Florida Amendment 5, Legislative District Requirements Initiative (2010)

Florida Amendment 5
Election date November 2, 2010
Topic Redistricting measures
Status Approved
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Florida Amendment 5 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Florida on November 2, 2010. It was approved.

A “yes” vote supported establishing requirements for the drawing of legislative districts.

A “no” vote opposed establishing requirements for the drawing of legislative districts.

Election results

Florida Amendment 5
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,155,149	62.59%
No		1,885,860	37.41%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment 5 was as follows:

“

Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to see the full text.

Section 21. Standards for establishing legislative district boundaries
In establishing Legislative district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.

(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.

(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

Support

The proposed ballot measure was supported by Fair Districts Florida. The Fair Districts Florida campaign said, "Politicians who control the Legislature, also control redistricting. They design districts to protect incumbents and to make sure they can maintain power. They make deals to draw favorable districts for their allies and they try to draw their political adversaries out of office. They pack large numbers of unfavorable voters in into a few districts to minimize the opposition’s chance to win. Florida needs Amendments 5 and 6 to establish rules to curb this effect."

In response to arguments that the proposed measure would make it harder for minority access, Fair Districts Florida said that in the language for the measure it specifically stated that "Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice."

Supporters included: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the League of Women Voters (dead link), and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Arguments

• Democrat Bob Graham, former governor and U.S. senator, and Republican Bob Milligan, former state comptroller general, both agreed that the proposed Congressional and Legislative Boundary Amendments were good ideas. "Under our current system, elections are essentially rigged before the ballots are even printed. Districts are assigned to a particular party, and voters who will be favorable to that party are allocated accordingly. Or even worse, districts are designed to favor a particular incumbent...Florida has fewer competitive legislative elections than almost any state in the union," they said in a February 2010 editorial that appeared in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

• Ellen Friedin, a Miami lawyer who chairs the initiative campaign, said,"The whole point here is to draw districts that make sense geographically and that are not rigged to accomplish a particular political result."

• In mid-May 2010 Gov. Charlie Crist announced his support for both Amendment 5 and Amendment 6. Additionally, Crist said he was opposed to a similar measure scheduled to appear on the ballot—Amendment 7. Crist described the legislatively referred measure a "silver bullet" that he would have vetoed. Crist's support for Amendment 5 and 6 followed his announcement that he was detaching from the Republican Party and now "independent." In regards to the proposed "Fair District" amendments—5 and 6—he said, "Some people have gotten so rigid about their adherence to the party before doing what's right for the people, it's hurting our country. It is very obvious to me when these unkind remarks are made. I mean, what do they care what I do? They shouldn't care where I go to church. They shouldn’t care whether I'm registered a Republican or a Democrat...You're supposed to be able to do what you want and determine your own destiny."

• AARP Florida announced their support for Amendment 5 & 6 in late August 2010. "AARP believes that voters should choose their representatives, rather than having government representatives choose their voters," said AARP Florida State Director Lori Parham.

• Mark McCullough, a spokesman for Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said, "[SEIU's] goal is really just to establish some fairness standards when the Legislature begins drawing congressional and legislative boundaries. If you look at the state of Florida, there are some crazy districts out there."

Opposition

Florida Republicans showed strong opposition to both the proposed congressional redistricting amendment and the proposed legislative redistricting amendment. House Majority Leader Adam Hasner said, "It is a stealth agenda funded by the left to do in the courts what they can't do at the ballot box. This is the top priority of Democrats in 2010 and it must be stopped." Lawmakers argued that the proposed measures could reduce election opportunities for minorities, which they argued was contrary to the measures' summaries.

Arguments

• U.S. Representatives Mario Diaz-Balart and Corrine Brown argued that both the Congressional and Legislative District Boundaries Amendments could make it harder for minority access and for "'communities of interest' to be preserved when Florida re-draws the boundaries for its seats in the Congress and Legislature."
  • In September 2010 The Miami Herald quoted Diaz-Balart as saying, "These amendments will have the effect of bleaching the state of Florida as it was before 1992 when minorities did not have the ability to elect candidates of their choice. It's unworkable. It will have a devastating effect on minorities across the state."

