TALLAHASSEE, Fla. 鈥� One of a of recent related to race and redistricting comes to Florida鈥檚 high court Thursday.
Voting rights groups challenging the state鈥檚 congressional map are counting on the Florida Supreme Court to reinstate a district that gave Black voters in the northern part of the state the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice.
鈥淲e want to make sure that we are protecting Black congressional representation,鈥� said Genesis Robinson, interim executive director for Equal Ground Education Fund, one of the plaintiffs in the case. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 why we鈥檙e challenging this unconstitutional map.鈥�
Ahead of the 2022 elections, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis succeeded in his push to reconfigure the former 5th Congressional District 鈥� which stretched about 200 miles across North Florida and picked up voters in Tallahassee and Jacksonville. The GOP-led state legislature had sought to preserve the district, until DeSantis took an unprecedented step for a governor and intervened with a map of his own that eliminated it.
READ MORE: Arrests of Miami-Dade's homeless residents skyrockets since new law
The old 5th district was last held by former Democratic Rep. Al Lawson, who鈥檚 African American. That district was carved into four districts, and much of the area, now the 2nd district, is held by Rep. Neal Dunn, a white Republican.
鈥淭here's a high concentration of Black folks who live in that region,鈥� Robinson explained. 鈥淭hey have not had a chance to elect the candidate of their choice鈥� since the new map took effect.
On Thursday, the state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from attorneys representing plaintiffs and the state, and then the court will decide whether to uphold the map or order a new one that restores Black representation in the region.
The case comes before the state鈥檚 highest court after opponents found no remedy in federal courts.
In December, a three-judge panel for the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida upheld the map after finding that plaintiffs couldn鈥檛 prove the legislature acted with 鈥渄iscriminatory intent.鈥� Plaintiffs they don鈥檛 plan to challenge the federal court鈥檚 decision on appeal.
The Florida Constitution is at the heart of the state case
In 2010, a majority of Florida voters added the to the state constitution, which prohibit racial gerrymandering and intentional partisan gerrymandering. In the state case, plaintiffs focus on the former, arguing that the map violates that provision because it diminishes a minority group鈥檚 ability to elect their preferred candidate.
鈥淲e want the state to just simply follow the law,鈥� Robinson said.
In 2012, the state Supreme Court of the provision, explaining that the legislature cannot eliminate a district where a minority group has historically had the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice without replacing it with another district that performs for minority voters.
A few years later, the high court applied this interpretation when it the former 5th Congressional District, finding that it complied with the state constitution.
鈥淭he concern here is that the Florida Supreme Court undoes the precedent,鈥� said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, a nonprofit organization that鈥檚 affiliated with the Democratic Party and is funding the lawsuit.
Since that precedent was set, the court鈥檚 makeup has changed and now consists of mostly DeSantis appointees. 鈥淚t should not be the case that the personnel on the court determine the outcome of a case, rather than the precedents that they are applying,鈥� Jenkins said.
She added they鈥檙e confident that they 鈥渉ave a strong case鈥� because it鈥檚 鈥渁 textbook application of this law.鈥�
A state Supreme Court decision would come after a long legal battle
But that鈥檚 not how a state appellate court recently saw it.
In December, the state鈥檚 First District Court of Appeal , reversing a lower court鈥檚 ruling and deviating from the state Supreme Court鈥檚 earlier precedent.
The appeal court reinterpreted the state constitution鈥檚 prohibition on racial gerrymandering to mean that it only applies if certain federal redistricting criteria are also met. The appeal court鈥檚 majority wrote that 鈥渕inority voters living hundreds of miles apart in totally different communities鈥� aren鈥檛 protected by the provision because the former 5th District wasn鈥檛 鈥済eographically compact.鈥�
Attorneys for the state echoed the state appeal court鈥檚 opinion regarding 鈥済eographical compactness鈥� to the state Supreme Court.
They that the former congressional map violates the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all residents, because it puts race above other redistricting criteria, such as 鈥済eographic compactness.鈥�
Democrats and others see the appeal court鈥檚 ruling, with its deviation from past state precedent, as 鈥渨ildly out of step with judicial norms,鈥� as Jenkins put it.
鈥淭hey went out of their way to weigh in on the case and create their own interpretation,鈥� Jenkins said.
鈥淯nder Florida precedent from last decade, this is an open and shut case,鈥� added Michael Li, a redistricting expert at New York University鈥檚 Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for expanded voting rights.
鈥淚f the Florida Supreme Court affirms [the appeal court鈥檚 view], it really would weaken a key protection for voters of color,鈥� Li said
If plaintiffs are successful, a new map wouldn鈥檛 take effect until at least 2026 鈥� three congressional election cycles after DeSantis鈥� map took effect. If not, they could try to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Voting rights groups, however, don鈥檛 want to wait much longer for a new map.
鈥淚t's important to have representation that looks like you,鈥� said Robinson, of Equal Ground Education Fund. 鈥淲e're hoping that the Florida Supreme Court will side with us and restore that representation for those voters.鈥�
Copyright 2024 NPR
