De Grandy v. Wetherell

Citation815 F. Supp. 1550
Decision Date17 July 1992
Docket NumberTCA 92-40131-WS and TCA 92-40220-WS.,No. TCA 92-40015-WS,TCA 92-40015-WS
PartiesMiguel DE GRANDY, Mario Diaz-Balart, Andy Ireland, Casimer Smericki, Van B. Poole, Terry Ketchel, Roberto Casas, Rodolfo Garcia, Jr., Luis Rojas, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Javier Souto, Justo Luis Poso, Alberto Cardenas, Rey Velazquez, Luis Morse, Alberto Gutman, Karen E. Butler, Sgt. Augusta Carter, Jean Van Meter, Anna M. Pinellas, Robert Woody, Gina Hahn, Bill Petersen, Terry Kester, Margie Kincaid, and Brooks White, Plaintiffs, v. T.K. WETHERELL, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Gwen Margolis, in her official capacity as President of the Florida Senate, Lawton Chiles, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, Jack Gordon, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Senate Reapportionment Committee, Peter R. Wallace, in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee, Jim Smith, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Florida, Robert Butterworth, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Florida, Defendants. FLORIDA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, T.H. Poole, Sr., Whitfield Jenkins, Leon W. Russell, Willye Dennis, Turner Clayton, Rufus Brooks, Victor Hart, Kerna Iles, Roosevelt Walters, Johnnie McMillian, Phyllis Berry, Mary A. Pearson, Mable Butler, Iris Wilson, Jeff Whigham, Al Davis, Peggy Demon, Carlton Moore, Richard Powell, Neil Adams, Leslie McDermott, Robert Saunders, Sr., Irv Minney, Ada Moore, Anita Davis, and Calvin Barnes, Plaintiffs, v. Lawton CHILES, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida, Jim Smith, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Florida, Robert Butterworth, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Florida, Gwen Margolis, in her official capacity as President of the Florida Senate, T.K. Wetherell, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Jack Gordon, in his official capacity as Chairperson of the House Reapportionment Committee, and Peter R. Wallace, in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee, Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, a State of the United States; T.K. Wetherell, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives; Gwen Margolis, President of the Florida Senate; Lawton Chiles, Governor of the State of Florida; Robert Butterworth, Attorney General for the State of Florida; Peter R. Wallace, Chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee; Jack Gordon, Chairman of the Senate Reapportionment Committee; Jim Smith, Secretary of State for the State of Florida, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

E. Thom Rumberger, Rumber, Kirk & Caldwell, Orlando, FL, George N. Meros, Jr., Rumberger, Kirk & Cladwell, Tallahassee, FL, for plaintiffs.

Mark S. Levine, Tallahassee, FL, for Simon Ferro.

George L. Waas, Denis Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, FL, for third-party defendant.

James A. Peters, Cobb, Cole & Bell, Tallahassee, FL, for Wetherell & Wallace.

F. Perry Odom, Joseph C. Jacobs, Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Ervin, Tallahassee, FL, for Andy Ireland.

Craig T. James, pro se.

Donald M. Middlebrooks, Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, FL, for Jim Bacchus.

Edwin I. Ford, Largo, FL, for George C. McGough et al.

Richard E. Doran, Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, FL, for Chiles & Butterworth.

Sidney L. Matthew, Gorman & Matthew, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Florida AFL-CIO.

Halley B. Lewis, pro se.

Daniel J. Webster, pro se.

W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Stephen N. Zack, The Senate Committee on Reapportionment, Mark Herron, Mitchell D. Franks, Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson, & Moffitt, Tallahassee, FL, for Alzo Reddick.

Parker D. Thomson, Carol A. Licko, Miami, FL, H. Lee Moffitt, Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson & Moffitt, Tallahassee, FL, for Proffer as Special Master.

C. Clyde Atkins, Sr. U.S. Dist. Judge, S.D.Fla., Miami, FL, for Special Master.

Stephen N. Zack, Miami, FL, for Margolis & Gordon.

Aurora Ares, Thornton David, Murray, Richard & Davis, P.A., Miami, FL, for Cuban American Bar Ass'n.

Larry White, Tallahassee, FL, Frank R. Parker, Brenda Wright, Lawyers' Committee for Civ. Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C., Gwen Humphrey, et al.

Charles G. Burr, Tampa, FL, Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Perry & Lamb, P.A., Orlando, FL, Dennis Courtland Hayes, Willie Abrams, NAACP Special Contribution Fund, Baltimore, MD, for Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches.

Steven Mulroy, Gerald Hebert Dept. of Justice, Civ. Rights Div.-Voting Section, Washington, D.C., for U.S.

Henry C. Hunter, Charles E. Vanture, Tallahassee, FL, Rodney G. Gregory, Rodney G. Gregory, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Reaves, Brown & Hargarett.

Edwin J. Turanchik, Zinober & McCrea, Tampa, FL, for Gwen Margolis.

M. David Gelfand, Tulane Law School, New Orleans, LA, for Independent Expert.

Katharine Inglis Butler, University of South Carolina Law School, Columbia, SC, for AFL-CIO.

Alan K. Fertel, Alberto R. Cardenas, Ferrell, Cardenas, Fertel & Morales, P.A., Miami, FL, for Fertel & Cardenas.

Samuel Dubbin, Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, FL, for Ron Silver, Elaine Bloom, et al.

Bill L. Bryant, Jr., Foley & Lardner, Tallahassee, FL, for Stephen R. McNamara.