• Sen. Mike Haridopolos described the redistricting amendments as the "full employment for lawyers' bill." According to Haridopolos, if the amendments were approved by voters it would lead to lengthy and costly court battles because of the proposed guidelines. The senator supported the FREDS 2000 program, a software program used in 2001-2002 by state lawmakers to lay out district lines. The software, he said, helps lawmakers be "contiguous and meet the standards of the voting rights act to draw district lines," according to reports.

• Sen. Gary Siplin supported an alternative redistricting measure, which did not appear on the ballot. "My review of the proposals suggests that the amendments set forth by Fair Districts Florida do not do enough to create or preserve majority-minority and minority access districts within the state," said Siplin.

• Dr. Daniel E. Loeb supported the need to address the "well-intentioned but poorly designed" Amendments 5 and 6. Dr. Daniel Elliott Loeb has a Ph.D. in mathematics from MIT. His research interests included the mathematics of voting, mathematical finance, statistics and game theory. Dr. Loeb noted that Amendments 5 and 6 would inadvertantly result in political gridlock and "less competitive" elections. "Fair District Florida’s proposed amendments to the Florida State Constitution not only fail to address the current situation, they will make matters worse." Dr. Loeb supported the legislatively referred constitutional amendment - Florida Redistricting Amendment. The legislatively proposed measure was removed from the ballot following a court ruling.

• John French, special counsel on elections law wrote, "Let's put platitudes and rhetoric aside and call Fair Districts what it is: a concerted and well-funded bid by Democrats to wrest control of our congressional delegation and Legislature. The claim that Fair Districts Florida is a 'nonpartisan' group is belied by campaign finance reports. Most of its funding comes from ACORN, big labor, trial lawyers and the other special interests typically aligned with the Democratic Party. A couple of liberal Republicans are thrown in to create the veneer of nonpartisanship."

• Former NAACP Chairman Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., joined the Protect Your Vote Campaign to express his opposition to Amendments 5 and 6. In a written campaign statement, the former NAACP leader: "I am categorically opposed to Constitutional Amendments 5 and 6...because these proposed amendments fundamentally violate the voting rights of all Floridians, especially minority voters." Also, Chavis challenged the supporters of Amendments 5 and 6 to draw up their boundaries using their methods to prove that minorities would not be affected.

• Protect Your Vote said that a partisan re-districting process would take place if Amendments 5 and 6 were passed. They argued that donors of Amendments 5 and 6 had donated money to "left-wing" causes.

• Protect Your Vote said that the amendment's proponents were not from the State of Florida. They accused proponents of the Amendment of trying to hijack the state's redistricting process. Protect Your Vote claimed that the proponents of 5 and 6 bankrolled failed redistricting referendums in California and Ohio.

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Florida ballot measures, 2010

Support

• The Miami Herald was in favor of both Amendments 5 and 6, relating to amending the current practice of drawing legislative and congressional district boundaries. In an article, the editorial board wrote, "Taking the rigging out of redistricting and reapportionment would give voters real choices closer to home come election time...Amendments 5 and 6 will give control of elections back to Florida's voters, where it belongs."

• Orlando Sentinel endorsed Amendment 5 and 6. In response to oppositional arguments, the Sentinel stated, "The power establishment acts as if this would be the world's end. It wouldn't. It'll just help end the power establishment's stranglehold on voters."

• Florida Today supported Amendment 5 and 6. In an editorial, they said, "Like hundreds of thousands of other Florida citizens, they were disgusted with the rigged system legislative leaders use every 10 years after the Census to redraw political boundaries in ways that favor incumbents and whatever party holds power. The citizens’ initiative succeeded, and Amendments 5 and 6 will appear on November ballots, giving voters the power to force creation of fairer district maps. That’s a chance they deserve and should take. And one we’ve been advocating for many years, including when Democrats had a lock on power in Tallahassee and preserved it by drawing skewed districts to ensure they held onto seats." Their support for both measures was reiterated in an October editorial, "The importance of passing the amendments can’t be overstated. Stand up for better government Nov. 2. Vote “yes” on 5 and 6."

