Court rejects Democrats’ baseless challenge to Florida’s congressional map
Florida’s First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a congressional map previously signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday, striking down a lower court’s ruling that erroneously claimed the proposal suppressed black voters.
Writing for a Florida trial court in September, Judge J. Lee Marsh declared the map “unconstitutional” based upon the false notion the map “diminish[ed]” black Floridians “ability to elect their candidate of choice.” The order — sought by left-wing groups such as the Black Voters Matters Capacity Building Institute and the League of Women Voters of Florida Education Fund — further mandated the legislature to redraw the proposed districts.
In its Friday ruling, however, the appeals court noted how Marsh’s irrational logic reads a “racial segregation mandate” into the Florida Constitution by demanding that congressional districts be drawn using race as a factor.
“The constitution cannot demand that all voters are treated equally without regard to race and at the same time demand that voters are treated differently based on race,” the court wrote. Florida’s constitution “requires that racial and language minority voters receive an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and have a non-diminished ability to elect representatives of their choice. The trial court erred in reading a racial segregation mandate into the constitutional provision.”
“We are therefore correct to reverse the final order and remand to the trial court,” it added.
Similar legal reasoning was used by DeSantis, who vetoed prior maps approved by the state legislature last year that created a “black minority seat in North Florida.” The governor’s office argued the proposal’s creation of the district was gerrymandered using race as the primary factor, and therefore violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. This prompted the GOP-controlled legislature to pass the newer map currently being litigated in state court.
Plaintiffs plan to appeal the circuit court’s ruling to the Florida Supreme Court, according to the Washington Examiner.
Friday’s decision marks the second legal victory in recent weeks upholding election integrity measures approved by DeSantis and Florida Republicans. In October, a U.S. district court judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by leftist groups falsely claiming Florida’s voter registration process violated federal law. In his ruling, Judge Allen Winsor noted how the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing that the state’s “wet-signature requirement” is “immaterial.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
Why did the appeals court overturn the lower court’s ruling that claimed the map suppressed black voters?
Florida’s First Circuit Court of Appeals recently made a significant ruling regarding a congressional map that was previously signed by Governor Ron DeSantis. In a decision that has widespread implications, the court overturned a lower court’s ruling that wrongly claimed the map suppressed black voters.
The controversy began when Judge J. Lee Marsh declared the map “unconstitutional” based on the false belief that it diminished the ability of black Floridians to elect their preferred candidates. This ruling was sought by left-wing groups such as the Black Voters Matters Capacity Building Institute and the League of Women Voters of Florida Education Fund, who further demanded that the proposed districts be redrawn by the legislature.
However, in its recent ruling, the appeals court noted the irrationality of Marsh’s logic, accusing him of reading a “racial segregation mandate” into the Florida Constitution by demanding that race be a factor in drawing congressional districts. The court emphasized that the constitution requires that all voters be treated equally, without regard to race, and at the same time guarantees that racial and language minority voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.
The court stated, “The constitution cannot demand that all voters are treated equally without regard to race and at the same time demand that voters are treated differently based on race. The trial court erred in reading a racial segregation mandate into the constitutional provision.”
Based on this reasoning, the court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Interestingly, Governor DeSantis had already vetoed prior maps approved by the state legislature last year for similar reasons. He argued that those maps created a “black minority seat in North Florida” through gerrymandering, which violated the U.S. Constitution’s principle of equal protection.
The latest ruling by the appeals court supports the governor’s position, further highlighting the importance of fairness and equal representation in the redistricting process. It establishes a legal precedent that disallows the use of race as the primary factor in drawing congressional districts.
This decision has significant implications for Florida’s electoral landscape and serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges and controversies surrounding redistricting. It emphasizes the need to uphold both the constitutional requirement of equal treatment for all voters and the guarantee of representation for racial and language minority communities.
As the case moves forward, it will be interesting to see how the trial court responds to the appeals court’s ruling and what impact it will have on future redistricting efforts in Florida. This decision is likely to shape the way redistricting is conducted in the state and could set a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
