The Florida Supreme Court justices expressed caution about establishing precedents in a case that questions the constitutionality of the state’s 2022 congressional map, particularly the redesign of Congressional District 5, and how it interacts with Florida’s non-diminishment provision and the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
Florida Supreme Court justices signaled hesitation on Thursday about establishing legal precedents with lasting implications for future redistricting cases, as they heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the state’s 2022 congressional map, particularly the redesign of North Florida’s Congressional District 5.
The case revolves around Florida’s 2010 non-diminishment provision, designed to preserve minority voting strength, and its potential conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits racial gerrymandering. Voting-rights advocates argue that the new map violates the state constitution by weakening minority voters’ influence. Meanwhile, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration contends that retaining the district’s previous configuration would constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Justice Carlos Muñiz and other members of the court expressed concerns about a potential ruling that could place Florida’s non-diminishment provision at odds with federal law. Justice John Couriel raised the issue of federal supremacy, noting that if Florida’s non-diminishment test required violating equal protection, the U.S. Constitution would take precedence.
“If we found that a district had to violate equal protection in order to meet the non-diminishment test of the Florida Constitution… we’d probably concede that we would have to adhere to the Equal Protection [Clause],” Couriel said.
Couriel further emphasized that, under the U.S. Constitution, voting is an individual right, not a collective one. He argued that it is not a group’s right to vote, but an individual person’s right. Christina Ford, an attorney representing the plaintiff Black Voters Matter, countered this argument by noting that redistricting inherently affects groups, particularly minority communities, not just individuals.
“I think redistricting is different,” Ford said. “In a lot of the cases where we’re looking at other voter ID provisions or something like that, of course, it’s about individual rights, but redistricting is, by definition, a collective group of voters.”
The debate largely focused on whether the east-west configuration of District 5 meets Florida’s constitutional standard for compactness, with Justice Muñiz questioning whether the district’s shape complied with the law. Ford responded that the state was misinterpreting the compactness requirement and argued it was inappropriate for plaintiffs to defend a map that had not been enacted, claiming it would be inverting the racial gerrymandering standard.
The discussion also delved into Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment, which prohibits maps that diminish minority voting power. Muñiz expressed concern that the amendment may have forced the Legislature to prioritize race when drawing districts, potentially leading to a conflict with the Equal Protection Clause.
“Doesn’t that kind of stack the deck to where the legislature, if they’re going to comply with the FDA… we do the minority districts first, and then we build around that?” Muñiz asked.
Ford subsequently asserted that the Legislature must adhere to all parts of the amendment, not just the racial fairness provisions.
“There’s tier one and there’s a tier two,” she explained, “and the Legislature is obligated to comply with all of them.”
Attorneys for the state, representing the Secretary of State’s office, argued that the plaintiffs had not offered a viable alternative map that complies with both state and federal law. Ford maintained that the original map drawn by the Legislature could withstand strict scrutiny, a legal standard requiring the state to prove that its action serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. She argued that the map served such a compelling state interest by protecting minority voting power. Muñiz, however, expressed doubt, describing that argument as “super weak.”
Throughout the hearing, justices frequently returned to the benchmark map, used to determine whether the new district diminishes minority voting power. Muñiz suggested that assessing the map should be a straightforward process.
“This is very mechanical,” he said. “You look at the existing plan, you look at how it performs, and then you kind of see what you have to do from there.”
State attorneys defended the 2022 map as race-neutral and accused the plaintiffs of seeking to reinstate a racial gerrymander. Florida Solicitor General Henry C. Whitaker, representing the Secretary of State, argued that the plaintiffs aimed to replace the neutral map drawn in North Florida with one driven by racial considerations.
“Plaintiffs in this case are seeking to dismantle the race-neutral map that the state drew in North Florida and to replace it with a racial gerrymander,” he said.
Whitaker urged the court to avoid setting a precedent that would require racially motivated district designs and argued that the Fair Districts Amendment’s non-diminishment standard should not mandate the preservation of racial gerrymanders.
“I think we should strive to read the Fair Districts amendment’s non-diminishment standard not to require the state to lock in racial gerrymanders for all time,” Whitaker said.