In Florida, partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the state constitution: the Florida Supreme Court has recognized (since before Rucho) that it “is charged with the solemn obligation to ensure . . . that the explicit constitutional mandate to outlaw partisan political gerrymandering . . . is effectively enforced.” League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Fla. House of Representatives, 132 So. 3d 135, 137 (Fla. 2013). That mandate is embodied within two constitutional provisions—one for state legislative districting and one for congressional districting—that prohibit maps “drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent[.]” Fla. Const. art. III, §§ 20 (legislative), 21 (congressional). The Florida Supreme Court must assess the validity of legislative maps each cycle, id. art. III, § 16(c), but only reviews congressional maps in the normal course of an appeal, see id. art. V, § 3.
To prove a partisan gerrymandering violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the state legislature intended to favor a political party or incumbent, though need not make “a showing of malevolent or evil purpose.” League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363, 375 (Fla. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Applying this standard, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a trial court ruling striking down Florida’s congressional map for the 2010 redistricting cycle. According to the court, the following evidence proved impermissible partisan intent: “the Legislature’s destruction of ‘almost all’ e-mails and ‘other documentation relating to redistricting’; early meetings between legislative leaders and staff with political consultants regarding the ‘redistricting process’; and the ‘continued involvement’ of political consultants in the ‘redistricting process.’” Id. at 392. In a separate review of the state’s legislative plans for the 2010 redistricting cycle, the court declared the state senate map unconstitutional, reasoning that the plan was “rife with objective indicators of improper intent which, when considered in isolation do not amount to improper [partisan] intent, but when viewed cumulatively demonstrate a clear pattern.” In re Senate Joint Resol. of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 654 (Fla. 2012). According to the court, the following evidence collectively demonstrated such impermissible intent: the map declined to pit incumbents against each other; the new districts contained a large percentage of incumbents’ former districts; the map renumbered districts to allow incumbents to serve longer; and the majority of underpopulated districts in the plan favored Republicans. Id. The court also determined that a specific senate district violated the state constitution’s anti-gerrymandering provision because it was drawn “in a less compact manner.” Id. at 678.[1]
Under the Florida Constitution, Florida courts are authorized to implement court-drawn legislative maps to remedy an illegal partisan gerrymander. Fla. Const. art. III, § 16(f). A trial court implemented a remedial state senate map during the 2010 redistricting cycle. See League of Women Voters v. Detzner, No. 2012-CA-2842 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cnty. Dec. 30, 2015). Before doing so, the court evaluated the legislature’s proposed revised plan in light of four alternatives submitted by the plaintiffs and selected one of the plaintiffs’ maps because it was “the most compact plan proposed by any party, matches the number of split counties in [the legislature’s proposed plan], splits three fewer cities than [the legislature’s plan], and contains significantly lower population deviation than [the legislature’s plan], while expanding the number of Hispanic-performic districts.” Id. slip op. at 68. Though there is no constitutional provision expressly authorizing courts to implement remedial congressional maps, the Florida Supreme Court approved the trial court’s adoption of such a map for the 2010 redistricting cycle. League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 179 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2015). The trial court considered several proposed revised maps submitted by the legislature and the plaintiffs, selecting the state house’s proposed configuration for FL-1–FL-19—as the plaintiffs had not challenged them—and one of the plaintiffs’ proposed configuration for FL-20–FL-27 since that plan was most compact and best utilized existing political and geographical boundaries. Id. at 269.
Endnote
[1] As for any post-2020 redistricting challenges, plaintiffs initially challenged Florida’s congressional map for the 2020 redistricting cycle as a partisan gerrymander but have since dropped that claim. Joint Stipulation to Narrow Issues for Resolution at 1, Black Voters Matter v. Byrd, No. 2022-CA-000666 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 11, 2023).