The Senate Ethics and Elections Committee will workshop two voting-related bills sponsored by Lake Worth Democrat Jeff Clemens on Tuesday.
One of Clemens’s proposals would automatically register voters when they get a driver’s license or state ID card (they could opt out if they choose). The second would restrict legislators to putting three constitutional amendments on the ballot at any one time.
They’ll be the first official pieces of legislation heard by the committee, tasked by Senate President Don Gaetz to figure out what went wrong with the 2012 election and propose legislative fixes.
Elections supervisors told the committee earlier this month that the number one problem – even in areas that didn’t have six hour waits like Palm Beach County – was the length of the ballot.
The GOP-controlled legislature placed 11 lengthy, and according to the supervisors confusing, constitutional questions on the 2012 ballot. Three of them passed, and the rest did not even get a majority approval from voters. Constitutional amendments require 60 percent approval by voters to pass.
Limiting the number of constitutional questions lawmakers can place on the ballot requires a change to the constitution, which means Clemens’s proposal would have to go before voters.
“The irony of this is yes, I filed a constitutional amendment to limit constitutitonal amendments,” Clemens said. “That’s the only way to accomplish it. I think it’s a legitimate constitutional issue as opposed to many of the items placed on the ballot in November which were purely political.”
For many Capitol insiders, the 60-day legislative sessions are more than long enough.
But state Sen. Jeff Clemens, a freshman who won a bitter primary against former state Rep. Mack Bernard, filed a resolution that would make the sessions last two years.
Under Clemens’s proposed constitutional amendment (SJR 512), the session would begin two weeks after the general election and last two years.
Clemens said lawmakers don’t have enough time to fully vet issues during the two-month session.
“The compressed nature of the legislature as we have it right now forces us to rush bills through without thinking them through and doesn’t allow enough time for us to delve into the budgetary process,” the Lake Worth Democrat said. “I think the voters suffer because of that.”
And the 160 members of the House and Senate, whose annual legislative salaries is around $30,000, have full-time, outside jobs that may create conflicts when voting on legislation, Clemens said.
“It’s really a case of not being able to serve two masters at once,” he said. “The idea of a full-time legislature is really rooted in allowing legislators to make decisions based on what they think is best for the state and not have to have their individual employment or individual financial situations compromised by that.”
No word yet on what Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, thinks of Clemens’s proposal. But, after the GOP-controlled legislature was blamed for long voting lines during the 2012 presidential election because they put 11 lengthy constitutional questions on the ballot, Gaetz has said instructed his members to use restraint regarding constitutional changes.
“If you have a proposed constitutional amendment, it’d better solve a constitutional problem, not an issue du jour,” Gaetz said in November.
The “No on 6″ political committee, funded largely by Planned Parenthood organizations from around the country, launched a third television ad in Florida urging voters to reject a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with abortion.
The proposal, placed on the November ballot by the GOP-dominated legislature, would ban state money from being used to pay for abortions or insurance policies that cover the procedure except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. The measure would also change privacy rights included in the state constitution used in previous court cases to strike down anti-abortion laws.
The latest ad, called “I’ve Seen First Hand,” features a doctor warning that Amendment 6 would bar insurance companies from covering abortions in pregnancies that could threaten a woman’s health.
“No on 6″ has earmarked at least $2 million for TV, radio and online ads before the Nov. 6 election.
A previous ad entitled “Don’t Let Politicians Play Doctor” features a Gov. Rick Scott look-alike barging into a woman’s examination with her doctor.
Sandra Fluke has joined a cadre of abortion advocates urging voters to shoot down Amendment 6, a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot dealing with abortion.
The measure, one of 11 proposed changes to the constitution put on the ballot by the GOP-dominated legislature, would bar the spending of state money for abortions, something already banned by state and federal law. And it would do away with privacy restrictions in the state constitution used to strike down abortion restrictions on other proposed Florida laws.
