This story was originally published by The Tributary.
TALLAHASSEE | The Florida Supreme Courtās conservative majority revealed the high stakes for minority voting rights Thursday as justices questioned whether protections under the stateās Fair Districts Amendments will survive Gov. Ron DeSantisā aggressive efforts to dismantle them.
Thursdayās oral arguments pitted plaintiffs against state officials in a challenge over DeSantisā 2022 congressional map that eliminated a district where Black voters had consistently elected their preferred candidates for three decades. DeSantisā map dismantled the former 5th Congressional District, which stretched about 200 miles across North Florida from Jacksonville to Tallahassee and was formerly held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson.
In its stead, DeSantis spread those Black voters across four separate districts, all of which elected white Republicans in 2022.
While the state and plaintiffs, including Black Voters Matter and the Equal Ground Education Fund, have agreed the move diminished Black voting power in apparent violation of the stateās Fair Districts Amendments, DeSantisā lawyers have argued the stateās protections for racial minorities violate the U.S. Constitution.
Throughout the arguments, Chief Justice Carlos MuƱiz and Justices Meredith Sasso and John Couriel ā all DeSantis appointees ā led an intense line of questioning that signaled the potential impact if the court rules against the plaintiffs.
MuƱiz said a ruling against the plaintiffs would likely āneuterā part of the Fair Districts Amendments codified by 63% of Florida voters in 2010, a decision that could signal the end of minority voting protections in the state.
The courtās decision will not affect the 2024 elections.
MuƱiz also suggested that if the court strikes down the protections for racial minority groups, it may need to declare the entire Fair Districts Amendments invalid, including anti-partisan gerrymandering protections.
Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Centerās Democracy Program, said challenges to the Fair Districts Amendments indicate the need for a multi-layered approach to gerrymandering.Ā
āIf you want to fix this problem, you need a ābelt and suspendersā approach,ā Li said. āItās not enough to rely on reforms in states because they may be challenged. You also need Congress to renew and strengthen [voting rights] and ban partisan gerrymandering.ā
Even if the plaintiffs succeed, Li and other advocates worry DeSantis could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
āMany people have felt this is a strategy to get this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in ways that could do a lot of damage around the country,ā Li said. āEven though this is the Florida Supreme Court, I donāt think anyone should treat this as the end of the story.ā
The three justicesā inquiries focused on the tension between Floridaās constitutional non-diminishment clauseāintended to protect minority voting rightsāand the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Justice Charles Canady, who was part of a conservative minority when the court ruled for voting rights plaintiffs in a redistricting case last decade, recused from the case. Although he didnāt give a reason why, his wife is a state legislator.
The justices who spoke seemed to reject the arguments used by the First District Court of Appeal that the stateās non-diminishment clause must meet a separate test used for vote dilution cases. The lower court also ruled that the Florida Supreme Courtās opinions last decade were not binding.
MuƱiz pressed Christina Ford, the attorney representing Black Voters Matter, on whether the Fair Districts Amendments inherently require race to be a predominant factor in redistricting.
āIt seems like FDA kind of had this maybe unintended effect of constricting the allowable traditional redistricting criteria on the one hand, and on the other hand, requiring that race be prioritized,ā MuƱiz said. āIt seems like weāre just sort of setting up, sort of, a head-on conflict, or at least the possibility of a conflict, with the Equal Protection clause just on its face.ā
MuƱiz questioned whether the Fair Districts Amendments, by making minority protections a top priority, leave lawmakers with little flexibility to balance other redistricting criteriaā like drawing compact districts.
This, he said, could āstack the deckā by making racial considerations the primary focus, potentially putting the Legislature āin the zone where youāre having to worry about strict scrutiny and deliberate racial sorting.ā
Solicitor General Henry Whittaker, representing DeSantisā secretary of state, agreed with that.
āThe textbook example [of racial gerrymandering] is where the state sacrifices traditional redistricting principles to meet a rigid racial target,ā he said. āAnd thatās exactly what the non-diminishment standard would require.ā
Ford argued the legislature has demonstrated its ability to āharmonizeā the various standards for redistricting, pointing to the two versions of a protected North Florida district that DeSantis vetoed as āproof positiveā that the non-diminishment criteria does not inherently contradict the Equal Protection Clause.
She also pointed out the Legislature and DeSantis werenāt asking the court to throw out other legislative and congressional districts that the state has said were drawn to protect minority voting power.
The Legislatureās lawyers, led by Dan Nordby, argued those districts, unlike the contested North Florida district, could be drawn to protect Black voting power without prioritizing race over other factors.
He pointed out the plaintiffs had āevery incentive in the worldā to present a North Florida district that could achieve this delicate balance. āIf it were possible to draw a circle, a square, or maybe even a long rectangle that wasnāt race predominant, that didnāt diminish [Black voting power], surely they would have done so,ā he argued.
Ford, however, pointed to the Republican legislative leadershipās own statements praising two versions of the North Florida districts: one that stretched from Jacksonville to Tallahassee and another contained wholly inside Duval County.
āIt is in the record that the state can comply with these two things, both non-diminishment and the Equal Protection clause,ā she said.
Nordby acknowledged that the Legislature never claimed race predominated in the Duval-only district that DeSantis vetoed. However, he argued the district still would have reduced Black voting power.
The plaintiffsā arguments have mainly focused on asking the court to uphold the precedents set a decade ago. In a press conference following the hearing, plaintiffs and their allies shared their thoughts on the case and its potential outcome.
āThis is a textbook application of the law which is enshrined currently in Floridaās Constitution,ā said Olivia Mendoza, litigation director of the National Redistricting Foundation, āand it requires the state to restore the 5th Congressional District where Black voters can elect their candidates of choice.ā
The Rev. R.L. Gundy, a plaintiff from Jacksonville who lives in what used to be the protected district, cut through the legal niceties with a stark assessment: āWhen DeSantis chose to take that district away, he became a dictator rather than a governor of the people, for the people, and by the people.ā
Despite the courtās conservative lean, Genesis Robinson, the interim executive director of Equal Ground Education Fund, another plaintiff, remained hopeful following the arguments.
āWe can do nothing but be optimistic that the court will rule and follow precedent,ā Robinson said, āand give us a fair shake.ā
Bea Lunardini is an investigative fellow with The Tributary. She can be reached at [email protected].
Bea Lunardini is Investigative Reporting Fellow at The Tributary. She has previously covered crime and courts in Georgia, Texas and Florida. She is a senior journalism student at the University of Florida. In her free time, she reads voraciously and enjoys baking.
