The Florida Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in a high-stakes redistricting case that could determine the fate of Black voting power in North Florida and potentially reshape congressional districts nationwide.
At the center of the dispute is a congressional map pushed through by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022 that eliminated a district where Black voters had consistently elected their preferred candidates for three decades. DeSantis’ map dismantled the former 5th Congressional District, which stretched about 200 miles across North Florida from Jacksonville to Tallahassee and was formerly held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson.
In its stead, DeSantis spread those Black voters across four separate districts, all of which elected white Republicans in 2022.
The plaintiffs argue this move blatantly violates Florida’s voter-approved Fair Districts Amendment. Even the state, in its defense, agreed the new map diminished Black voting power, something prohibited in the state constitution, but the governor’s lawyers argued those voting protections actually violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.
The case, Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, Inc. v. Secretary of State Cord Byrd, pits the language of Florida’s Fair Districts Amendments against novel legal theories that could gut minority voting protections.
The case could also pit the court, with five of seven justices appointed by DeSantis, against precedents decided a decade ago when the state’s highest court was decidedly more liberal.
Plaintiffs are expected to argue that the new map’s dismantling of the district formerly held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson is a textbook case of diminishment, prohibited by the Fair Districts Amendment. They’ll likely point to the state’s own admissions that Black voting power has been reduced, arguing this alone should be enough to invalidate the map.
The state, meanwhile, is poised to argue that complying with Florida’s non-diminishment provision would itself violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. This argument, if accepted, could effectively dismantle a key part of the voter-approved amendment.
The Fair Districts Amendments borrowed heavily from the U.S. Voting Rights Act, incorporating language from both Section 2’s anti-vote dilution and Section 5’s anti-diminishment clauses. Last decade, the Florida Supreme Court relied on federal precedent to interpret violations of these state provisions.
Proving a vote-dilution claim is more difficult as it requires the ability to draw a compact majority-minority district to justify protection for a racial minority group. In contrast, the Florida Supreme Court explicitly said last decade that the non-diminishment clause ensured Jacksonville’s congressional district did not need a Black majority to safeguard Black voting power.
The 1st DCA, however, has argued that the standard for vote dilution and vote diminishment should be the same: requiring a Black majority in a compact district. This interpretation would make it impossible to create a protected district for Black voters in North Florida, as there are not enough Black voters concentrated in a compact area to meet this threshold.
The Florida Supreme Court that will hear these arguments is markedly different from the one that last ruled on similar issues in 2015. Five of the seven current justices are DeSantis appointees, raising questions about whether the court will stand by its past precedents or chart a new course in redistricting law.
The stakes extend far beyond Florida’s borders. The disputed map helped Republicans gain four congressional seats in 2022, contributing to the GOP’s slim House majority. Any ruling could have profound implications for future congressional control and the broader landscape of voting rights nationwide.
If plaintiffs are successful, it could result in an additional Democratic seat in the state. But if they are successful, it could also invite the governor to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the state’s non-diminishment clause.
A decision is not expected immediately, and regardless of how the Florida Supreme Court rules, the case will not affect this year’s congressional elections.