• The Tampa Tribune supported both Amendment 5 and 6. In an editorial the board said, "The current system empowers politicians, not voters. Approving the proposed standards would bring order to the process. Wedges should not be driven between communities, counties and voters...Voters have good reason to support amendments 5 and 6. A logical electoral map that keeps neighborhoods together could reinvigorate a healthy election system where voters pick their politicians rather than the other way around."

• The Palm Beach Post supported both Amendment 5 and 6. In an editorial the board said, "Under Amendments 5 and 6, legislators could not draw districts "to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party"...To voters, these rules make sense. To the ruling political and lobbying classes in Tallahassee, they're terrifying because they could change a system that benefits insiders...Florida voters deserve more competitive districts and more chance to pick their politicians. Amendments 5 (for the Legislature) and 6 (for Congress) would give them that chance."

• The Bradenton Herald supported both redistricting measures. The editorial board said, "Amendments 5 and 6 drive a stake into gerrymandering by requiring district lines follow existing geographic and political boundaries and be as compact and contiguous as possible...The amendments — 5 covers legislative seats and 6 congressional districts — also protect racial and language minorities...The amendments are common sense approaches that put voters, not politicians, first and foremost. We recommend yes votes on Amendments 5 and 6."

• The Pensacola News Journal supported both Amendment 5 and 6. In an editorial, the board said, "These are the two most important amendments on the ballot, governing the redrawing of legislative and congressional districts every 10 years after the Census. Unlike many proposed amendments, this issue really should be enshrined in the Florida Constitution...These amendments are bitterly opposed by incumbent politicians of both major parties, which should tell voters all they need to know."

• The Naples Daily News supported both Amendment 5 and 6. "We are not naive enough to believe politics will ever be totally removed from redistricting. Yet, when we see an opportunity to restore some common sense to legislative districts that snake up and down our state — often connecting communities with few common interests — we say “go for it," said the editorial board.

• The (Panama City) News Herald supported Amendments 5 and 6. "If it implements these standards, Florida wouldn’t be setting an extreme precedent. It would be catching up to much of the rest of the nation. Forty-four states already require that redistricting adhere to local boundaries; 36 require compactness; and 12 prohibit protecting incumbents....Vote "yes" on Amendments 5 and 6, which will send a big "no" to Tallahassee politicians who seek to win elections at the drawing table, not the ballot box," said the editorial board.

• The Northwest Daily News supported Amendment 5. "AMENDMENT 5 would establish fairness standards to use in redrawing Florida’s legislative districts; the new lines couldn’t favor any incumbent or political party. This is common sense. Vote yes on Amendment 5," said the editorial board.

• The St. Petersburg Times said, "Florida is a purple state, not red or blue. Its elected lawmakers in the Legislature and Congress should mirror that diversity and work together for a state and a nation that are neither far left nor far right. The Times recommends voters approve Amendments 5 and 6."

• The South Florida Sun-Sentinel said, "It's time for fair districts, time for voters to pick their candidates, not for politicians to pick their voters. Vote yes on Amendments 5 and 6."

• The Florida Times-Union said, "These amendments probably would make the districts a little less contorted - maybe a lot less so. That is why we recommend that voters should support the reasonable Amendments 5 and 6."

• The Ledger said, "Gerrymandering defeats the purpose of representative government. The Ledger recommends fighting it by voting Yes on Amendments 5 and 6."

Opposition

• Creative Loafing's Irreverent View was opposed to both Amendments 5 & 6. The editorial board said, "Irreverent View recommends a “No” vote on Amendments 5 and 6. The premise for these amendments appear well intentioned, however they were pushed by Democrat partisans who would like to regain power and who never had a problem with ridiculously drawn districts when it benefited them. Even if passed, these two amendments only provide “guidance” and don’t specify how the end goal is to be accomplished. The state constitution is no place to tinker with a temporarily perceived wrong. If citizens don’t want gerrymandered districts, they should demand better from their legislators."

Lawsuits

See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation

In December 2009 Republicans announced that they were considering asking the Florida Supreme Court to block both proposed redistricting measures based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in North Carolina. In January 2009, the state supreme court rejected an initial challenge regarding the accuracy of the ballot titles and summaries. However, according to Republican lawmakers the ballots' summaries stated that the created districts could not "be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice," was misleading. They argued it was misleading because according to the North Carolina ruling only districts that exceeded 50% minority populations were exempt under the federal Voting Rights Act from North Carolina's provision that requires counties to remain "whole."

