A state appeals court has rejected a legal attempt to save a Black-opportunity congressional district in North Florida, relying on legal reasoning never raised by the parties to the case: That the district originally was devised to benefit Democrats, not Blacks specifically.
The ruling — released at 4:41 p.m. Friday — sidesteps provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act and Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment that forbid political redistricting plans that diminish minority groups’ ability to elect the representative of their choice.
“We can resolve this appeal by answering a simple legal question: In order to demonstrate a legally cognizable claim that an ‘apportionment plan or individual district … diminishes a member of a racial minority’s ability to elect representatives of his or her choice, does a plaintiff first have to establish that he or she is part of a geographically discrete and compact minority community of historically natural existence?” the majority opinion reads.
“The trial court found it unnecessary to answer the question, and the plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence to this effect. We, however, say yes,” the opinion continues.
Judges B.L. Thomas and Adam Tanenbaum wrote the majority opinion, one of four finding against Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, League of Women Voters of Florida, Equal Ground Education Fund, Florida Rising Together, and individual voters who brought the lawsuit. Ten of the court’s 13 judges heard oral arguments on Oct. 31.
Dissent
Judge Ross Bilbrey wrote a dissent, joined by Judge Susan Kelsey, arguing the court should never have heard the case but rather passed it up the ladder to the Florida Supreme Court, which will have the final say in any event.
Both the plaintiffs and lawyers representing Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, the Florida House, and the Florida Senate had argued for that move, hoping to resolve the dispute in time to adjust districts for next year’s elections.
“Barring that, we should affirm [the trial judge who struck down the district at issue] because the currently enacted congressional districts diminish Black voters’ ability to elect representatives of their choice in violation of one of the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendments when compared to the benchmark district the Florida Supreme Court previously approved,” Bilbrey wrote.
“And there are or can be alternatives to the current districts, including two plans the Legislature already passed, that are constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution,” he added.
Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed the maps to which Bilbrey referred, which created a district stretching 200 miles from Jacksonville to Gadsden County, including parts of Tallahassee, or, alternatively, a Black-opportunity district entirely within Duval County, arguing they amounted to racial gerrymanders because they preserved Black voting strength in Florida’s old plantation belt.
A Black-opportunity district need not contain a Black majority but should be capable of allowing Blacks to elect their chosen representatives. Previously, the district at issue sent Black Democrat Al Lawson to Congress.
Mockery
Thomas and Tanenbaum mocked such concerns in their opinion.
“Tallahassee and Jacksonville are separated by about 160 miles of interstate highway (and two Busy Bee fuel-and-convenience destination stops), plus ample byways, farmland, and small communities. The two cities also are separated by drastically different origins and histories — one as a compromise capital location midway between Pensacola and St. Augustine, and the other as a port city and winter vacation destination,” they wrote, waiving aside the plaintiffs’ arguments that these communities nevertheless shared connections.
The majority argued that the Florida Supreme Court, which designed the district at issue following the 2019 U.S. Census, had cited not racial discrimination but rather a partisan gerrymander designed by the GOP-dominated Legislature of the day. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the federal courts shouldn’t interfere with partisan gerrymanders.
None of the parties raised that issue during the proceedings, so for the court to rely on it is unusual.
Response
Common Cause executive director Amy Keith responded with a written statement.
“This decision blatantly ignores the will of Florida voters who —more than a decade ago — demanded Fair Districts that protect representation for communities of color,” she said.
“The Fair Districts Amendments were designed to stop the kind of gerrymandering the court has green lighted today. The decision goes against the will of the voters of Florida and their right to fair maps.
“We are deeply disappointed by today’s state court decision, and we want Florida voters to know there is still hope for a fair congressional map that protects the rights of Black voters. Common Cause and our partners took the DeSantis administration to federal court to hold them accountable for intentionally drawing discriminatory maps in Common Cause Florida v. Byrd and we are still waiting for a decision.”
–Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix
Laurel says
I believe all but two justices were appointed by Republican governors. They are political activists. Republicans know they cannot win unless they cheat. Democrats get the popular votes.