Fluke drew national attention when Republicans refused to allow her to testify at a congressional hearing earlier this year about whether Georgetown University, a Catholic school where she was a law student, should be required to provide contraception coverage in its insurance plan. Palm Beach resident Rush Limbaugh drew condemnation for bashing attacking Fluke on his radio show, calling her a “slut.” He later apologized.
Florida’s ruling Republicans are undermining their own pledge to boost the state’s economy by shifting millions of dollars away from public education, former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham and state Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith said Wednesday.
Flanked by a dozen university students, Graham and Smith expanded on what has become a steady campaign theme this fall for Democrats in state House and Senate races across the state.
Graham, who also served as Florida governor from 1979-87, said Republicans have come close to reversing the state’s longstanding commitment to universities, which in his time had taxpayers covering 75 percent of college costs and students paying 25 percent.
“We can’t continue down this course if we aspire to be a state where young people want to plant their personal flags,” Graham said.
The Legislature cut university spending $300 million this year, while restoring $1 billion to public schools which had shouldered a $1.3 billion reduction in 2011. Tuition was increased between 9 percent and 15 percent at the state’s 11 universities, in the latest round of several years of steep hikes.
Florida Republicans have defended the actions. Lawmakers have had to deal with multibillion dollar budget shortfalls since the recession hardened in 2007. With analysts predicting a slight surplus next year, Republican Gov. Rick Scott has lately joined the chorus calling for more dollars for schools.
But with the federal government also reducing financial aid programs, Graham concluded, “At all levels, higher education is under assault.”
Graham and Smith said the budget cuts, combined with a slow economy, are making it increasingly difficult for Florida students to attend state universities. Meanwhile, students attending Wednesday’s news conference with the Democratic leaders also told of struggling to enroll in the classes they needed, or being forced to attend school for an additional academic year because of budget cuts.
“We have demonstrably devalued education in this state,” Smith said.
Smith said Democratic candidates in legislative races have made the difficulties families face with education a central part of their campaign pitch.
“In almost every one of our House races and in the Senate races we are involved in, you’re hearing about education again,” Smith said. “It is front and center, because families in Florida, when they sit down at the breakfast table, are worried about not only jobs for themselves, but jobs for their children and grandchildren.”
While Graham decried rising student costs, he is expected to be in attendance Thursday at the Florida Supreme Court for a case he started and which critics say could spur tuition rates even higher. Graham is the lead party in a 2007 lawsuit over whether the State University System Board of Governors — or the Legislature — is empowered to set tuition.
Lower courts have ruled against Graham, whose side says a 2002 constitutional amendment makes it clear that it is solely the board’s responsibility to set tuition rates.
Under current law, the Legislature has authority to set tuition increases, and universities can add an additional increase so long as the total tuition increase year-over-year does not exceed 15 percent.
The League of Women Voters of Florida is advising voters to shoot down all 11 proposed constitutional amendments placed on the November ballot by the legislature.
The measures include changes to the state’s property tax system, a state revenue cap, weakening the state constitutional privacy protection used to defend abortion rights and amending the separation of church and state doctrine by allowing public money to be spent on religious schools. Another, Amendment 5, would give the legislature a say in the selection of Supreme Court justices and the courts’ rules.
“From beginning to end, these amendments are bad ideas,” Florida league president Deirdre Macnab told reporters in a telephone conference today. “We are strongly opposing all of the 11 amendments on the ballots and we are encouraging voters to give them a thumbs down.”
The Florida League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties are fighting back against the Realtors, who’ve dumped more than $3.5 million into a campaign pushing the amendment that includes a cheeky “Tax Your Assets Off” marketing blitz.
“Amendment 4 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Leon County Commissioner Bryan Desloge, president of the FAC, said in a press release announcing the new campaign.
State economists predict the measure will cost more than $1.7 billion over four years. The loss in tax revenue will be shifted to local governments and long-time property owners, who already benefit from the state’s Save Our Homes cap but won’t gain from the new proposal, the counties and cities say.
