Federal Judges Approve Tampa Bay Redistricting Map

Federal Judges Uphold Florida Senate Redistricting Plan

A panel of federal judges has confirmed the legality of a 2022 Florida Senate redistricting plan, dismissing claims that a specific district in the Tampa Bay area was racially gerrymandered and violated constitutional equal-protection rights. The decision centers around Senate District 16, which spans across Tampa Bay, connecting parts of Pinellas and Hillsborough counties.

The plaintiffs, three Black residents from Pinellas and Hillsborough counties, argued that the district — currently represented by Black Democrat Darryl Rouson — was designed in a way that diluted the voting power of Black voters. They claimed this affected the influence of Black voters in neighboring Senate District 18, which is represented by Sen. Nick DiCeglie, a white Republican from Indian Rocks Beach.

The three-judge panel conducted a trial in June and issued a 78-page ruling. According to the opinion, written by 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Andrew Brasher and joined by U.S. District Judges Thomas Barber and Charlene Edwards Honeywell, the district was not a racial gerrymander. The court found that the Legislature did not prioritize race-based considerations over traditional, race-neutral redistricting criteria.

“After a careful review of the evidence and the benefit of a four-day bench trial, we find that race did not predominate in the Legislature’s motivations in drawing Senate District 16,” the opinion stated. “The Senate never set racial targets or quotas.”

This case is part of a broader series of legal challenges following the 2022 redistricting process. In another high-profile case, the Florida Supreme Court recently upheld a congressional redistricting plan pushed through by Governor Ron DeSantis. A separate federal lawsuit challenging state House districts is still pending in Miami.

The focus of the Senate case involved the relationship between federal equal-protection rights and the 2010 state constitutional amendment known as the Fair Districts Amendment. This amendment includes a “non-diminishment” clause aimed at preventing the dilution of minority voting power.

The plaintiffs argued that the Senate failed to consider alternative maps that would have met the non-diminishment requirement without crossing Tampa Bay. Their attorneys claimed that the primary reason for drawing District 16 was race, stating that the Legislature's main goal was to prevent the diminishment of Black voters' ability to elect candidates of their choice.

However, attorneys for Senate President Ben Albritton, R-Wauchula, disputed these claims. They argued that the evidence presented during the trial showed that Senate District 16 was not the result of racial gerrymandering. They emphasized that race was only considered to ensure compliance with the Fair Districts Amendment.

“Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of proving that race predominated in the design of Senate District 16,” Albritton’s attorneys wrote. “The evidence demonstrates that the Florida Senate employed race-neutral criteria, including compactness, contiguity, and use of existing political and geographical boundaries, in drawing the district.”

The three-judge panel concluded that the Legislature did not consider racial data until after applying race-neutral criteria to draw Senate District 16. The ruling highlights that the Legislature prioritized compactness, boundary usage, and contiguity in its redistricting process.

This decision marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over redistricting and the balance between race-conscious and race-neutral approaches in shaping electoral boundaries.