League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, SC14–1905.

Citation172 So.3d 363
Decision Date09 July 2015
Docket NumberNo. SC14–1905.,SC14–1905.
PartiesThe LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, etc., et al., Appellants/Cross–Appellees, v. Ken DETZNER, et al., Appellees/Cross–Appellants.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

172 So.3d 363

The LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, etc., et al., Appellants/Cross–Appellees
v.
Ken DETZNER, et al., Appellees/Cross–Appellants.

No. SC14–1905.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 9, 2015.


172 So.3d 368

John Stewart Mills, Andrew David Manko, and Courtney Rebecca Brewer of The Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, FL; David B. King, Thomas Alan Zehnder, Frederick Stanton Wermuth, and Vincent Falcone, III of King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, P.A., Orlando, FL; Adam Michael Schachter and Gerald Edward Greenberg of Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A., Miami, FL; Mark Herron and Robert J. Telfer, III of Messer Caparello, P.A., Tallahassee,

172 So.3d 369

FL; and John M. Devaney and Marc Erik Elias of Perkins Coie LLP, WA, District of Columbia; for Appellants/Cross–Appellees.

J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, FL; Raoul G. Cantero, III, Jason Nelson Zakia, and Jesse Luke Green of White & Case LLP, Miami, FL; George T. Levesque, General Counsel, The Florida Senate, Tallahassee, FL; Allison J. Riggs and George Edward Eppsteiner, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham, NC; Nancy Gbana Abudu, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida Foundation, Miami, FL; Matthew Joseph Carson, General Counsel, The Florida House of Representatives, Tallahassee, FL; and Charles Talley Wells of Gray Robinson P.A., Orlando, FL, and Jason Lawrence Unger, Andre Velosy Bardos, and George N. Meros, Jr. of Gray Robinson, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Appellees/Cross–Appellants.

Martha Angela Pardo, Associate Counsel, Latino Justice PRLDEF, Orlando, FL, for Amici Curiae Latino Justice PRLDEF, Florida New Majority, and Mi Familia Vota.

Opinion

PARIENTE, J.

In this appeal involving legal issues of first impression, we review a trial court's finding that the 2012 “redistricting process” and the “resulting map” apportioning Florida's twenty-seven congressional districts were “taint [ed]” by unconstitutional intent to favor the Republican Party and incumbent lawmakers.1 Cognizant that this Court's role is not to select a redistricting map that performs better for one political party or another, but is instead to uphold the purposes of the constitutional provision approved by Florida voters to outlaw partisan intent in redistricting, the crux of what we must decide is whether the trial court gave the appropriate legal effect to its finding that the Florida Legislature drew the state's congressional districts in violation of the Florida Constitution.

Added to the Florida Constitution in 2010, the Fair Districts Amendment sought to eliminate the age-old practice of partisan political gerrymandering—where the political party and representatives in power manipulate the district boundaries to their advantage—by forbidding the Florida Legislature from drawing a redistricting plan or an individual district with the “intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.” Art. III, § 20(a), Fla. Const. “The desire of a political party to provide its representatives with an advantage in reapportionment is not a Republican or Democratic tenet, but applies equally to both parties.” In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176 (Apportionment I), 83 So.3d 597, 615 (Fla.2012). As observed when a three-judge panel of a federal district court examined Florida's last decennial congressional redistricting plan in 2002, the “raw exercise of majority legislative

172 So.3d 370

power does not seem to be the best way of conducting a critical task like redistricting, but it does seem to be an unfortunate fact of political life around the country.” Martinez v. Bush, 234 F.Supp.2d 1275, 1297 (S.D.Fla.2002).

With the voters' approval of the Fair Districts Amendment, that unfortunate fact of political life was banned in Florida. Our citizens declared that the Legislature must “redistrict in a manner that prohibits favoritism or discrimination.” Apportionment I, 83 So.3d at 632. And the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals similarly declared that “[f]ar from dictat[ing] electoral outcomes, the provision seeks to maximize electoral possibilities by leveling the playing field.” Brown v. Sec'y of State of Fla., 668 F.3d 1271, 1285 (11th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Like the voters of Arizona, who adopted an independent redistricting commission recently upheld by the United States Supreme Court as consistent with the “fundamental premise that all political power flows from the people,” the Florida voters endeavored “to address the problem of partisan gerrymandering—the drawing of legislative district lines to subordinate adherents of one political party and entrench a rival party in power.” Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, No. 13–1314, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2658, 192 L.Ed.2d 704, 2015 WL 2473452, at *4, 21 (U.S. June 29, 2015). As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, “partisan gerrymanders ... [are incompatible] with democratic principles.” Id. at *4, ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2658 (alteration in original) (quoting Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 292, 124 S.Ct. 1769, 158 L.Ed.2d 546 (2004) (plurality opinion)). In short, the Fair Districts Amendment was designed “to restore ‘the core principle of republican government,’ namely, ‘that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.’ ” Id. at *21, ––– –, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2677 (quoting Mitchell N. Berman, Managing Gerrymandering, 83 Texas L.Rev. 781, 781 (2005) ).2

Presented in this case with a first-of-its-kind challenge under the Fair Districts Amendment, the trial court found that the Legislature's 2012 congressional redistricting plan was drawn in violation of the Florida Constitution's prohibition on partisan intent. We affirm that finding. We conclude, however, that the trial court failed to give proper legal effect to its determination that the Fair Districts Amendment was violated.