Lawsuit to block Amendment 7

See also: Florida Amendment 7

On Friday, May 21, 2010 proponents of Amendment 5 and 6, citizen initiatives, filed a lawsuit to remove Amendment 7 from the statewide ballot. The suit was filed in state Circuit Court in Tallahassee and filed by Florida State Conference of the NAACP (dead link), the League of Women Voters, Democracia Ahora as well as former Republican comptroller Bob Milligan. "This is a trick amendment and it is a blatant effort to fool voters," said Deirdre Macnab, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida. Initiative supporters argued that the legislatively referred amendment was a "poison pill" specifically designed to divert Amendments 5 and 6. They argued that the ballot title and summary were misleading and was hiding the measure's "true purpose."

Rep. Dean Cannon, a supporter of Amendment 7, argued that it wasn't the legislative-referral that was misleading. FairDistrictsFlorida.org, sponsors of Amendment 5 and 6, pushed "claims and promises" that they "could not deliver," he said. In a statement Cannon said Amendment 7 meant exactly what was said and that the lawsuit was trying to argue "that the intent matters more than the plain meaning of the words."

The filed lawsuit can be read here.

Amendment 7 removed from ballot

On July 8, 2010, Circuit Judge James Shelfer ruled that the legislatively-proposed Florida Redistricting, Amendment 7 would not appear on Florida's general election ballot. Judge Shelfer said, "I'm not the brightest light on the Christmas tree, but it took me three days...to get a handle on what this amendment does." Shelfer added that the measure's summary was a "failure to inform the public is clearly and convincingly an attempt to hide the ball."

According to reports, opponents planed to appeal the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court. However, a final decision was required to be made by September 2, the deadline for measures to be added to the ballot before ballot printing begins.

In reaction the July 8 court ruling, Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who supported Amendment 7, said, "If [the judge] found our amendment confusing, I can't wait until he takes a look at 5 and 6." "There's no question that the Legislature drafted and passed that amendment with the intent of fooling the voters," said Ellen Frieden, campaign manager for Fair Districts Florida, following the July 8 court ruling.

Amendment 5 & 6 challenged

On Monday, May 24, 2010 U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart filed a lawsuit against Amendment 6 in Leon County Circuit Court. Balart said,"Amendment 6 is riddled with inconsistencies and, if passed, would set unworkable standards in drawing districts." Both U.S. Representatives had previously testified against Amendment 6. Ellen Freidin, FairDistricts chairwoman - sponsors of Amendment 5 and 6, said the lawsuit by the congressional members was aimed at "playing games." Amendment 5, also a proposed redistricting measure, is not directly cited in the lawsuit. Freidin added,"They clearly haven’t read the language of our amendments. We specifically have addressed their concerns." But both Brown and Diaz-Balart argue that Amendment 6 is not only misleading but would dilute minority voting powers in the state.

On July 12 a Leon County judge denied a request by Secretary of State Dawn Roberts and FairDistricts Florida to dismiss the lawsuit against Amendments 5 & 6. According to July reports the case was scheduled to be heard on July 26 before Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford.

Roberts asked the Florida Supreme Court to either order Fulford to dismiss the case or take over. On July 13 Roberts said, "the continuing proceedings in the circuit court not only interfere with this Court’s jurisdiction, but are consuming the limited resources of the Secretary and potentially interfere with her ability to have the ballots prepared for the 2010 general election."

On July 19 the Florida Supreme Court halted the legal battle in the lower courts and agreed to hear the case. However, the high court was on vacation until August. In late August 2010 the high court dismissed challenges to both citizen proposed redistricting initiatives - Amendment 5 and Amendment 6.

The case number was 10-1362. Court briefings and documents can be found here.

Aftermath

Gov. Scott pulls back amendments

On January 25, 2011 Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for Gov. Rick Scott, confirmed that the governor pulled a request for federal approval of Amendment 5 and Amendment 6. Scott is reported to have acted three days after taking office on January 4, 2011. The paperwork for approval of the measures was filed December 10, 2010 by former Gov. Charlie Crist.

