A Florida judge on Tuesday left in place the state’s congressional maps adopted earlier this month that are likely to give Republican candidates a significant advantage in this year’s midterm elections. Voting rights groups and Florida voters had asked a judge to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the map, arguing that it violates the state constitution’s ban on partisan gerrymandering.
The ban, included in the state’s Fair Districts Amendment, which was approved by 63 percent of Floridians in 2010, prohibits congressional apportionment plans from being “designed with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.”
Despite the wording of that amendment, and even though mapmakers acknowledged that partisan data was used to draw districts, the Florida Legislature approved the new congressional map. The mid-decade redraw was conducted at the behest of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), and Florida’s 28 congressional districts were shaded in red (24) and blue (4) and provided to Fox News before being submitted to Florida lawmakers. Plaintiffs, Equal Ground Education Fund v. Birdone of three lawsuits filed against the state challenging the map, calls it “one of the most extreme gerrymanders in American history.” (The cases are grouped together.)
The effort to change Florida’s congressional maps was part of a nationwide redistricting frenzy that began last year at the urging of President Donald Trump and began to heat up with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month. louisiana vs curryThis significantly narrowed the ability of states to take race into account when drawing congressional districts and made it more difficult to prove improper racial discrimination in drawing those lines.
Florida defendants, including the Florida Secretary of State and state legislators, argued that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently prove that the map was drawn with partisan intent and questioned whether the previously established map from 2022 could be used because it was drawn with race as a factor. These defendants and DeSantis have argued in public comments that the 2022 map likely violates and potentially conflicts with the federal Constitution’s equal protection requirements. chalice I’m holding it.
Florida Judge Joshua Hawks sided with the state defendants in refusing to block the maps, finding that the plaintiffs had not shown a substantial likelihood of success to issue a preliminary injunction. The court found that “the cartographer’s intent is not as clear as plaintiffs assert,” and that “the record also does not establish the applicability of attributing[the cartographer’s]intent, if any, to Congress as a whole.”
Hawks, a DeSantis appointee, questioned whether he could order the use of the 2022 map, given that the governor and Legislature have ruled the map unconstitutional. “To the extent that courts must balance Florida’s[Fair Districts Amendment]prohibition against unjust partisan intent with the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, it seems clear that the potential partisan intent contained in the 2026 maps is the lesser of two evils,” Hawks wrote. And if the 2026 map is later determined to violate the Fair Districts Amendment, he said it is not uncommon for maps later determined to be unconstitutional to be used in elections while litigation is ongoing, echoing the defendant’s statements at the injunction hearing.
The plaintiffs have appealed to an intermediate court, but the final decision on whether to block the map and ultimately enforce the Fair Districts Amendment will likely fall to the Florida Supreme Court. DeSantis appointed six of the current court’s seven members. In recent years, courts have sided with him by restricting abortion rights, overturning precedent and allowing him to undermine prosecutorial independence.
Mr. Hawks did not reach the state’s most aggressive and controversial argument against partisan gerrymandering, that parts of the Fair Districts Amendment may violate the U.S. Constitution and should be invalidated in its entirety. In addition to prohibiting partisan gerrymandering, the amendment also prohibits reducing the ability of racial or linguistic minorities to elect representatives of their choice. The state argues that the provision is unconstitutional. chalicefurther argues that the entire amendment is invalid because that portion of the amendment cannot be severed from the prohibition on partisan gerrymandering or from the rest of the amendment.
The passage of the map and pending litigation comes as Florida election officials prepare to hold primary elections in August. Hawks said it was in the public interest to issue the injunction, following the state’s request and respecting “pre-election stability.” He quoted: parcel The doctrine states that as a “common sense and sound principle,” federal courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
The plaintiffs argue that the public’s interest is actually in voting in districts that do not violate the state’s prohibition on drawing legislative lines that favor political parties, and that Floridians will not be harmed by maintaining the “status quo,” meaning voting based on the maps used in 2022 and 2024 rather than being rushed through the Legislature months before the election. “The Legislature has the filthy hand of claiming any damages for the timing of this redistricting, because the timing was determined by Congress itself,” plaintiffs’ attorneys argued during the preliminary injunction hearing, noting that election officials have been directed to maintain the ability to conduct elections based on the 2022 maps in case the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor.
While it is true that state legislatures, governors, and Trump are partially responsible for the redistricting spree of mid-decade, the U.S. Supreme Court’s footprint is also visible. When the high court rejected a nationwide ban on partisan gerrymandering in 2019, it ensured that redistricting rules vary from state to state and could allow states to dictate partisan objectives in the process of drawing Congressional lines. and by issuing chalice Without restricting states’ actions in the run-up to the midterm elections, the court effectively approved the current redistricting chaos, even though the midterm elections are just around the corner.
Erin Geiger-Smith is a writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.