In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that the trial court had scant precedent to guide it in approaching the legal issues presented. And, we commend the trial court for the tremendous effort that was expended in deciding this novel challenge under the Fair Districts Amendment.

Nevertheless, we conclude that two legal errors significantly affected the trial

172 So.3d 371

court's determination of the appropriate legal effect of its finding of unconstitutional intent. First, the trial court erred in determining that there was no distinction between a challenge to the “plan as a whole”—a challenge, in effect, to the map produced from the unconstitutional “process”—and a challenge to individual districts. Second, the trial court erred in the standard of review it applied, which was improperly deferential to the Legislature's decisions after finding a violation of the Fair Districts Amendment's prohibition on partisan intent. Although it found the existence of unconstitutional intent, the trial court relied solely on objective “tier-two” constitutional indicators, such as compactness and the use of political or geographical boundaries, rather than on the direct and circumstantial evidence of “tier-one” unconstitutional intent presented at trial.

In other words, the trial court analyzed the Legislature's map as if it had not found the existence of unconstitutional intent, affording deference to the Legislature where no deference was due. Once a direct violation of the Florida Constitution's prohibition on partisan intent in redistricting was found, the burden should have shifted to the Legislature to justify its decisions in drawing the congressional district lines.

Relying on the finding of unconstitutional intent, the challengers have urged that the entire plan should be redrawn. Certain factors support this approach, which would require the Legislature to begin the redistricting process anew on a blank slate. For example, we are aware that the starting point for drawing the 2012 congressional redistricting map was the 2002 map, which was drawn prior to the Fair Districts Amendment with, at that time, legally permissible partisan intent. In fact, the Legislature itself had, in defending against a racial gerrymandering claim directed at the 2002 map, “stipulated” that its intent “was to draw the congressional districts in a way that advantages Republican incumbents and potential candidates.” Martinez, 234 F.Supp.2d at 1340. We also acknowledge that a three-judge federal district court panel concluded that the Florida Legislature's “overriding goal with respect to congressional reapportionment” in 2002 was to “maximize the number of districts likely to perform for Republicans.” Id. at 1300–01. These are considerations now explicitly outlawed by the Florida Constitution's prohibition on partisan political gerrymandering.

Based on the findings and evidence in this case, however, we ultimately reject the challengers' request that the entire plan must be redrawn or that this Court should, at this time, perform the task of redrawing the districts. Although we conclude that the trial court's finding of unconstitutional intent required the burden to shift to the Legislature to justify its decisions regarding where to draw the lines, we also conclude that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Harper v. Hall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • February 14, 2022
    ......, in his official capacity North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc.; Henry M. Michaux, ... League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Pennsylvania , 645 Pa. 1, 178 ...Detzner , 172 So. 3d 363, 416 (Fla. 2015) ). Notably, in ......
  • League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • January 12, 2022
    ...... See League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner , 172 So.3d 363, 375-376 (Fla. 2015) ; see also Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Householder , ......
  • Harper v. Hall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • February 14, 2022
    ......, in his official capacity NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, INC.; HENRY M. MICHAUX, ... League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Pennsylvania , 645. Pa. 1, 178 ... Detzner , 172 So.3d 363, 416 (Fla. 2015)). Notably, in. ......
  • Citizens for Strong Sch., Inc. v. Fla. State Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 4, 2019
    ...of the Florida Constitution and enforce the rights it grants to the citizens of this state. See League of Women Voters v. Detzner , 172 So.3d 363, 400 (Fla. 2015) ("While the Legislature is generally entitled to deference as a result of its role in the redistricting process, that deference ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Law Review (FC Access) No. 55-1, 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...the U.S. Constitution. See Brown v. Sec'y of State, 668 F.3d 1271, 1285 (11th Cir. 2012).12. League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363, 416 (Fla. 2015) (affirming the trial court's finding that the redistricting plan was motivated "by unconstitutional intent to favor the Rep......
  • LIQUIDATING THE INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE THEORY.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 46 No. 1, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...v. Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737 (Pa. 2018); Pearson v. Koster, 359 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. 2012); League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner, 172 So.3d 363 (Fla. 2015); Johnson v. State, 366 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. 2012). (339.) See In re Request for Advisory Op. Concerning Constitutionality of 2005 Pa 71, 7......
  • The Rise of the Hal-mander: Is Gerrymandering by Algorithm the Next Frontier of Partisan Gerrymandering?
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 111-4, April 2023
    • April 1, 2023
    ...is a new approach that only started in 2015. See Zhang, supra note 23, at 997 n.33 (citing League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363, 407–08 (Fla. 2015)); see also Harry Stevens, Can Computer Simulations Help Fix Democracy? , WASH. POST (Aug. 22, 2022), https://www.washingto......
  • The Race-Blind Future of Voting Rights.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 130 No. 4, February 2021
    • February 1, 2021
    ...Wake Citizens Ass'n, 827 F.3d at 344; City of Greensboro, 251 F. Supp. 3d at 943. (130.) See League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363, 435-48 (Fla. 2015) (131.) See In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 653-83 (Fla. 2012). (132.) Se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT