After the Florida Senate last month won a legal fight about a 2022 redistricting plan, the Florida House is trying to follow suit.
Attorneys for the House have asked a panel of federal judges to end a lawsuit that alleges seven Miami-Dade County state House districts and one congressional district were unconstitutionally gerrymandered based on race.
In arguments filed Monday to back a motion for summary judgment, the House contended that race did not “predominate” in drawing the disputed districts.
“As to state House districts, plaintiffs’ generalized evidence reveals only what is undisputed: that the Legislature considered race as one factor and that the Florida Constitution confers legal protections on minority voters. But it does not suggest predominance – i.e., that race was elevated above traditional race-neutral districting principles ‘comparatively speaking,'” the House’s attorneys wrote, partially quoting from a legal precedent.
But the plaintiffs’ lawyers contend the Legislature violated equal-protection rights in the way it drew districts that would elect Hispanic candidates.
In an Aug. 21 court document, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that legislative statements “evince the Legislature’s race-based purpose in drawing the challenged districts and its explicit sacrificing of race-neutral criteria like compactness, respect for political subdivisions, and adherence to major natural and manmade boundaries.”
ALSO READ: Federal judges uphold a Senate redistricting plan involving parts of Tampa Bay
The lawsuit, filed last year in federal court in Miami, is one of a series of legal battles stemming from the 2022 redistricting process.
A three-judge panel last month upheld a Senate redistricting plan, rejecting arguments that a Tampa Bay-area district was racially gerrymandered and violated constitutional equal-protection rights. Also, in July, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a congressional redistricting plan pushed through the Legislature by Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The lawsuit in Miami involves state House districts 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118 and 119, which are held, respectively, by Miami-Dade County Republicans Alex Rizo, Vicki Lopez, Demi Busatta, Omar Blanco, House Speaker Daniel Perez, Mike Redondo and Juan Carlos Porras. It also involves Congressional District 26, which stretches from Miami-Dade to Collier counties, and is represented by Republican Mario Diaz-Balart.
The plaintiffs in the case include the groups Cubanos Pa’lante, Engage Miami and the FIU ACLU Club and individuals. Unlike in regular federal lawsuits, three-judge panels handle redistricting cases. The judges in the case are 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Britt Grant, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz and U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Becerra.
As examples of issues in the case, the plaintiffs’ lawyers pointed to Congressional District 26 crossing the state and what they described as “long and skinny” shapes of five of the state House districts. In the Aug. 21 document, they also argued that “in crafting the challenged districts, the Legislature ignored the diversity of the Hispanic community and falsely assumed that Hispanic voters in South Florida were politically homogenous and monolithic.”
The arguments include issues related to the interplay between federal equal-protection rights and 2010 state constitutional amendments, known as the Fair Districts amendments, that set standards for redistricting. Part of the standards seeks to prevent diminishing the ability of minorities to elect candidates of their choice — what is known as a “non-diminishment” clause.
But in an Aug. 4 motion for summary judgment, the House’s attorneys cited testimony from the House’s chief map drawer, Jason Poreda, and said “race was not the predominant motive behind the challenged districts and that traditional race-neutral districting principles were not subordinated to race.”
“Mr. Poreda’s testimony explains that, far from dictating the shapes of the challenged state House districts, race took a back seat to traditional race-neutral districting principles,” the motion said. “Mr. Poreda did not even consider race until after those districts were drawn; only then did he conduct the functional analysis to determine their compliance with the non-diminishment clause.”
Copyright 2025 WUSF 89.7