Before HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, STAFFORD and VINSON, District Judges.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Florida currently has forty Senate districts and one hundred twenty House of Representative districts. These districts were created in 1982 and are currently malapportioned. According to the 1990 census data, the total population of the state of Florida is 12,937,926 persons. Between the census of 1980 and 1990, Florida's population increased 3,213,602 persons. To achieve equality between Florida's forty Senate districts, each district would ideally contain 323,448 persons. To achieve equality between Florida's one hundred twenty House districts, each district would ideally contain 107,816 persons.

On the opening day of the 1992 Florida legislative session, Miguel De Grandy, a member of the Florida House of Representatives, and other registered voters ("De Grandy plaintiffs") filed a complaint against the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, the President of the Florida Senate, the Governor of Florida, and other state officials. The De Grandy plaintiffs filed the complaint in this court challenging the constitutionality of Florida's current congressional and state legislative districts. The De Grandy plaintiffs alleged that the current districts violate both the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, and urged this court to assert jurisdiction in order to redistrict and reapportion the state.

The De Grandy plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on January 23, 1992. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. After hearing arguments on the motion, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (document 41). On March 9, 1992, the De Grandy plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (document 44) alleging violations of Article I, Section 2 and of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as violations of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq.

In short, Count I alleged that the present Florida House and Senate districts were unconstitutional inasmuch as they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and the "one-person, one-vote" principle. Count II alleged that because these districts diluted the voting strength of minority voters, they violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Count III alleged that the Florida Legislature was at an impasse in adoption of state redistricting plans. Counts V and VI alleged that the time lines for redistricting set forth in Article III, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution, in conjunction with the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, "permit the adoption and implementation of new district lines to take place so late in the year after the decennial census" that they result in a deprivation of plaintiffs' right to participate in the 1992 elections on a fair and equal basis.1 Document 44 at ¶ 120. Count V alleged a facial challenge, while Count VI alleged an "as applied" challenge. Count VII alleged that certain defendants have "intentionally misused the time lines and procedures found in Article III ... to delay the redistricting process to the advantage of white incumbents and to the detriment of voters and would be challengers to those incumbents." Document 44 at ¶ 130. On March 13, 1992, the Florida legislature ended its regular session without adopting a state reapportionment plan.

On March 27, 1992, this three-judge court convened, denied all motions to dismiss and established an expedited schedule for adoption of congressional and state legislative plans by May 29, 1992 (document 56). That scheduling order in no way enjoined or prevented state redistricting and reapportionment agencies from attempting to enact their own plans. On April 2, 1992, the Governor of Florida called a special redistricting and reapportionment session of the Florida Legislature pursuant to Article III, Section 16(a), of the Florida Constitution. On April 10, 1992, the legislature adopted Senate Joint Resolution 2-G reapportioning state House and Senate districts.

Meanwhile, this case progressed and on April 6, 1992, the court appointed a special master pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 for both Congressional and legislative reapportionment. On April 7, 1992, the court consolidated this case with a similar lawsuit filed by the Florida State Conference of the NAACP Branches and many individual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Martinez v. Bush
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 3, 2002
    ... ...         Christopher Carver, Miami, FL, J. Thomas Cardwell, Orlando, FL, Miguel Angel De Grandy, Miami, FL, Jason Lawrence Unger, George N. Meros, Jr., Tallahassee, FL, Joseph W. Hatchett, Tallahassee, for Speaker Feeney ... See De Grandy v. Wetherell, 815 F.Supp. 1550 (N.D.Fla.1992) ...         191. The House plan was challenged on grounds of alleged dilution of black votes in Escambia ... ...
  • Solomon v. Liberty County, Fla., TCA 85-7009-MMP.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • March 31, 1997
    ... ...          4. Johnson v. De Grandy: ...         In Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994), the Supreme Court had occasion to revisit the ... denied, 499 U.S. 907, 111 S.Ct. 1108, 113 L.Ed.2d 217 (1991). See also De Grandy v. Wetherell, 815 F.Supp. 1550, 1563 (N.D.Fla.1992) (three judge panel) (holding that a section 2 violation was shown under both Chief Judge Tjoflat's and Judge ... ...
  • Aldasoro v. Kennerson, Civ. No. 91-1410-B (LSP).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 4, 1995
    ... ... and without isolating any other arguably relevant facts from the act of judgment ...          Johnson v. De Grandy, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 2656-58, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). 922 F. Supp. 369 See also Baird v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 976 F.2d ... Slagle, 789 F.Supp. 828 (W.D.Tex.1991) (50% Hispanic VAP district rejected; 51.5% registration majority district imposed); De Grandy v. Wetherell, 794 F.Supp. 1076, 1084 (N.D.Fla.1992) (VAP increased to ensure registration majority), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, sub. nom., Johnson v. De ... ...
  • Johnson v. Mortham
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • June 6, 1996
    ... ... See DeGrandy v. Wetherell, 815 F.Supp. 1550, 1580 (N.D.Fla.1992). On appeal, the Court specifically addressed the question of whether Section 2 requires a state to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The multimember district: a study of the multimember district and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 66 No. 1, September 2002
    • September 22, 2002
    ...forming voting majorities by dispersing minorities among several districts). (137) See id. at 1022-23, rev'g De Grandy v. Wetherell, 815 F. Supp. 1550, 1574 (N.D. Fla. 1992) (finding that the record reflected social, economic, and political effects of (138) See Johnson, 512 U.S. at 1011-12 ......

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