But Realtors and other supporters of the amendment put on the ballot by the legislature say it will boost Florida’s real estate market. They say the state economists didn’t take into consideration the potential positive impact real estate sales the measure could bring.
Television spots blasting the Florida Supreme Court over the federal Affordable Care Act are scheduled to begin running today in West Palm Beach and other markets, paid for by Americans for Prosperity, the conservative grassroots group founded by the Koch brothers.
Slade O’Brien, Florida state director of the organization, said the ads don’t directly call for voters to oust Justices BarbaraPariente, Peggy Quince or Fred Lewis, who are up for merit retention on Nov. 6. Instead, O’Brien said the “intent is to call attention to judicial activism and legislating from the bench.”
The Florida Republican Party said last week that its leaders have agreed to oppose the three justices seeking new six-year terms. Another organization, Restore Justice 2012, has been active most of the year to unseat the three justices, the last appointments of late Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles, although Quince was named jointly with incoming Republican Gov. Jeb Bush.
The AFP spots are the first TV ads aired in the campaign. The three justices have raised just over $1 million, combined, to defend themselves.
In its ad, AFP targets the Florida Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that upheld a lower court which stripped from the ballot a measure intended to block the federal health care overhaul from taking effect in the state.
The court ruled the proposed constitutional amendment was flawed because it promised guaranteed access to health care services without waiting lists, would protect doctor-patient relationships, and prohibit mandates that don’t work.
Opponents said the ballot summary deceived the public since the amendment did not directly address those issues, but was written solely to draw voter support against the federal law advanced by President Obama.
An effort to place the full text of the amendment before voters that year also was rejected. The Leon County Circuit judge who made the initial ruling, James Shelfer, said that to do so would amount to “legislating from the bench.”
A rewritten version of the proposal is now set to go before voters in November as Amendment 1.
Americans for Prosperity is a grass-roots activist organization founded by Charles Koch and part-time Palm Beacher DavidKoch.
The brothers, who run Koch Industries, an oil services company, back a host of conservative causes. Each has a net worth of $31 billion, which last week placed them fourth on Forbes magazine’s list of wealthiest Americans.
AFP on the national stage has run TV ads against Obama and provided phone banks, rallies and get-out-the-vote efforts central to the Republican Party’s takeover of the U.S. House in the 2010 elections.
The organization has fought climate change legislation and the Affordable Care Act, and push for limite
State and national Realtors associations pumped another $1.5 million into a campaign pushing a constitutional amendment limiting property taxes mainly for nonhomestead property owners, bringing to $3.5 million the groups have raised so far, according to campaign finance records.
The Florida Association of Realtors added another $1 million on Aug. 31 and the National Association of Realtors gave $500,000 on Sept. 5 to the “Taxpayers First” political committee, the records show. The Florida group had already dumped more than $2 million into the campaign, which includes a slick “Tax Your Assets Off” marketing blitz, urging a “yes” vote on Amendment 4.
Amendment 4 would save money for first-time home buyers, rental property owners and snowbirds, and it could cut taxes for homestead owners who lose value on their homes.
Local governments oppose the amendment, one of 11 put on the November ballot by the GOP-dominated legislature, which state economists say could cost schools, counties and cities about $1.7 billion over four years.
The Florida Association of Counties recently set up the “Citizens for Local Decision Making” political committee but haven’t reported any contributions yet, the campaign finance records show.
Gov. Rick Scott weighed-in Monday for the first time on three Florida Supreme Court justices whose actions on candidate qualifying day are now subject of an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
“They should comply with the law,” Scott said. “It’s the Supreme Court. You’d think they’d comply with the law.”
The three justices under fire, Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and Fred Lewis, also are subject of a lawsuit filed Monday in Leon County Circuit Court. The suit, advanced by the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation, seeks to remove the three from the November ballot “if no documentation exists to establish that their candidacies are proper and lawful.”
