Justices OK Fla. redistricting amendments for 2010
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) – Two proposals designed to prevent political favoritism in redistricting, a practice known as gerrymandering, can go on the 2010 ballot if sponsors collect enough signatures, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The proposed state constitutional amendments would set standards for congressional and legislative redistricting.
The justices rejected the Republican-controlled Legislature’s argument that the titles and ballot summaries of both measures were misleading and violated a requirement limiting citizen initiatives to a single subject.
The high court also ordered state economists to revise a financial statement predicting the amendments would cost “millions of dollars.” The justices called that vague forecast “misleading” because there was no evidence reappointment costs would increase.
The redistricting amendments are sponsored by FairDistrictsFlorida.org., whose chairman, Thom Rumberger, said he was confident the group will get the measures on the ballot and that voters then will give them the 60 percent approval needed to amend the constitution.
“Not being cocky, it’s just that the people are fed up,” said Rumberger, a Tallahassee lawyer. “The problem with the system is whatever party is in power stays in power unless there is a sea change.”
The group’s members include Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, AFL-CIO, Florida Education Association, Florida ACLU, Planned Parenthood and People for the American Way.
Former Gov. and U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, former state Sen. Daryl L. Jones and former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, all Democrats, are honorary co-chairmen, but Rumberger said the initiative is bipartisan.
“It’s not a partisan issue. This is a fairness issue,” Rumberger said. “I am a very active and practicing Republican.”
He said he knew what tactics lawmakers use to help incumbents and their party keep its seats because he worked for the GOP on redistricting in 1992.
Senate Reapportionment Chairman Mike Haridopolos, who is in line to become the chamber’s president during the next reapportionment in 2011-12, said he’s afraid the measures would increase chances the courts will ultimately decide how districts are redrawn.
“The last thing we want is the rule of the few,” said Haridopolos, R-Indialantic. “Elected officials are more responsive” to the public.
The proposed amendments would prohibit apportionment plans from favoring any party or incumbent or denying equal opportunity for racial or language minorities. Districts would be required to follow existing political and geographic boundaries when feasible.
Each amendment will need 676,811 signatures to get on the ballot. Both so far have just under 10 percent of that amount.
A predecessor organization offered a single proposal with a similar goal, but the Supreme Court rejected it in 2006. The justices concluded it violated the single-subject rule and its title and summary were misleading.
That proposal also would have stripped the Legislature of its apportionment powers and set up an independent commission to redraw districts. The new amendments would leave that authority with lawmakers.
The justices voted 6-0 to let the amendments go on the ballot and 4-3 to reject the financial statement. Justice Barbara Pariente recused herself from both opinions.
The financial statement ruling was unusual because the majority included retired Justice Harry Lee Anstead, serving as a senior justice, and his replacement, Justice Jorge Labarga, appointed last month by Gov. Charlie Crist.
The Supreme Court’s conservative bloc – Justices Charles Wells, Charles Canady and Ricky Polston – dissented. Canady and Polston also are Crist appointees.
The same three justices also indicated they agreed only with the result of the ballot ruling, not necessarily the opinion’s reasoning. Justice R. Fred Lewis wrote both opinions.
“Scare tactics and vague, unsupportable predictions of financial disaster have no place in the constitutional-amendment process,” Lewis wrote in the financial statement case. He added that “predictions of financial impact must be grounded in fact, not partisan ideology.”