In a show of unity with the legislative branch, the Florida Supreme Court last week declared lawmakers’ redistricting maps for state House and Senate districts valid, signaling likely agreement on the boundaries of those districts for the decade ahead.
But despite the court’s validation of Senate Joint Resolution 100, which will recast the state districts based on new census data, a final decision on congressional districts in Florida remains contentious. That’s because Gov. Ron DeSantis has signaled his disagreement with the congressional maps produced by the Republican-led legislature.
“The governor does not have a role in the state legislative maps,” DeSantis’ press secretary, Christina Pushaw, told the Florida Record in an email. “Per Florida law, the governor can only exercise veto power over a congressional map. During (a) press conference, a reporter asked Gov. DeSantis about the congressional map, and he indicated on Friday that he would veto it.”
The governor also reaffirmed on Twitter his disappointment with the legislature on the redistricting issue.
“I will veto the congressional reapportionment plan currently being debated by the House,” he said in a March 4 tweet. “DOA.”
A key stumbling block may be the current elongated congressional district in the northern part of the state that’s now held by a Black Democrat, Al Lawson. The legislature’s plan offers a “primary” map that severely alters Lawson’s district and a “secondary” map that keeps the district relatively intact should a court rule the primary map violates the federal Voting Rights Act.
Once DeSantis vetoes the plan, the legislature could try to overrule his veto, or lawmakers may call on the state Supreme Court to resolve the conflict.
In its evaluation of the state districts, the court noted that for the first time since a framework for judicial review of redistricting was established in 1968, no one formally urged the court to oppose the district maps. The court found no evidence that the maps would diminish minority voting strength, favor or disfavor a specific political party or would produce districts that were not “compact.”
The court, however, declined to preclude “any future fact-based challenges to the 2022 apportionment plans that we have now declared valid,” as the House and Senate had requested.