SC12-460 – In Re: Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 2-B

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Supreme Court » 2012 » SC12-460 – In Re: Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 2-B

State: Florida

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: SC12-460

Case Date: 04/27/2012

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ No. SC12-460 ____________

IN RE: SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION OF LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT 2-B. [April 27, 2012] PER CURIAM. In this second phase of Florida`s decennial legislative apportionment process, the Court`s constitutional obligation is to determine the validity of the apportionment plan set forth in Senate Joint Resolution 2-B (SJR 2-B). In that joint resolution, the Legislature adopted a revised plan apportioning Florida`s Senate districts after this Court declared the original Senate apportionment plan to be constitutionally invalid. See In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176 (In re Apportionment Law--March 2012), 37 Fla. L. Weekly S181 (Fla. Mar. 9, 2012). The declaratory judgment this Court entered on March 9, 2012, expressly declared invalid the Senate`s numbering scheme and eight Senate districts, Districts 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 29, 30, and 34. Id. at S211-12. It also charged the

Legislature with considering the feasibility of using the City of Lakeland`s municipal boundaries to keep that city wholly intact. Id. at S213. The Court then directed the Legislature to adopt a new joint resolution conforming to the judgment of the supreme court as set forth in article III, section 16(d), of the Florida Constitution. Id. In accordance with the Court`s declaratory judgment, the Legislature reconvened by special session, the end result of which was the Legislature`s March 27, 2012, adoption of SJR 2-B. The Attorney General thereafter petitioned the Court to determine the validity of the revised Senate apportionment plan set forth in SJR 2-B. As in the original proceeding initially before this Court in In re Apportionment Law--March 2012, the Court is once again tasked with the mandatory obligation entrusted to us by article III, section 16(c), of the Florida Constitution to render a declaratory judgment determining the validity of the Legislature`s revised Senate plan.1 In reaching its decision, the Court has carefully considered the submissions

1. In the prior proceeding, we set forth the data and software we used in evaluating the apportionment plans and alternative plans. See In re Apportionment Law--March 2012, 37 Fla. L. Weekly at S186. In evaluating the revised Senate plan and alternative plans in this case, we used the same data and software, with the exception of utilizing Maptitude, and not ESRI, to generate Reock compactness scores.

-2-

of both those supporting and those opposing the plan.2 The Court has also considered the alternative plans that both the Florida Democratic Party (FDP) and the Coalition have submitted in support of their arguments. Finally, the Court has held oral argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we declare the redrawn plan apportioning the districts for the Florida Senate to be constitutionally valid under the Florida Constitution. I. BACKGROUND The Legislature originally passed Senate Joint Resolution 1176 (SJR 1176), apportioning this state into 120 House districts and 40 Senate districts on February

2. The following parties have filed briefs in opposition to the redrawn Senate plan: (1) the League of Women Voters of Florida, the National Council of La Raza, and Common Cause Florida (together the Coalition); (2) the Florida Democratic Party (FDP); and (3) the Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches (NAACP). The Florida Senate was the only party to file an answer brief. The following parties filed comments. The City of Lakeland filed a comment stating that it supported the Senate districts as set forth in SJR 2-B, but requesting that the city be preserved within one district in the event this Court invalidated the plan. The Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections filed a comment directed to the applicable time frames that Florida`s Supervisors of Elections are mandated to follow. The Secretary of State filed a comment providing a summary of various statutory deadlines and other legal requirements that pertain to Florida`s elections. This comment includes a discussion as to the Department of Justice`s preclearance of the five Florida counties covered under Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act. Finally, Marion County submitted a letter to the Court protesting the division of Marion County into three separate districts. Because the letter was received after the deadline for submissions had passed and did not otherwise comply with the Court`s March 13, 2012, scheduling order, the Court struck the letter and has not considered it in reaching its decision.

-3-

9, 2012. The next day, the Attorney General filed a petition in this Court for a declaratory judgment to determine the validity of the legislative apportionment plans contained within SJR 1176. Following the Attorney General`s filing, this Court permit[ted] adversary interests to present their views, as required by article III, section 16(c), of the Florida Constitution. The Court also permitted opponents of the legislative apportionment plans to submit alternative plans.3 In reviewing the validity of the apportionment plan, this Court first examined the historical evolution of article III of the Florida Constitution, noting that prior to 2010, the Court`s review was limited to determining whether the Legislature`s apportionment plans complied with (1) the general provisions of the United States Constitution, which set forth the one-person, one-vote standard under the Equal Protection Clause, and (2) the specific provisions of the state constitution, article III, section 16(a), requiring districts to be consecutively numbered and to consist of contiguous, overlapping or identical territory. In re Apportionment Law--March 2012, 37 Fla. L. Weekly at S181. A review of the Court`s precedent revealed that prior to 2010, Florida`s constitutional requirements were not more stringent than the requirements under the United States Constitution. Id. at S182 (quoting In re Constitutionality of House Joint

3. In that proceeding, this Court received alternative plans from only one opponent, the Coalition. See In re Apportionment Law--March 2012, 37 Fla. L. Weekly at S186.

-4-

Resolution 1987 (In re Apportionment Law--2002), 817 So. 2d 819, 824 (Fla. 2002)). After the voters approved Amendment 5 (Fair Districts Amendment) for inclusion in the Florida Constitution on November 2, 2010, the standards governing legislative apportionment greatly expand[ed], restraining legislative discretion in drawing apportionment plans. Id. at S181. The overall goal of this amendment was [t]o require the Legislature to redistrict in a manner that prohibits favoritism or discrimination, while respecting geographic considerations as well as to require legislative districts to follow existing community lines so that districts are logically drawn, and bizarrely shaped districts . . . are avoided. Id. (quoting Advisory Op. to Att`y Gen. re Standards for Establishing Legislative Dist. Boundaries, 2 So. 3d 175, 181, 187-88 (Fla. 2009) (plurality opinion)). The Fair Districts Amendment--now codified in the Florida Constitution as article III, section 21--imposed upon the Legislature more stringent requirements as to apportionment than the United States Constitution and prior versions of the state constitution. Id. This Court succinctly summarized the new standards guiding the apportionment process of this state in the following manner: The new standards enumerated in article III, section 21, are set forth in two tiers, each of which contains three requirements. The first tier, contained in section 21(a), lists the following requirements: (1) no apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor -5-

or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; (2) districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and (3) districts shall consist of contiguous territory. The second tier, located in section 21(b), lists three additional requirements, the compliance with which is subordinate to those listed in the first tier of section 21 and to federal law in the event of a conflict: (1) districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; (2) districts shall be compact; and (3) where feasible, districts shall utilize existing political and geographical boundaries. See art. III,

Download SC12-460 – In Re: Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionmen