In Re Constitutionality of Senate J. Res.
601 So. 2d 543 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state legislature fails to correct a legislative apportionment plan that has been found to violate the federal Voting Rights Act, a state court with jurisdiction has the obligation to redraw the plan to comply with the Act, even if it requires creating a geographically non-compact district that subordinates traditional principles like community of interest to achieve racial and ethnic fairness.
Facts:
- The Florida Legislature passed Senate Joint Resolution 2G, a reapportionment plan for the state senate districts.
- The plan for the Hillsborough County area did not contain any districts where the combined black and Hispanic voting-age population exceeded 40.1%.
- The Legislature had considered and rejected proposals to create a stronger minority district by combining minority populations from Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, which are separated by Tampa Bay, citing a lack of economic and political cohesiveness.
- The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), under its Section 5 preclearance authority, reviewed the plan for Hillsborough County.
- The DOJ objected to the plan, finding that it violated the Voting Rights Act because it failed to create a district where minority persons constituted a majority of the voting-age population, thereby diluting their voting strength.
- After the DOJ's objection, the Florida Governor and legislative leaders indicated they would not convene a special legislative session to redraw the map, resulting in a legislative impasse.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida Supreme Court initially approved the Florida Legislature's Senate Joint Resolution 2G apportionment plan on May 13, 1992, but retained jurisdiction to hear subsequent objections.
- The United States Department of Justice reviewed the plan and, on June 16, 1992, formally objected to the Senate apportionment plan with regard to Hillsborough County, rendering it legally unenforceable in that area.
- The Florida Supreme Court encouraged the Legislature to convene an extraordinary session to adopt a plan that would meet the DOJ's objection.
- After being informed that the Governor and legislative leaders did not intend to convene such a session, the Florida Supreme Court determined it must modify the plan itself.
- The Court permitted all interested parties to file proposed corrective plans to resolve the DOJ's objection.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal Voting Rights Act, as interpreted by the Department of Justice, require a court to redraw a state legislative apportionment plan to create a geographically non-compact, multi-county district in order to provide minority voters a reasonable opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice, when the legislature has failed to remedy the violation itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, J.
Yes. The court must redraw the legislative plan to satisfy the requirements of the Voting Rights Act by creating a district that provides minority voters with a reasonable opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. Under the Florida Constitution, the Court has the responsibility to ensure a valid reapportionment plan, and must act when the Legislature does not. After reviewing several proposed plans, the court adopted the Humphrey-Reaves plan because it created the strongest minority district, with a 45.8% black voting-age population. The court acknowledged the district's 'contorted' configuration, which extended across four counties, but held that under the law, 'community of interest must give way to racial and ethnic fairness.' It reasoned that the DOJ's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act favors creating districts where minorities can elect candidates over districts where they merely have influence.
Concurring - Shaw, C.J.
Yes. The court's revision is necessary to meet the specific Section 5 preclearance objection from the Department of Justice. Chief Justice Shaw concurs with the majority's action solely to resolve the DOJ's narrow objection. However, he writes separately to reiterate his view from a prior dissent that the overall state apportionment plan remains flawed and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it fails to provide an equal opportunity for minorities statewide to elect representatives of their choice.
Dissenting - Overton, J.
No. The court should have adopted a more moderate plan instead of the extreme Humphrey-Reaves plan. The chosen plan creates a severely gerrymandered district that lacks geographic compactness and community of interest. By packing nearly all black residents from a four-county area into one district, the plan 'bleaches' the surrounding districts, substantially diminishing minority influence in those elections. The dissent argues that the NAACP's proposed plan was a more appropriate middle-ground approach that would have satisfied the DOJ's concerns without being so geographically disruptive and dilutive of influence elsewhere.
Dissenting - McDonald, J.
No. The majority's plan wrongly elevates race as the sole factor in redistricting, to the exclusion of all other traditional principles. The dissent argues the DOJ's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act is erroneous and that the court has now endorsed a 'weird configuration' with no geographical ties or community of interest, held together only by the race of its residents. This practice of gerrymandering to create minority districts rips traditional communities asunder and is a form of discrimination against those communities. A better plan could have accommodated both minority concerns and community values.
Dubitante - Barkett, J.
The opinion expresses strong hesitation to agree with any of the convoluted plans submitted under rushed circumstances. Justice Barkett notes that the delay and imminent deadlines made a proper resolution difficult. If forced to choose, however, she would have selected the plan submitted by the NAACP, as that organization has historically represented and promoted the position that advances all minority interests.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the significant power of the Voting Rights Act, particularly the DOJ's Section 5 preclearance authority, in shaping state legislative districts. It establishes that to remedy minority vote dilution, courts may prioritize the creation of effective 'opportunity districts' over traditional redistricting principles like compactness and preserving communities of interest. The case illustrates the judiciary's role as a final arbiter in redistricting when a legislative impasse occurs. This ruling also highlights the ongoing legal tension between creating districts to enhance minority representation and the potential for such districts to be challenged as unconstitutional 'racial gerrymandering,' a conflict the U.S. Supreme Court would address in later cases like Shaw v. Reno.
