Florida

Overview

  • Redistricting Process

  • Congressional plans are enacted by the Florida Legislature, subject to the Governor's veto. Legislative plans are enacted by the Florida Legislature as a joint resolution, not subject to the Governor's veto.

  • 2020 APPORTIONMENT REPORT

  • Florida’s congressional delegation grew from 27 seats to 28 (a gain of 1 seat) following the 2020 reapportionment.

  • Executive Branch
  • Republican
    Ron DeSantis
    Governor
  • Republican
    Jeanette Nuñez
    Lt. Governor
  • Republican
    Cord Byrd
    Secretary of State
  • Republican
    Ashley B. Moody
    Attorney General
  • Supreme Court
  • Nonpartisan
    Carlos Muñiz
    Chief Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Charles Canady
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Jamie Rutland Grosshans
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    John Daniel Couriel
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Jorge Labarga
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Meredith Sasso
    Associate Justice
  • Nonpartisan
    Renatha Francis
    Associate Justice
Current Congressional Boundaries
Current State House Boundaries
Current State Senate Boundaries

To view past district shapefiles, see our Map Archive Page.

Useful Links
State Data Resources
Redistricting Resources

Florida Redistricting Process

Congressional

Primary Authority: The Florida Legislature draws and enacts congressional plans, subject to the Governor's veto. The Legislature can override a veto with a 2/3 vote in each chamber. Republicans currently have a veto proof-majority in both chambers.

If a bill is presented to the Governor during session, the Governor has 7 days to sign or veto it; otherwise, it becomes law without signature. If the legislature adjourns fully or for more than 30 days within the initial 7-day period, the Governor has 15 days from the transmittal to sign or veto; otherwise, it becomes law.

Mapping Timeline: Not specified.

Redistricting Criteria: As nearly equal in population as is practicable; Compact; Contiguous; Utilize existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible.

PROHIBITED: Intentionally favoring/disfavoring a political party or incumbent; Drawing districts with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or diminishing their ability to elect representatives of their choice. [Fla. Const. art. III, § 20]

Map Challenges: Not specified.

Legislative

Primary Authority: Drawn and enacted by the Florida Legislature as a joint resolution, not subject to the Governor’s veto. [Fla. Const. art. III, § 16]

Backup Authority: If the Legislature fails to enact a final plan by its deadline, the Florida Supreme Court must be petitioned to draw and adopt the plan(s). [Fla. Const. art. III, § 16]

Mapping Timeline: The Legislature must enact final plans by the end of its regular session in the 2nd year following the decennial census. If it fails to do so, the Governor must convene a special apportionment session within 30 days of the regular session’s adjournment to enact plans, lasting no longer than 30 days. Within 15 days after their passage, the plans must be sent to the Florida Supreme Court for review, and the Court must render its decision within 30 days of the petition being filed.

If the special apportionment session ends with no plans being passed, the Attorney General must petition the Florida Supreme Court within 5 days to make the apportionment. The Supreme Court must file its final plans with the custodian of state records within 60 days of the petition being filed. [Fla. Const. art. III, § 16]

Redistricting Criteria: As nearly equal in population as is practicable; Compact; Contiguous; Utilize existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible.

PROHIBITED: Intentionally favoring/disfavoring a political party or incumbent; Drawing districts with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or diminishing their ability to elect representatives of their choice. [Fla. Const. art. III, § 21]

Map Challenges: Within 15 days after final plans are passed, the Attorney General must petition the Florida Supreme Court to determine their validity. The Court must render its judgment within 30 days of the petition being filed. If the plan is rejected, within 5 days of the judgment the Governor must convene an extraordinary apportionment session lasting no longer than 15 days to pass a revised plan in accordance with the Court’s decision. Within 15 days after a revised plan’s passage, the Attorney General must petition the Court to review its validity again. If the revised plan is rejected, the Court must file its own plan with the custodian of state records within 60 days of the petition being filed. [Fla. Const. art. III, § 16]

Ballot Measure & Referendum Processes

Types of Measures: Initiatives and referendums are not permitted to amend statutes. Direct initiatives are permitted to amend the state constitution. Legislatively initiated ballot measures may amend the constitution, but not statutes.

Single-Subject Rule: Yes, except for measures that limit the government’s power to tax.

Initiative Subject Restrictions: No.

Signature Requirements: Constitutional amendments require signatures equal to at least 8% of the votes cast in each of at least ½ of the state’s congressional districts, as well as 8% of the total votes cast statewide, in the last preceding general election where presidential electors were chosen. 11,144,855 people voted in the 2020 General Election in Florida, so 891,589 signatures statewide are required for constitutional amendments in addition to the requisite number in each of the relevant districts.

Submission Deadlines: Signatures must be verified by February 1 of the year they are to appear on the ballot.

Circulation Period: 2 years.

Ballot Title and Summary: Ballot title and summary are written by the proponents, subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Expedited reviews for titles and summaries are not permitted.

Other Requirements: A fiscal impact statement is required. 60% of voters must approve constitutional amendments. The legislature can repeal an approved measure through the normal process for amending the state constitution. A 3/5 supermajority vote in each chamber of the Legislature is required to send an amendment to voters. Initiatives are permitted on general election ballots but not on primary, special, or odd-year election ballots.

