A state judge has struck down Florida’s congressional map after finding that the removal of an African American-performing district from the state’s northern region was unconstitutional.
“We knew that Black voters were being disenfranchised,” said Jasmine Burney-Clark, founder of Equal Ground Education Fund, one of the plaintiffs challenging the map in state court. “Their ability to elect a candidate of their choice was being stolen from them, and this court found exactly what we knew to to be true all along.”
Leon County Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh blocked the map’s use in future elections and ordered the state House and Senate to enact new U.S. House districts that comply with the state constitution, as part of a ruling issued over the weekend.
“This case is about whether the legislature, in enacting its most recent congressional redistricting plan, violated the Florida Constitution by diminishing the ability of Black voters in North Florida to elect representatives of their choice,” Marsh wrote. “It is also about whether that provision of the Florida Constitution violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In short, the answers are yes and no, respectively.”
Before the 2022 midterm elections, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a map that eliminated the region’s only congressional district where Black voters could elect their candidate of choice.
DeSantis has argued that preserving the former District 5 — which covered several counties in North Florida — would violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from passing racially discriminatory laws. Marsh rejected that argument, which was reasserted as part of the state’s defense in the case.
Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd plans to appeal the case to the Florida Supreme Court. His office sent the following statement via email to WFSU News:
“We disagree with the trial court's decision. This is why the stipulation contemplates an appeal with pass through jurisdiction to the Florida Supreme Court which we will be pursuing," said Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, in an emailed statement to WFSU.
“It is sad that we are going to have to possibly go to court again and continue to fight for this district, but we are prepared to do that,” said Jasmine Burney-Clark, founder of Equal Ground. “And our hope is that we do have another favorable outcome.”
The former District 5 stretched from Gadsden County to eastern Duval County and included predominantly African American neighborhoods in Tallahassee and Jacksonville. Democratic Congressman Al Lawson represented the district until it was carved into four Republican districts. Lawson lost his bid for reelection in the 2022 midterms to Panama City Republican Congressman Neal Dunn in the newly-drawn District 2.
The Florida Supreme Court approved the former District 5 in 2015, but the makeup of the court has since changed. Most of the court’s seven justices are now DeSantis appointees, and only two justices were involved in the redistricting case in 2015.
Another lawsuit is ongoing in federal court, with a trial in Tallahassee scheduled to begin on Sept. 26. The federal lawsuits challenge multiple districts across the state. That’s unlike the state challenge, which was narrowed to focus on North Florida.
Voting rights groups challenging the map argue that it violates the state constitution’s Fair Districts Amendments, which prohibit diminishing a minority group’s ability to elect their candidate of choice. The amendments were approved by 63% of voters in 2010.
Marsh found that the state constitution’s Fair Districts Amendments’ non-diminishment standard protects against racial discrimination, and serves as a compelling state interest to justify using race as a primary factor in drawing a district.
“Florida has been a state home to discrimination in voting and the people of this state demanded a Florida analogue to the VRA [Voting Rights Act] to finally rid the state of its presence,” Marsh wrote. “The Court therefore finds that the non-diminishment provision of the Florida Constitution is justified by a compelling state interest in rooting out persistent discrimination in the state and that compliance with the provision itself is a compelling state interest.”
