Ron DeSantis won a significant opening move in his battle to reshape Florida's congressional map, after the U.S. Supreme Court weakened a major legal weapon his opponents could have wielded against him. The ruling stops short of a total victory, though, and leaves unresolved the question of whether Florida's entire redistricting framework could be dismantled.
The Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais imposed stricter standards for proving violations under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That matters for Florida because the state copied Section 2's language into its own constitution, using it to protect Black and Hispanic voting power in redistricting. The new, higher bar makes such challenges harder to win.
Yet the court stopped short of striking down Section 2 entirely. It also left untouched another piece of Florida's constitutional amendment that explicitly forbids maps drawn to favor or disfavor any political party or incumbent. That provision could become the battleground for a rematch.
DeSantis has advanced a novel legal theory to neutralize that problem. He argues the entire constitutional amendment is invalid because it was marketed as a package deal: ban partisan gerrymandering while also protecting racial minorities. In his view, one piece cannot stand without the other. The Florida Supreme Court will likely settle that dispute.
The governor's map adds four Republican-leaning U.S. House seats despite Florida's ban on intentional partisan gerrymandering. A staff member, Jason Poreda, said the map was drawn without considering race but acknowledged that partisan performance data shaped decisions. Democrats and civil rights groups have signaled they will challenge the maps once DeSantis signs them.
Notably, the redrawn districts do not completely eliminate two seats designed to represent Black voters. That configuration allows Republicans to pack Democratic-leaning Black voters into fewer districts, making surrounding seats safer for the GOP, a tactic that could prove politically valuable in future elections.
State Senator Jen Bradley, a Republican who voted against the map, called the governor's legal theory unprecedented. "The map rests on a legal theory that the Supreme Court has not even opined on or heard," she said, adding that she could not support what she views as an unconstitutional approach.
The Supreme Court's ruling gave DeSantis the opportunity to attack race-conscious districts, but it did not automatically rubber-stamp a partisan gerrymander. The governor is prepared for a three-layered legal defense to stall challengers through the election cycle.
Author James Rodriguez: "DeSantis got some help from the high court, but the game is far from over, and Florida's own courts may have the final say."
Comments