Jacob Ogles
An insistence to bring two congressional maps to the House floor could spell legal trouble for redistricting according to Rep. Fentrice Driskell, a Tampa Democrat serving on the House Redistricting Committee.
At a press availability with Democratic leadership, Driskell laid out concerns that a bill advanced by the committee (HB 7503) takes a risky approach. Specifically, she’s concerned the House seems poised to attach two maps to a bill that potentially could go to the Governor.
“Two maps,” she repeated. “I emphasize that because our obligation is to pass a constitutionally compliant map, singular. So many of us at the committee felt that we were essentially running afoul of the constitutional requirements for the legislature to produce a singular map.”
Republican leaders decided to pass a primary congressional map (H 8017) that seems to acknowledge Gov. Ron DeSantis’ objections to an existing North Florida district that stretches from Tallahassee to Jacksonville.
But the House has continued to hold that a prohibition in Florida’s Constitution on diminishing Black voters’ ability to elect a Representative of their choice means there must be a Black performing district in North Florida. The primary map has a Jacksonville-centric district where House staff believes Black voters will still control a Democratic Primary in a seat that performs for Democrats.
But legislation coming to the floor also sets out a fallback plan if the courts say maps must retain a configuration similar to Florida’s 5th Congressional District, represented now by Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Lawson. In that event, the bill offers a secondary map (H 8015).
Driskell doesn’t know if this strategy will cut it.
“The leadership on the Redistricting Committee was looking to all the totality of the circumstances, looking to what the Governor has done by interjecting himself into the conversation and proposing his blatantly unconstitutional map, considering that there might be litigation down the line,” Driskell said. “I think that leadership on the committee thought, ‘Well, maybe if we introduce these two maps, we can avoid the possibility of the court taking initiative to draw its own. We can let the court know what the intent of the Legislature is in drawing the secondary map.’
“That’s problematic for a number of reasons. Again, we’ve never seen anything like this. It’s unprecedented. We’re not sure it will pass muster with the court.”
But the Senate appears willing to entertain the path when reapportionment leaders in both chambers come together in conference.
The two-map solution isn’t the only issue nagging at Driskell as the maps come to the House floor. She is still upset the House map maintains just three Black-performing districts and does not view Florida’s 10th Congressional District as a minority access seat. It’s now represented by U.S. Rep. Val Demings, a Black Democrat in Orlando.
“The Senate does recognize that as a protected Black seat, so there’s still some conversations to be had about this map — these maps — as they go to the House floor,” she said.
Of note, both House maps propose the same boundaries for CD 10. Unlike prior drafts, the version passed out of the House committee more closely resembles the Senate map (S 8060) version of the Orlando area seat. The Senate map has Black residents making up 28.33% of the voting age population in CD 10. But in the House maps, Black residents make up 28.8%, a higher percentage. Black residents make up 26.7% of the voting age population in Demings’ existing district.
Another objection to the House bill procedurally, Driskell said, is an unprecedented 30-day statute of limitations on outside parties bringing suit against the maps.
Rep. Tom Leek, the Republican chairing the House redistricting process, said in committee that provision mirrors the time limit to challenge ballot language. He said time is of the essence, considering these maps must be in place for the 2022 election.
But the default in statute gives four years to bring suit. Driskell in committee offered amendments that would leave the four-year period, or alternatively to create a one-year time frame to challenge the maps. Both amendments failed.
“Basically, we’re seeing the Republicans use procedure as a weapon,” she said. “They’re weaponizing court procedure to try to stave off challenges to the maps.”