In April, the justices were helped by court staff to complete their papers just minutes before a deadline for judicial qualifying. Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, later steered Scott to a section of state elections law which bars candidates from using public employees during working hours in the “furtherance of his or her candidacy.”
A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor. Scott this month forwarded Plakon’s request for an investigation onto the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which has since begun a probe.
Plakon was the sponsor of a proposed 2010 ballot measure aimed at bolstering Republican attempts to keep the federal health care law from being enacted in Florida, a goal Scott shares. The proposed ballot language was ruled unconstitutional by the court, although a rewritten measure is expected to go before voters in November.
The justices’ qualifying kerfuffle also has been seized on by opponents of the three justices, already tarred as a liberal-leaning bloc by a tea party-linked political committee called Restore Justice 2012. The campaign is seeking to make the trio the first Florida justices ever ousted in a merit retention campaign.
Gov. Rick Scott kicked open his inbox Thursday, unveiling an effort dubbed Project Sunburst that will give the public access to emails he and 11 top staffers send and receive — within seven days of being written.
Scott, whose history with email includes deleting communications made by the incoming governor and members of his transition team, hailed the new initiative as unprecedented. It will give Floridians and the media a window into how state government works, he said.
“I invite Floridians to view our emails,” Scott said, adding, “you can learn how we’re making Florida the best state for businesses to grow and create jobs.”
E-mails are available with search capabilities on the Governor’s website at www.flgov.com/sunburst through Microsoft Outlook Web Access. Individuals can access the Sunburst system by using the user name and password sunburst. Scott also emphasized that public records requests to his office will still be honored.
“It’s a good thing,” said Barbara Petersen, director of the First Amendment Foundation, the advocacy and research organization backed by many of the state’s news organizations. “It’s also a good example for other agencies to follow, and for local governments.”
Petersen recalled amid a generally icy relationship between Scott and the media, she made public records requests last year of five of the governor’s top staffers. It took 11 months and $5,000 in copying and staff costs paid by the foundation to make public several months of governor’s office email.
The loss of email from the period between Scott’s election and his inauguration is still being investigated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the governor said Thursday. He brought the agency in to review the matter, which was blamed on a private company that hosted the email accounts for Scott’s campaign and transition office.
Legislation was approved this year (HB 1305) that requires an incoming governor, lieutenant governor, and Cabinet members to preserve email between their election and when they officially take office. Scott signed the measure, which supporters said closed a “loophole” in the state’s public records laws.
With the new system, e-mails are to be posted within seven days of receipt or creation unless permission has been granted for an extended deadline. The goal, however, is for e-mails to be available within 24 hours, under Project Sunburst.
Scott staffers writing the email, or receiving them from others, will determine whether the communication is a public record and make it subject to disclosure at the end of every day. Email considered to include sensitive material that should be redacted would be sent to Scott’s legal office and Office of Open Government for further review, under the new system.
Governor’s office staff don’t always use the state email server — and exchanges over other accounts would not be captured under Project Sunburst. Telephone conversations, text messages and direct messages also can still be conducted without the public looking in.
Petersen said that while Scott’s step is a good one for expanding public access, it could still go further.
With three Florida Supreme Court justices facing a stiff ballot challenge, the Florida Bar announced Monday it is kicking off a $300,000 campaign to educate voters about the merit retention system for electing justices and appelate judges.
Scott Hawkins, a West Palm Beach lawyer and president of the Florida Bar, said the campaign is not designed to promote Justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and Fred Lewis, who have been targeted for defeat by Restore Justice 2012, a conservative political campaign.
Instead, Hawkins said that in voter forums and other informational sessions, Bar members will attempt to educate voters about the benefits of merit retention, used in Florida for almost four decades,and also in place in 33 other states.
Hawkins said Bar polls show that 90 percent of Floridians don’t understand merit retention, in which voters get to cast a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on whether a judge or justice should receive another term.
“Fair and balanced information is essential for Florida citizens to make informed decisions,” Hawkins said.
Joining Hawkins at the event was former Florida Gov. Reubin Askew, who helped spearhead the drive for voter-approved merit retention in 1976. “If not merit retention — what?” Askew said, adding that it has helped shield judges and justices from politicking.
Merit retention was introduced as a fix after a host of scandals involving conventionally elected, state Supreme Court justices. Indictments, impeachment and accusations of tampering with lower-court rulings clouded the court in the early 1970s.
But with the three Florida Supreme Court justices up for merit retention in November already raising almost $500,000, this year’s normally quiet merit retention contest already is sparking fireworks.
”Today, the community which has injected an unprecedented near half-million dollars into the retention races ironically held a press conference to warn about politicizing the court,” said Jesse Phillips, leader of the Restore Justice 2012 campaign. “We agree that the vote is in our court, and look forward to November when responsible citizens will decide whether or not to retain the justices based on their record of decisions.”
Restore Justice has emerged out of opposition to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that stripped from the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at stopping the federal health care overhaul from being implemented in Florida.
Of the justices who joined the majority in the 5-2 decision, Phillips already unsuccessfully tried to oust Jorge Labarga and James Perry in 2010. This year’s focus on Quince, Lewis and Pariente, though, appears better organized and may draw more serious financing.
The justices have raised close to $500,000 already for their campaigns. Restore Justice so far has collected $41,650.
Hawkins said it was important for Floridians to know how to assess a performance by a justice, who he said could handle 8,000 cases during a six-year term.
“Is it fair to assess a judge on onel ruling, or should you assess them on the 7,999 other cases they have touched?” Hawkins said.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the latest plan for redrawing state Senate boundaries Friday, a setback for Florida Democrats and allied organizations which had urged justices to declare the map unconstitutional.
“In this proceeding, we conclude that the opponents have failed to demonstrate that the revised Senate plan as a whole or with respect to any individual district violates Florida‘s constitutional requirements,” the court wrote, adding “no motion for rehearing will be entertained. This case is final.”
All seven justices agreed in most of the issues raised in the case. But the court’s two black justices, James Perry and Peggy Quince, dissented in the Legislature’s drawing of Volusia County districts, saying the Senate map badly fractured Daytona Beach’s minority community, apparently to help Republicans win a pair of Senate seats in the region.
In a 5-2 decision last month, the court had declared the first Senate plan unconstitutional, ruling that eight districts favored incumbents, spanned long distances or packed-in minority voters – all in violation of voter-approved redistricting standards.
Democrats and other groups argued the redrawn map includes many of the same problems. But in arguments before them last Friday, justices expressed misgivings at calls from Democratic lawyers for a wholesale rewrite.
The court last month endorsed the plan for redrawing House districts. If the Legislature’s second attempt at crafting Senate boundaries had been rejected, justices would have been charged with creating the map themselves, a route many seemed uneasy about taking.
Justice Barbara Pariente, who wrote the opinion overturning the first Senate plan, concurred this time and added her own view of critics’ arguments. The Florida Democratic Party, Common Cause of Florida, National Council of La Raza, and the state’s League of Women Voters sought a wholesale rewrite from justices, while the NAACP also pointed to problems with minority districts.
But Pariente, in her concurring opinion, said it wasn’t the court’s place to substitute its work for that of state lawmakers.
“I do not agree that this court has total discretion to substitute its policy preferences for legislative decisions,” Pariente wrote. “Rather, this court‘s role is to determine whether a violation of the constitution has been established.”
A week before the Florida Supreme Court hears new arguments in the state’s redistricting case, the Florida Senate submitted Friday a 100-page defense of its plan for redrawing its 40 district boundaries.
The new map is the Legislature’s second and final chance to complete a plan that meets constitutional standards, after a first attempt was ruled invalid by justices.
The Republican-ruled Senate urged justices Friday to respect the Legislature’s latest effort, and disregard an alternate plan provided earlier this week to the court by the Florida Democratic Party and allied organizations.
In its brief filed Friday, attorneys for the Senate argued that justices defer to the plan drawn by lawmakers. The U.S. Supreme Court bolstered the authority of plans drawn by lawmakers earlier this year, ruling in a Texas case.
“This court has expressed its reluctance to drawing a plan itself, noting that such an obligation is ‘the course of last resort,’” Senate lawyers wrote. “Not only that: it would be the first time in this state’s history that this court draws a reapportionment plan where the Legislature did not decline to do so.”
Indeed, the court’s 5-2 decision last month rejecting the Senate plan — but upholding new House district lines — marked the first time Florida justices overturned a legislative redistricting plan.
But Florida Democrats offered their own proposal, contending the Legislature’s latest try resulted in a redrawn plan which still “reveals an intent to favor incumbents and contains multiple districts that plainly and directly violate constitutional standards.”
While the Senate plan includes 23 Republican-leaning districts and 17 favoring Democrats, the Democratic proposal creates a 20-20 voting balance.
But Senate lawyers said that approach conflicts with what analysts say is the state’s natural bias toward Republicans.
Although Democrats hold an almost 500,000 voter advantage statewide, research by Stanford University and University of Michigan political scientists concluded that Democratic voters tend to cluster in Florida cities — allowing Republicans to become the dominant party in a majority of legislative districts.
Most of all, Senate attorneys argued against the Democratic proposal, concluding, ”An alternative proposal does not invalidate the actual plan, even if it is ‘better’ or more nearly approximates constitutional ideals.”
A group of anti-abortion advocates is urging voters to support a constitutional amendment they say will allow lawmakers to revisit a parental consent measure struck down by the courts.
“Citizens for Protecting Taxpayers and Parental Rights” launched the “Yes on 6″ campaign last month, advocating for a constitutional amendment placed on the November ballot by lawmakers last year.
The ballot language does not mention parental consent – which would require a parent to give their permission before a minor girl can have the procedure – but would specifically exempt abortions from the privacy clause of the state’s constitution.
The Florida Supreme Court in 2003 struck down a 1999 parental notification law because of that clause, ruling that even children had the right to privacy.
The following year, voters required a constitutional amendment requiring that parental notification before a girl can have an abortion. Florida law now requires that parents or guardians be notified at least 48 hours before a girl can have an abortion and allows for judge’s to grant permission in certain cases.
But that law doesn’t go far enough, proponents of Amendment 6 on this year’s ballot argued.
Parents should be required to sign off on abortions as they must for body piercings and tattoos, said Randy Armstrong, a Tampa obstetrician and president of Citizens for Protecting Taxpayers and Parental Rights.
“Parental consent is the number one issue that we have,” he said.
The proposed amendment, entitled “Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights,” would bar public money from being spent on abortions, something already prohibited by federal and state law. Currently, poor women can receive abortions paid for by Medicaid – the state/federal health care program – only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger. Like all other changes to the constitution, the proposal requires 60 percent of voter approval to pass.
The ballot summary that will appear before voters in November reads:
“This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest. This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution. With respect to abortion, this proposed amendment overrules court decisions which conclude that the right of privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the State Constitution is broader in scope than that of the United States Constitution.”
Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith disputed Tuesday the claim by Senate Republican leaders that the plan for redrawing the chamber’s 40 districts was mostly approved by the state Supreme Court.
The court last week ruled eight of the districts were invalid, including two seats spanning Broward and Palm Beach counties. Justices also had “concerns” with another two districts which divide the city of Lakeland.
Echoing an earlier comment from Senate Reapportionment Committee Chairman Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, Senate President Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, said Monday that means, “three-fourths of the current plan has been deemed valid.”
Not so fast, Smith said.
“An entire redrawing of a Senate map is required,” Smith said, calling last week’s ruling by justices an “historic rejection” of the Legislature’s Senate plan.
Because the boundaries cited by the court are contiguous to other districts, it’s impossible to just make a few fixes, as Smith said Republicans are trying to cast the approach to a special session which begins Wednesday.
The court’s 233-page ruling provides, “enough instruction by the court for the Legislature to draw a map that will pass muster,” Smith said. “But there is no such thing as…(just) tweak the map.”
Smith also said he was pleased with the Supreme Court’s adherence to standards for compact districts and not drawing lines that favor a party or incumbents. These new provisions were included in the state constitution by voters in 2010, who approved Amendments 5 and 6.
While Amendment 5, which controlled legislative redistricting, was applied by justices, Smith said he is optimistic a Leon County Circuit Court will follow the same standard in reviewing the Legislature’s plan for redrawing congressional districts. Florida Democrats and allied organizations have sued to overturn that plan, based on the demands of Amendment 6, which covered congressional redistricting.
Smith also said that party leaders are still considering further action against the House redistricting plan, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Smith said it’s possible legal challenges to a select number of districts would be filed in lower courts by Democrats.
Smith, meanwhile, acknowledged that he’s been fielding phone calls from Senate Democrats whose districts also could be dramatically redrawn in coming days.
Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, currently serves a heavily minority district that snakes from Broward County through Palm Beach County, mostly clinging to the Interstate-95 corridor. Smith’s district, and that of a parallel coastal district held by Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, were declared invalid by the court.
Under redrawn maps, it’s possible that Smith’s district change to become primarily rooted in far western Palm Beach County, while reaching in to include mostly black voters in Mangonia Park, Riviera Beach, and parts of West Palm Beach. Bogdanoff’s district, meanwhile, looks potentially destined to be confined to Broward County — and turn Democratic-leaning.
“I think you’re going to see a very different Senate makeup when Palm Beach and Broward districts are redrawn,” Smith said.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Legislature’s plan for redrawing Senate districts was unconstitutional — a decision that will bring lawmakers back into a special redistricting session later this month.
Justices upheld the House maps. But the Senate plan was ruled lacking in the way senators drew minority districts and relied on “communities of interest,” in its determination of compactness, required under the constitutional amendments 5 and 6.
“We recognize that the Senate did not have the benefit of our opinion when drawing its plan. However, it is clear from a facial review of the Senate plan that the pick and choose method for existing boundaries was not balanced,” Justice Barbara Pariente wrote for the majority.
The court unanimously endorsed the House plan but rejected the Senate’s in a 5-2 decision. Chief Justice Charles Canady and Justice Ricky Polston said they thought the majority overreached in ruling the Senate plan was flawed.
The court also didn’t accept how senators had districts renumbered to affect which two-year election cycle they fall in; this would insure that most incumbents could serve as many as 10 years in the chamber, a provision also seized on by justices. Senators are normally limited to two four-year terms.
“Adopting a renumbering system that significantly advantages incumbents by increasing the length of time that they may serve by two years most assuredly favors incumbents,” justices wrote. “Further, purposefully manipulating the numbering of the districts in order to allow incumbents to serve in excess of eight years would also appear to frustrate the intent of the voters when the term limits amendment was adopted.”
House Redistricting Chairman Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, announced to the full House Thursday morning that the maps drawn by House members was accepted by the court. That drew a lengthy, standing ovation from representatives.
House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, later added the caveat about the Senate plan, telling lawmakers they would be returning soon for a special session.
The Florida Democratic Party, which challenged the maps as drawn to assure continued Republican dominance, praised the justices’ ruling — although they rejected many of the party’s arguments.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for the people of Florida.” said Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith. “This ruling confirms what we had anticipated, that the Senate map violated Fair Districts. We applaud the court for stepping in to implement the will of the voters of Florida. We look forward to getting down to the business of drawing maps that comply with the expectations of the people, as expressed in these constitutional amendments.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi sent the Legislature’s redistricting plans to the Florida Supreme Court on Friday — a move that will start justices’ review of the maps.