[Fla. Const. art. XI; Fla. Stat. § 9.100.371; Florida Division of Elections Website]

Previous Redistricting Cycles

2010

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – SB 1174
      • Passed = February 9, 2012 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = February 16, 2012
      • Preclearance = Granted on April 30, 2012
    • Litigation History
      • League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner I, 172 So.3d 363 (Fla. 2015): On July 10, 2014, a Florida state court ruled that certain districts in the General Assembly’s congressional plan were drawn with unconstitutional partisan intent in violation of the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment and ordered they be redrawn, but allowed the original map to be used for the 2014 election. In 2014, the General Assembly passed its second plan, SB 2-A, but on July 9, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that additional districts in the original map violated the Fair Districts Amendment and ordered an entirely new map to be drawn for use in the 2016 election.
        • Legislature’s 2nd Plan – SB 2-A
          • Passed = August 11, 2014 (R-controlled)
          • Signed = August 13, 2014
          • Rejected by Florida Supreme Court on July 9, 2015
      • League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner II, 179 So.3d 258 (Fla. 2015): After the Florida Supreme Court ordered a new congressional map be redrawn for use in the 2016 election, the Legislature failed to agree on a new map. On December 2, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court adopted its own remedial congressional map for use starting in the 2016 elections.
      • Brown v. Detzner, No. 4:15-cv-398 (N.D. Fla. April 18, 2016): Plaintiffs, African-American voters in Florida, challenged the configuration of District 5 in the Florida Supreme Court’s adopted congressional plan as a racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments and as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On April 18, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled in favor of the defendants on the grounds the plaintiffs had failed to prove their claims.
  • Legislative
    • Original Plans – SJR 1176
      • Passed = February 9, 2012 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = February 10, 2012
      • Florida Supreme Court approved House districts, rejected Senate districts on March 9, 2012.
    • Revised Senate Plan (SJR 2-B) Adopted = March 27, 2012
    • Litigation History
      • In re Senate Joint Res. Of Leg. Apportionment 1176, 83 So.3d 597 (Fla. 2012): Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s mandated review of the Legislature’s adopted legislative plans, the court approved the adopted House districts plan but rejected the adopted Senate districts plan on the grounds it violated the Florida Constitution’s redistricting requirements. The court ordered the Legislature to adopt a new senate districts plan.
      • In re Senate Joint Res. of Leg. Apportionment 2-B, 89 So.3d 872 (Fla. 2012): After the original senate plan was rejected, the Legislature passed a revised Senate plan on March 27, 2012. On April 27, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court approved the revised Senate plan.
        • Revised Senate Plan = SJR 2-B
          • Passed = March 27, 2012 (R-controlled)
          • Signed = March 27, 2012
          • Approved = April 27, 2012
      • League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, No. 2012-ca-2842 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 30, 2015): In a challenge to the Legislature’s revised Senate plan under the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Legislature stipulated that the plan violated the Fair Districts Amendment and consented to a judgment invalidating the revised plan. The Legislature failed to agree on a remedial senate plan, so on December 30, 2015, the Florida circuit court ordered the adoption of a proposed remedial plan, CPS-4a.

2000

  • Congressional
    • Original Plans = HB 1993 (R-controlled)
    • Original Plans – HB 1993
      • Passed = March 22, 2002 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = March 27, 2002
      • Preclearance = Granted on June 7, 2002
    • Litigation History
      • Martinez v. Bush, 234 F.Supp.2d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2002): Plaintiffs challenged the Florida Legislature’s enacted congressional and legislative plans as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and as diluting the voting strength of African-American voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On December 3, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of the defendants on the grounds the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently establish violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
  • Legislative
    • Original Plans – HB 1987
      • Passed = March 22, 2002 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = March 28, 2002
      • Preclearance = Granted as to Senate plan on June 20, 2002; Denied as to House plan.
    • Revised House Plan – HB 25-E
      • Passed = October 24, 2003 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = October 30, 2003
      • Preclearance = Granted on February 2, 2004
    • Litigation History
      • In re Constitutionality of Resolution 1987, 817 So.2d 819 (Fla. 2002): Pursuant to the mandated state Supreme Court review of the Legislature’s adopted legislative redistricting plans, the Florida Supreme Court approved the Legislature’s adopted legislative maps on May 3, 2002.
      • Martinez v. Bush, No. 2-20244-CIV (S.D. Fla. July 9, 2002): This case was pending when the Legislature’s first adopted house districts plan was denied preclearance by the DOJ. On July 9, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the Florida House Speaker’s motion requesting that the court enact the Speaker’s proposed remedial house plan as an interim plan for use in the 2002 elections.
      • In re Constitutionality of House Joint Resolution 25E, 863 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 2003): After the Florida Legislature adopted its revised House Plan (HB 25-E), which was identical to the interim plan adopted by the Martinez district court, the Florida Supreme Court approved the plan pursuant to the mandated review of adopted legislative plans under the Florida Constitution.

In The News

Privacy Policy    |     Terms of Service
Copyright ©2024