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,鈥� Muniz wrote in the opinion joined by Justices John Couriel, Jamie Grosshans, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso. 鈥淭he 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.鈥�
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 鈥渉ighly consequential.鈥�
鈥淎lthough the majority conducts an as-applied equal protection analysis (of Congressional District 5), make no mistake 鈥� 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,鈥� Labarga wrote.
He added, 鈥淏y foreclosing further litigation, the majority鈥檚 decision now allows to remain in place a congressional redistricting plan that is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution.鈥�
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鈥檚 main opinion said protection offered under the non-diminishment clause and under the federal Voting Rights Act 鈥渋s of the voting power of 鈥榓 politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group.鈥欌�� 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鈥檚 reasoning. It also pointedly said the appeals court had ignored Supreme Court precedents related to the Fair Districts Amendment.
鈥淭he district court cited no authority for the proposition that decisions this (Supreme) Court issues in its original jurisdiction are not binding on lower courts,鈥� Muniz wrote. 鈥淎nd there is no reason why such decisions are not binding. The district courts鈥� duty to follow our precedents stems from the hierarchical structure established in our Constitution and from this (Supreme) Court鈥檚 express authority to review certain district court decisions, including those that conflict with our decisions or that expressly construe constitutional provisions.鈥�
Genesis Robinson, executive director of Equal Ground, a statewide group aimed at empowering Blacks, condemned the court decision.
鈥淲ith today鈥檚 ruling, the Florida Supreme Court has turned its back on Black voters, the state constitution, and the fundamental principles of representative democracy,鈥� Robinson said. 鈥淚t is a direct attack on Black political power and a decision that will have ripple effects for generations.鈥�
Florida Democratic Party Nikki Fried, in a statement, said the "Florida Supreme Court just greenlit Ron DeSantis鈥� political power grab 鈥� one that strips Black voters in North Florida of their power."
"This ruling violates the Fair Districts Amendment, passed by Florida voters to protect minority representation and keep partisan gerrymandering in check," she said.
SA国际传谋 News Staff contributed to this story.