According to the federal Voting Rights Act, the state of Florida is required to receive "pre-clearance" of changes to its election laws that affect minority rights.

On Tuesday, January 25 Scott told the news media, "One of the things that we're looking at is the amendments that were passed, how they're going to be implemented. We want to make sure that with regard to redistricting, it's fair, it's the right way of doing it. So it's something I'm clearly focused on."

"Census data has not been transmitted to the state yet, and the Legislature will not undertake redistricting for months, so this withdrawal in no way impedes the process of redrawing Florida's legislative and congressional districts," said Hughes of Scott's request withdrawal.

In reaction to the governor's actions, supporters of the measures said the act was "shameful."

Lawsuit: On February 3, 2011 supporters of Amendment 5 and 6 filed a lawsuit against Gov. Rick Scott. Former Florida Sen. Dan Gelber and current attorney for Fair Districts Florida said, "It's time to stop stonewalling. Governor Scott and Secretary Browning should not be abusing their power to frustrate the will of the 63 percent who voted for these reforms. The new standards must be sent to the Justice Department promptly to guarantee their implementation."

In response to the lawsuit Hughes said that the governor's actions have not delayed redistricting in the state. Additionally, Hughes noted that the Florida State Legislature is currently months away from working on state redistricting and the governor is using the time to "have thoughtful consideration of the policy."

Sent to U.S. Justice Dept.: On March 29, 2011 the House and Senate agreed to send the voter-approved measures (Amendment 5 & 6) to the U.S. Justice Department for "preclearance," a routine step.

Amend. language approved: On May 31, 2011 the U.S. Department of Justice approved the language of the constitutional amendments.

Brown v State of Florida

On November 3, 2010, hours following the November 2 general election, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart and Rep. Corrine Brown, opponents of Amendments 5 & 6 announced that they are suing to block the measures. Both lawmakers argue that the measure is unconstitutional. According to their statement, they argue "The reason is simple: because traditional redistricting principles, such as maintaining communities of interest or minority access districts, will become entirely irrelevant if Amendments 5&6 are implemented, primarily because of the Amendments’ requirement of 'compact districts.' Certainly, minority communities do not live in compact, cookie-cutter like neighborhoods, and so district 'compactness' would defeat the ability of the state Legislature to draw access and majority-minority seats, since minority communities would become fragmented across the state."

In reaction to the lawsuit, Ellen Freidin of Fair Districts Florida, supporters of the two measures said, "I can't imagine how this can be anything other than more effort by politicians to try and have districts drawn with no rules."

Both state representatives previously challenged the measures in May 2010. However, in late August 2010 the high court dismissed challenges to both citizen proposed redistricting initiatives - Amendment 5 and Amendment 6.

The lawsuit was filed November 3, 2010. The case is Brown v State of Florida, southern district, 1:10-cv-23968.

2011 redistricting

See also: Redistricting in Florida

As of August 2011 the Florida redistricting process remained ongoing. According to reports, the two constitutional amendments approved by voters in 2010 may tweak that process and impact Republicans in the coastal communities.

If the amendments succeed in limiting gerrymandering in Florida, many Democrats believe the change would weaken the state's entrenched GOP majority. Republicans argue that their success is based on ideology not partisan districts.

The impact of the amendments on Republicans could be sharply felt in the state's coastal communities. Several of these districts stretch along the coast, uniting coastal communities but dividing counties and municipalities. Since the amendments require that county and city lines are respected where possible, these districts may have to be re-drawn. However, local Republicans argue that these communities share common interests, interests that should be respected in redistricting. The legislators most likely to be affected include: US Rep. Allen West (R-22), State Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff (R-91), and State Reps. George Moraitis (R-91), Bill Hager (R-87), Pat Rooney (R-83), William Snyder (R-82), and Jeff Clemens (R-89).

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Florida

The ballot measure was an initiated constitutional amendment. Proponents collected signatures to place the initiative on the ballot.

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• Redistricting measures on the ballot
• 2010 legislative sessions

Florida

• Florida ballot measures
• Florida ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Florida Division of Elections, "Initiatives / Amendments / Revisions Database"