Atwp says
Well, black folks we need to continue to Baul and Baul Republicans out because they don’t care about nobody. I will vote but I will not go for Republicans thank you.
Atwp says
Thank God Desantis will not become President. It much harder to run a country than a state, Desantis is doing a poor job of running the state He and Republicans are doing a good job of ruining the state.
Skibum says
I’m no legal scholar, but isn’t the role of an appellate court to hear specific arguments brought up on appeal and to rule only on those legal arguments? How is it that this appellate court inserts their own separate argument that was never appealed, and then issues a ruling based on that separate argument? I hope there is a reader who is able to knowledgeable enough to provide an answer to this question.
Eddie says
Good victory. You should never be given any advantage on voting due to the color of your skin.
TR says
Let me clear my throat, Yea like the Democrats don’t cheat, Look at all the videos and proof from the 2020 election. Now you can believe all the lies that is in the news, but the videos don’t lie with a fake water main break to clear a building and then boxes upon boxes of Biden votes appear when everyone returns to continue counting. Yea they don’t cheat.
I have a prediction, you will not agree. LOL
Whiplash says
Your Headline is wrong as the court did not disenfranchise anyone. The court simply said that that the new map is in fact legal!
Nephew Of Uncle Sam says
Good example of why the State should go to a nonpartisan committee to draw up a fair and balanced map no matter who the political party that is in charge in Tallahassee. Yet we all know by now that sadly the GOP can only win by cheating.
Pierre Tristam says
In the sense that Plessy v. Ferguson was legal for many years, yes.
Ed says
Laurel if it weren’t for all those damned republicans elected from school boards to Presidents, in your world we would be living in utopia.
The scourge of the world are those bastards.If we could vanquish them all….ahhh Shanghai-La.
Ray W. says
Every political party cheats. There is a long history of cheating by both major parties. This is why every state has a statutory provision for recounts.
In Georgia, the automatic recount occurs when the vote margin is within 1/2 of one percent between the two candidates. Since the 2020 election was within that margin, Georgia officials ordered and then conducted a hand recount. Later, then-President Trump sought a complete recount. That, too, was conducted. When the third count was complete, Georgia’s Secretary of State certified those as the official final results.
The flaw in your reasoning is obvious. What you saw in your videos after Republican operatives engineered the fake water main leak. During the time the building was cleared, Republican operatives intent on stealing an election made sure that boxes upon boxes of Trump votes appeared. When everyone else returned to count all of the ballots, Trump still lost, despite the Republican effort to steal the election. You are presuming that the fake votes had to be Biden votes because it was in Fulton County. People call claims such as yours a “creative fiction.” They were actually all Trump votes. Prove me wrong. Thus far, it appears that you don’t have a clue about what actually happened in Georgia.
Sherry says
@TR . . . so all those hundreds of Republican lawyers and investigators are so incompetent that they could not find “credible” evidence to prove your ridiculous story to Republican judges during over 60 cases that were thrown out in several states. Is that what you believe, and what you are trying to get “thinking” people to believe? Really? Please, change the channel. . . for the sake of your sanity, and for the sake of our democracy.
Foresee says
It seems many judges already have their minds made up before they hear any evidence, then reverse engineer from their foregone conclusion back to their “finding”, even if they must hopscotch around the law to do it.
Foresee says
“Good victory. You should never be given any advantage on voting due to the color of your skin.” ***
*** except for white people
Laurel says
TR: Oh, good! You found evidence, excellent! Where are all those boxes of Biden votes now? At Mar A Lago? Have you turned them in to the authorities? I ask because so many accusations never seem to pan out and lack real, solid evidence. You got the timelines and everything? Good job! We await.
Laurel says
Dear Eddie: You missed the whole point.
Laurel says
Ed: One of two things are going on with your reply: Either you think in such simplistic terms that things are either this or that, with no space in between, or you think I am a stupid, silly woman not worthy to pay attention to on this site. Either way, it’s not commentary that flatters you.
Meanwhile…I carry on.