Judicial Battles Over Redistricting in Florida and Alabama

On March 5, 2024, Florida Circuit Court Judge Joshua Hawkes rejected a request to halt the state’s new Republican-favored congressional map, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis after a brief special session. The map could affect up to four Democratic incumbents in a delegation already 20-8 Republican. The same day, a three-judge federal panel in Montgomery—Judge Stanley Marcus, Judge Anna Manasco and Judge Terry Moorer—blocked Alabama’s revised map, finding intentional racial discrimination and ordering a court-drawn map that adds a second majority-Black district.

The Hill

Florida’s constitution bars partisan gerrymandering, a provision plaintiffs cite. The 2019 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said partisan-gerrymandering claims are political questions beyond federal courts, leaving regulation to states. In Alabama, a 2023 Supreme Court decision found the original map likely violated the Voting Rights Act, prompting a court-ordered alternative. The Court’s recent narrowing of the Voting Rights Act’s reach has been invoked by Alabama Republicans to defend their revised plan.

The HillThe Hill

Judge Hawkes noted the March primary and November general election are less than three and six months away, respectively, making certainty for voters paramount. Amy Keith of Common Cause said the fight protects Floridians’ will against partisan gerrymandering. The Alabama panel stressed that intentional race-based discrimination violates the Constitution and ordered the race-blind map. Plaintiffs have filed appeals.

The Hill

Opponents argue the Florida map breaches the state’s anti-partisan gerrymandering clause and dilutes minority voting strength, noting its reduced compactness. In Alabama, civil-rights groups contend the design was purposefully race-based, violating equal-protection guarantees.

The Hill

The three-judge panel rejected Alabama Republicans’ claim that the Supreme Court’s recent narrowing of the Voting Rights Act validates their map, revealing a split in judicial interpretation. Florida’s constitutional challenge remains unresolved, and both cases may reach higher courts.

The Hill

• “The primary is less than three months away, and the general less than six months. The public interest weighs more in favor of certainty than a haphazard judicial mandate of discarded maps,” — Judge Joshua Hawkes

The Hill

• “We will continue our fight to protect the will of Floridians who overwhelmingly voted to ban partisan gerrymandering in this state,” — Amy Keith, Executive Director, Common Cause Florida

The Hill

• “Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” — Three-judge panel, U.S. District Court

The Hill

• “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” — U.S. Supreme Court (2019 decision)

The Hill

Both plaintiffs have filed appeals, and the Florida case may return to the courts before the November election. The Alabama decision could be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, while the new maps will be used in the 2024 primaries and general election.

The Hill