Murray Wood: Health inspection reports aren't as useful as they should be
Murray Wood says health inspection reports are shared publicly in Saskatchewan, thanks to hard work by our newsrooms, bu...
The Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed new U.S. House districts drawn by Republicans to be used in the midterm elections, marking another victory for the GOP in a nationwide redistricting effort aimed at helping the party retain its slim House majority.
Attorneys for voters who sued had argued that the new congressional districts violate a state constitutional prohibition on partisan gerrymandering, and that the court should order the state to continue using the same districts as in the previous election. The Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, denied their request for a temporary injunction without ruling on the merits of the case. The judges said they lacked jurisdiction to intervene while the lawsuit gradually plays out in the lower courts.
Republicans already hold 20 of Florida’s 28 U.S. House seats. The 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 this year.
The court’s decision provides some certainty for prospective congressional candidates, who face a Friday deadline to qualify for the state’s Aug. 18 primaries.
Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier, who defended the new districts in court, declared “complete and total victory” in a social media post.
Opponents expressed outrage while vowing to continue the court fight, even though it may stretch into the 2028 election cycle.
“The Florida Supreme Court’s failure to stop this brazen partisan power grab is not only an assault on democracy, but an abdication of its duty to the people of Florida,” said Genesis Robinson, executive director of Equal Ground, a community organizing group that sued.
The new districts are “a pretty clear partisan gerrymander,” said Amy Keith, executive director of Common Cause Florida. “We’re going to do everything we can to prevent this map from impacting further, future elections.”
Florida’s map is part of a national GOP effort
Voting districts typically are redrawn after a census near the beginning of each decade. Florida is one of several Republican-led states that have undertaken mid-decade redistricting as part of President Donald Trump’s plan to try to hold on to a slim House majority in November by reshaping district boundaries to the GOP’s advantage.
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.
DeSantis had called lawmakers into a special session before the high court’s ruling, but he had anticipated the eventual outcome. DeSantis’ office asserted that no racial data was used for the map he presented to the Legislature. The new map, among other things, redraws 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.
In addition to barring partisan gerrymandering, a constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters in 2010 also prohibits districts from being drawn to deny or diminish the ability of racial or language minorities to elect the representatives of their choice. It further requires districts to be compact and, where feasible, use existing political and geographic boundaries.
Republicans assert that redistricting restrictions are invalid
In a memo to lawmakers, DeSantis’ General Counsel David Axelman asserted that the racial redistricting provision of Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment violates the U.S. Constitution. If one element is invalid, Axelman wrote, then the entire 2010 amendment is void, including provisions barring partisan gerrymandering.
Attorneys representing state officials made similar arguments to the Florida Supreme Court, after a lower court judge last month declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the new map. They also argued it was too late in the election season to revert to the previous maps.
In a filing with the Florida Supreme Court, attorneys representing state officials said the new map was “cause for celebration” during America’s 250th anniversary. “Perhaps for the first time in Florida’s history, the State has a truly colorblind map; a map that refuses to assault the dignity of men and women by color-coding them,” their court filing said.
Attorneys who sued on behalf of voters argued the new districts were crafted with political favoritism. They argued in documents filed with the state Supreme Court that the new congressional districts are “among the most extreme partisan gerrymanders enacted in any state over the past half-century.”
Under the new House map, 82% of voters in districts represented by Republicans remain in the same districts as under the previous map, said attorney Chris Shenton, who represented Common Cause and other groups challenging the map. Just 41% of voters in districts represented by Democrats are kept in their same districts, he said.
Justices differed on urgency of Florida case
The Supreme Court’s majority issued only a brief written opinion, but two of its members elaborated about the importance of the case. In a concurring opinion, Justice Adam Tanenbaum said the judicial system follows a deliberative process, and “there is no need for special treatment in this case.”
In a dissent, Justice Jorge Labarga expressed frustration that an appellate court hadn’t sent the case straight to the Supreme Court. He said the state constitution “anticipates that some matters may be so urgent as to require an expedited path to this Court.”
“Surely, the upcoming 2026 congressional elections affecting the representation of millions of Floridians meet that threshold,” Labarga wrote.
David A. Lieb, The Associated Press
