The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, ruling that enforcement of a state constitutional provision designed to protect minority voting strength would conflict with federal equal protection requirements.
In a 6-1 ruling, the court found that while the previous configuration of Congressional District 5 allowed Black voters in North Florida to elect candidates of their choice, the state was not required to maintain that district because doing so would amount to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the U.S. Constitution. The court determined that the only remedy proposed by the plaintiffs (a district joining Black populations in Duval, Leon, and Gadsden counties) relied too heavily on race in its design and failed to comply with traditional redistricting standards such as compactness.
Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, writing for the majority, stated that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment overrides the state’s Fair Districts Amendment when the two are in conflict. He noted that the Legislature could not be compelled to adopt a racially motivated district in order to avoid diminishing minority voting power under state law. The court held that the plaintiffs did not provide an alternative map demonstrating that a compliant district could be drawn without subordinating race-neutral criteria.
The decision affirms the outcome of a 2023 ruling by the First District Court of Appeal but rejects its reasoning. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a protected minority district. The Supreme Court disagreed on that point, affirming that the previous district had been protected under its precedents, but held that it could not be reinstated because the proposed remedy was not legally permissible under federal law.
The litigation stemmed from the Legislature’s post-2020 census redistricting cycle.
After Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed a congressional map that preserved the former District 5, the Legislature adopted a new configuration that divided the area across multiple districts in which Black voters no longer had the ability to elect preferred candidates. The plaintiffs challenged the new map under the state constitution’s non-diminishment clause, which prohibits redistricting plans that reduce minority groups’ electoral effectiveness.
In dissent, Justice Jorge Labarga argued that the burden should have been placed on the state, not the plaintiffs, to justify the elimination of a performing minority district. He also maintained that the case should have been remanded to the trial court for further factual development on whether a constitutionally valid remedy could be achieved.
The decision leaves the 2022 map in place for the upcoming election cycle