US House Redistricting: Florida

[Bacon King]

I'd like to mention to all of you talking about where members of congress have their houses in relation to districts, that in Florida, you DO NOT have to live in your district to run for it.  I could live in Jacksonville and run for a seat in Miami.  I know this because I'm from Florida and I know several examples of elected officials not living in their districts.

No state can legally require a candidate to live in a Congressional district to run for it. The Constitution says that the only requirements for serving in the House of Representatives are a. being 25 years old, b. being a US citizen for 7 years, and c. "inhabiting" the state you're elected from at the time you're elected. It's the same reason that state laws on Congressional term limits were ruled unconstitutional. Still, though, most Congressmen prefer to live in (or at least maintain their non-DC residence in) their own districts, for a number of reasons.

[Bacon King]

There's no way the 3rd will be tossed if the legislature won't do it, I'm afraid.

Can you elaborate as to why not? I thought it wasn't VRA protected, and without that, it surely violates Fair Districts.

The Fair Districts Amendment has its own VRA-type language, though, that explicitly takes precedent over compactness requirements.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the bolded parts. If it goes to court and the legislature justifies the 3rd district by arguing that it was necessary to prevent the "abridging of equal opportunity for racial minorities to elect representatives of their choice," then the compactness requirements would be thrown out the window for that district.

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see. If every incumbent receives a favorable district, that favoring incumbents. But, if some incumbent receives a less favorable district, that's disfavoring a particular incumbent! And, what is "[dis]favoring an incumbent?" In 99% of the cases, it is [dis]favoring his political party. In the vast majority of cases adding more Republicans helps a Republican incumbent, while a Democrat is best favored by adding Democrats to his district.

New districts would have to be swing districts, else the new district "favors" some party. That is unless new minority districts can be drawn, then, that district can "favor" the candidate of choice of that minority.

But, if we consider "plans" rather than individual districts, we have meta-level claims about overall "partisan fairness," whatever that means. That seems to mean electing more Democrats, which requires redrawing the districts of some Republicans so they are more likely to lose, which is, itself, another violation!

The amendment wasn't designed to reform redistricting. It was designed to spawn litigation with the purpose of moving redistricting to the Courts.

The only way it seems possible to meet the standard is to draw districts so that every Republican incumbent has a slightly less Republican district, [presumably excluding West and Riveria whom would be "disfavored" by any shift at all towards the Democrats] and every Democrat incumbent a slightly less Democratic district, but, not so much that they are seriously jeopardized. Of course, this would have to be done without even calculating the partisan effects of the maps!
 

Note that it doesn't say that districts can't favor incumbents, but that they can't be drawn with the intent to do so. And determining intent for something like this is, of course, extremely difficult and litigious- moreso than even what you've mentioned.

I haven't done any research on the amendment's background so I don't know if you're correct regarding its designed purpose (I wouldn't be surprised, rather, if the amendment's backers were just a bunch of well-intentioned idiots) but given how badly that amendment is written, I think you're right regarding the end result. I don't see how the Florida Supreme Court won't end up drawing the map.

[Bacon King]

Just because the state once created it for reasons (officially) other than VRA doesn't mean it'll make that claim this time.

I'm not sure where this idea came from.

Prior court opinion states that FL-03 was drawn in 2002 as a black performing district and that such was intentional, and that such was fully consistent with a legal plan.

Doesn't mean there won't be a lawsuit about it! First, that was from a case in federal court regarding the VRA, whereas any new lawsuit will be in state court over the racial minority standards of the FDA- which might end up with a very different interpretation. Someone could make the case that the district was drawn with the intent to help an incumbent or political party, the prevention of which under the FRA is of equal importance to ensuring minority representation. Also note that the amendment's wording even seems to suggest that not favoring incumbents is more important than all Federal law.

Yeah... this stuff is definitely going to court.

[Bacon King]

Wait... haha, oh wow. I've just realized something here.

Hispanics are an ethnic minority, not a racial minority. If you recall, on the census forms this year, they even explicitly stated that "Hispanic origins are not a race." The census this year also didn't ask any data about language, so there's not even any simple quantitative way to determine anything about "language minorities."

Does this mean that Hispanics aren't covered under the FDA, unless they can figure out a way to accurately guestimate the number and locations of native Spanish speakers who speak English poorly enough to be considered a "language minority"?

Furthermore, wouldn't this mean that the state legislature somehow has to prove that "no incumbent or party was intended to benefit" from the heavily Republican and incumbent-friendly Cuban districts in Miami-Dade, since under the FRA that requirement has higher priority than abiding by the VRA?

Oh boy, it's the highway to litigation hell!

[Bacon King]

The problem with the last claim is that it isn't true. Section 3) explicitly denies any prioritization.

It only denies prioritization for factors that are within the same subsection

Note that Subsection 2 specifies that its standards aren't required if they conflict with the "standards in Subsection 1 or with Federal law," while Subsection 1 states its requirements as standards that must be followed- seemingly, even if they contradict Federal law. Hell, if the Florida GOP really wanted to, they could probably get the whole amendment thrown out by the Federal courts for violating the Supremacy Clause.

Wait... haha, oh wow. I've just realized something here.

Hispanics are an ethnic minority, not a racial minority.

The Florida law talks of "racial or language minority". While that is a different word (and community survey data on language use exist), the intent is clear I believe.

Fair enough. After doing some research, it turns out the VRA uses the term "language minority group" to cover Hispanics as well, so the intent is definitely clear.

[Bacon King]

Drawing three Hispanic districts in Dade alone is foolproof easy, but three Republican Hispanic seats is not. Going to Collier instead of drawing a district of Collier + Lee south of the Caloosahatchee not just makes that easier, it also makes the map look better in a couple of places elsewhere, worse in a lot more others, and helps with keeping West's district winnable.

I know very little about Florida demographics, but based on all this, do you think there's enough basis here for someone to make a case that this violates the Fair Redistricting Amendment?

Since most Hispanics down there are Cuban, and most Cubans vote Republican, would making all three Hispanic districts Republican be required to maintain the "equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to elect the candidate of their choice"? If not, one could easily argue that there was intent to favor a political party, and that adherence to political boundaries was ignored where it wasn't necessary to do so.

Also, is the difference between Collier and Collier + Lee stark enough that someone could reasonably argue there was intent to protect West? And when you say that it makes the map worse in a lot more places than it improves, do you mean that on the whole it makes districts less compact and/or adhere to existing boundaries less (thus causing the map to violate subsection 2 of the amendment with no overriding factors allowing it to do so)?

Sorry for the ignorant questions, I'm just really curious what the eventual fallout of the inevitable court cases will be.

[Bacon King]

Wait. Have they or haven't they reached a compromise? I am currently confused.

It looks as if that map linked to has so far only been passed by the House redistricting committee (and is set to be passed by the House tomorrow), but is nonetheless assumed to be the final map by commentators. Whether rightly or wrongly I've no idea.

I don't think there's a compromise yet. Two days ago, the House put this Senate-passed map on their special order calendar at the same time they moved up this House map on their general calendar for the second reading. We should know by tomorrow what they plan to do with the Senate map, I suppose.

[Bacon King]

In the legally mandated Florida Supreme Court review of the finalized map, what sort of precedent/authority do they have? If they don't approve the legislature's map, can they draw it themselves, or send it back to the legislature with a list of needed changes, or what?