League of Women Voters v. Florida House of Representatives
132 So. 3d 135 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative privilege, grounded in the separation of powers, exists in Florida, but it is not absolute. This qualified privilege must yield when outweighed by a compelling, competing interest, such as the need to enforce an explicit state constitutional prohibition against partisan and discriminatory intent in legislative redistricting.
Facts:
- In 2010, Florida voters approved the 'Fair Districts' amendments to the state constitution, which are codified in Article III, Section 20.
- These amendments explicitly prohibit the Legislature from drawing an apportionment plan with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.
- The amendments also prohibit drawing districts with the intent or result of denying racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process.
- In February 2012, following the 2010 U.S. Census, the Florida Legislature approved a new decennial plan for the state's twenty-seven congressional districts.
- During the redistricting process, communications occurred between legislators, legislative staff, partisan political organizations, and political consultants.
- The Legislature created various draft apportionment plans and supporting documents that were not filed as official bills.
Procedural Posture:
- Two groups of plaintiffs (challengers), including the League of Women Voters of Florida, filed separate civil complaints in circuit court, which were later consolidated, challenging the constitutionality of the Legislature's 2012 congressional apportionment plan.
- During pretrial discovery, the challengers noticed the depositions of a state senator and two legislative staff members.
- The Florida Legislature filed a motion for a protective order in the circuit court, asserting legislative privilege to prevent the depositions of any legislators or staff and the discovery of unfiled draft maps.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding a qualified privilege and permitting discovery of 'objective' information but not 'subjective' thoughts or impressions of legislators.
- The Legislature petitioned the First District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) for a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court's non-final order.
- The First District Court of Appeal granted certiorari and quashed the circuit court's order, holding that the legislative privilege was absolute and protected both objective and subjective information from discovery.
- The challengers then sought review of the First District's decision in the Florida Supreme Court (highest court).
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 a claim of legislative privilege absolutely bar discovery, including the depositions of legislators and their staff, in a lawsuit alleging that a congressional redistricting plan was drawn with unconstitutional partisan or discriminatory intent in violation of the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente, J.
No, a claim of legislative privilege does not absolutely bar discovery in this context. While Florida law recognizes a legislative privilege founded on the constitutional principle of separation of powers, this privilege is not absolute and is outweighed here by the compelling interest of effectuating the explicit constitutional mandate against partisan gerrymandering. The Florida Constitution's prohibition on improper 'intent' in redistricting makes the legislative decision-making process itself the central issue of the case. Preventing discovery would undermine the voters' intent to create more judicial scrutiny and accountability in the redistricting process. Therefore, discovery into objective information and communications is permissible, though a legislator may still assert the privilege at this stage regarding their subjective thoughts or impressions.
Dissenting - Canady, J.
Yes, a claim of legislative privilege should absolutely bar this discovery. The majority's decision to compel legislators to submit to interrogation in a civil case concerning their legislative activities is unprecedented and grievously violates the constitutional separation of powers. The legislative privilege is firmly rooted in common law and is essential for the uninhibited discharge of legislative duty. The majority's 'balancing approach' reduces a constitutional principle to a matter of unfettered judicial discretion and works a radical change in the relationship between the branches of government that was not authorized by the adoption of the Fair Districts amendments. The court should not intrude into the internal workings of a coordinate branch of government.
Concurring - Labarga, J.
I concur with the majority's holding. The Court has a duty to effectuate the intent of the voters who passed the constitutional amendment prohibiting partisan intent in redistricting. While objective data can show a discriminatory result, only the discovery authorized by the majority can reveal unconstitutional intent. Because the Florida Constitution itself requires this inquiry, allowing limited discovery does not violate the separation of powers; rather, it is necessary to realize the constitutional limitation the people placed on legislative power.
Concurring - Perry, J.
I concur with the majority and write to emphasize that Florida's constitution now requires that politics be removed from the reapportionment process. The inherently political nature of legislative redistricting makes it difficult to achieve the neutrality demanded by the Fair Districts amendments. This case highlights the need for Florida to seriously consider establishing an independent redistricting commission, as other states have done, to ensure that the constitutional requirement of an apolitical process is realized and to limit future litigation over partisan gerrymandering.
Analysis:
This decision significantly redefines the scope of legislative privilege in Florida, establishing that it is qualified rather than absolute. By creating a powerful exception for cases involving explicit constitutional prohibitions on legislative intent, the Court gives significant enforcement power to the Fair Districts amendments. The ruling sets a major precedent, allowing challengers in gerrymandering cases to probe behind the official record and examine the communications and draft documents that are part of the legislative process. This holding will likely influence how similar anti-gerrymandering provisions are litigated in other states and could be extended to other constitutional provisions that hinge on legislative motive or intent.
Unlock the full brief for League of Women Voters v. Florida House of Representatives