Under state law, Bondi had 15 days to act. But she sent the proposals to the court about 24 hours after they earned final approval from the state Senate.
Justices will have 30 days to examine the plans. The court is asked to determine if the plans for redrawing the state’s 40 Senate districts and 120 House seats complies with state law, including new constitutional standards requiring that boundaries be drawn without concern for incumbents or either political party.
The Florida Democratic Party has already filed suit in Leon County Circuit Court against the congressional map, also approved Thursday.
Gov. Rick Scott is expected to sign the plan into law next week. Scott’s action is expected to bring another lawsuit by the League of Women Voters, La Raza and Common Cause of Florida, which contend the Legislature’s ruling Republicans designed the plan to help the party maintain its majority in the congressional delegation.
Gov. Rick Scott acknowledged Tuesday that he’s been lobbied by Florida members of Congress on the redistricting plan expected to be sent his way soon.
But the Republican governor didn’t want to mention any names.
“Oh, I don’t think anybody wants me to talk about any of those conversations,” Scott said, when asked if U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, was among those contacting him.
West last week announced that he would leave his battleground congressional district, straddling Palm Beach and Broward counties, to run this year in a proposed new district, which includes Martin and St. Lucie counties, and part of Palm Beach.
West’s decision emerged as part of a GOP three-step dance – touched off by U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, who said he’d run in a newly drawn, mostly rural and interior Florida district.
Former House majority leader Adam Hasner of Boca Raton completed the moves by announcing he was abandoning his U.S. Senate run to run in the district that West was exiting.
House and Senate redistricting leaders say they have kept their distance from members of Congress, mostly in an effort to comply with constitutional amendments approved by voters in 2010, which ban new electoral boundaries from favoring incumbents or parties.
Scott, though, said at least some in Florida’s delegation have reached out directly to the executive office. While Scott isn’ authorized to act on legislative maps, he can veto the congressional plan.
“I’ll review it when I get it,” Scott said of the congressional proposal. “I’ve had a few phone calls from some people that have had questions about it. My response is, ‘send me what your proposal is, and I’ll review it at the time.’
Senate Reapportionment Chairman Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said Scott’s contacts with unnamed members of Congress doesn’t strike him as out of line — or unconstitutional.
“Any citizen is entitled to petition their government for the redress of grievances,” Gaetz said.
Senate Democratic Leader Nan Rich said Friday that she will not propose alternative maps next week when the Republican-controlled chamber is expected to approve new boundaries for congressional and Senate districts.
Rich said outnumbered Democrats will take their chances that judges — who get to review the redistricting plans — will find the GOP-led effort unconstitutional.
“The court will have the last word,” Rich said.
Earlier this week, Rich said she planned to introduce a Senate Democratic plan modeled heavily on proposals already unveiled by the League of Women Voters, Democracia USA and Common Cause, which slightly reduce the minority voting populations in several districts now represented by black lawmakers.
Rich accused Republicans of “packing” Democrats into districts under the plans now before the Senate. She said the approach violates the voter-approved Amendments 5 and 6, measures, supported by most Democratic legislators and allied groups. The amendments bar district lines from being drawn that help a party or incumbents.
But Rich’s plan to unveil a map as a floor amendment was criticized by Republican senators, who said the move didn’t allow time for the revamped plan to be reviewed. More telling, though, may have been that Rich drew resistence from a few fellow Democrats — with Sen. Larcenia Bullard, D-Miami, critical of any effort that would reduce minority voting strength.
In explaining her decision to drop plans to propose maps, Rich said Friday that in debate before the Senate Reapportionment Committee earlier this week, ”there was so much vitriol, I didn’t want to see that happen on the Senate floor.”
