US House Redistricting: Florida

[Donerail]

Would this be a better map? Both the R and D maps from the legislature assumed section 5 which is no longer in effect for FL. I preserved 3 HVAP majority CDs, 1 BVAP majority CD and a majority minority CD (23). I wasn't wild about sticking Monroe with the Gulf Coast, but there is regular ferry service between Key West and Fort Myers and it allows better use of county lines without a CD that crosses the unpopulated middle. It also matches up with the urban county clusters. I've included detail of central and south FL to show how municipal boundaries are also preserved.

I personally think that's a very reasonable map. One of my biggest problems has been how Republicans have been carving up St. Petersburg. There's no reason at all why it shouldn't be in one district. You have a St. Petersburg-centred district, a Tampa-centred district, and a suburban Hillsborough district. Personally, I'd rather see an entirely Duval County-based CD-04. And other than the rather unsightly CD-17, it's a very nice map.

God, yes. As someone living in the FL-14 part of Pinellas, we're a lot closer in every regard to the rest of St. Pete than to Tampa or whatever Castor's representing. Only reason we're not in the same district is to help Bill Young.

[jimrtex]

Florida has a comparable black population to Georgia, which of course has 4 black districts.  Or Texas, which also has 4 black districts. Or New York, which also has 4 black districts. It would be quite curious to see the legislature thus create a Florida map with only 2 black districts.

How concentrated a minority population is also has an impact on how easy it is to draw minority-majority districts.

Exactly. Without Section 5 the question of compactness for a VRA district looms large. When a minority only exists in a number of disconnected urban centers does Section 2 mandate the creation of a district where that minority can elect a representative of choice? If so, how much of a stretch is permitted to have a mandated minority district? If the Louisiana suit moves forward it may well provide an answer.

Whether is it mandated is separate from whether it is justified as a permissible choice made by a legislature. This is especially so when Florida has fewer districts of this type than other states.


A proposed New York State map drew a district connecting Harlem to areas in Westchester County in order to preserve the 4th black district. Harlem and Westchester County might be geographically closer than Jacksonville and Orlando but are certainly quite distinct.

A legislature can endeavor to do that and as long as they show that race was a factor but not the predominant factor for the district then it should be permissible. If the district is strangely shaped connecting disparate areas and race is the predominant factor then it would likely be thrown out like the NC-12 districts of the 1990s.

The Florida Constitution reiterates the federal VRA (rather than weaseling out and simply saying that federal law must be adhered to).  To diminish the ability to elect candidates of choice is the equivalent of the Section V standard.  Not diminishing the ability to elect presumably is a viable standard regardless whether maps must be precleared by the federal government or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

Florida has a comparable black population to Georgia, which of course has 4 black districts.  Or Texas, which also has 4 black districts. Or New York, which also has 4 black districts. It would be quite curious to see the legislature thus create a Florida map with only 2 black districts.

How concentrated a minority population is also has an impact on how easy it is to draw minority-majority districts.

Exactly. Without Section 5 the question of compactness for a VRA district looms large. When a minority only exists in a number of disconnected urban centers does Section 2 mandate the creation of a district where that minority can elect a representative of choice? If so, how much of a stretch is permitted to have a mandated minority district? If the Louisiana suit moves forward it may well provide an answer.

Whether is it mandated is separate from whether it is justified as a permissible choice made by a legislature. This is especially so when Florida has fewer districts of this type than other states.


A proposed New York State map drew a district connecting Harlem to areas in Westchester County in order to preserve the 4th black district. Harlem and Westchester County might be geographically closer than Jacksonville and Orlando but are certainly quite distinct.

A legislature can endeavor to do that and as long as they show that race was a factor but not the predominant factor for the district then it should be permissible. If the district is strangely shaped connecting disparate areas and race is the predominant factor then it would likely be thrown out like the NC-12 districts of the 1990s.

The Florida Constitution reiterates the federal VRA (rather than weaseling out and simply saying that federal law must be adhered to).  To diminish the ability to elect candidates of choice is the equivalent of the Section V standard.  Not diminishing the ability to elect presumably is a viable standard regardless whether maps must be precleared by the federal government or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had not considered that phrase in the FL constitution as a section 5 copy, but I agree that it appears so. That raises the question of whether a state can mandate no retrogression as a standard without the requirements of section 5. A legislature can choose to implement a plan that has no retrogression as long as race is not the predominant factor. But does the mandate become a race-based standard that goes beyond what section 2 permits?

[krazen1211]

A legislature can endeavor to do that and as long as they show that race was a factor but not the predominant factor for the district then it should be permissible. If the district is strangely shaped connecting disparate areas and race is the predominant factor then it would likely be thrown out like the NC-12 districts of the 1990s.

The 11th circuit in 2002 validated the apportionment plan passed by that legislature. In doing so, they noted that the 3rd district (now the 5th) was reasonably compact, and was intentionally drawn with the reasonable purpose of giving the black population 1 district in North Florida. That case never reached the Supreme Court. The membership of the Supreme Court has mostly cycled over since the 1990s in any case.

[Sol]

Some news on this front.