Pam Bondi Files Brief to Supreme Court on Legislative Redistricting

Attorney General Pam Bondi has filed a 29-page brief with the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of the states congressional and legislative reappointment.

The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the maps on Feb. 29, with a ruling expected by March 9.

Briefs were due Friday at noon.

The Florida Democratic Party submitted its own 58-page brief calling for the court to reject the maps for failing to follow voter-approved Fair Districts guidelines.

The following release from the attorney generals office offers a summary of the states argument:

This court conducts its 30-day review of legislative apportionment plans according to clear and well-established parameters. Just as it did in 2002, and in all other previous reviews, this court should conduct an 'extremely limited, facial review' of SJR 1176 that presumes the validity of the Legislatures work, does not attempt to find a 'perfect' plan, and validates the plan on its face unless there is obvious, facial error. By adhering to its well-established practices, this court will honor separation of powers principles and respect the institutional and time limitations forced upon it in this 30-day review, particularly as an appellate court that cannot undertake weeks of fact-finding or even entertain responsive briefs.

This court should again leave consideration of 'fact-based claims' to other courts of competent jurisdiction. See 2002 Apportionment, 817 So. 2d at 825. This court has repeatedly acknowledged that it is not situated to entertain fact-intensive voting rights claims within 30-day review proceedings and consistently refused to address them. In fact, this court has conceded that it is 'impossible' for it to conduct a complete factual analysis of voting rights claims within existing time and structural constraints. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005 (1994) (quoting 1992 Apportionment, 597 So. 2d at 282.) For this reason, the courts judgment of validity should be entered without prejudice to the challengers ability to assert fact-based claims in an appropriate trial court ..."