Newly approved Senate district maps came under fire at the Florida Supreme Court Wednesday as critics sought to overturn the Legislature's reappointment plans.
Attorneys representing the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the National Council of LaRaza and the city of Lakeland argued that the Senate maps violated the voter-approved Fair Districts amendments to the state Constitution.
Paul Smith called the Senate lines "clear violations" that favor incumbents and "build in significant advantages for the Republican Party."
He charged that all 29 non-term limited senators were drawn into "safe" districts and that no incumbent was pitted against another incumbent. Attorney Michael Carvin, representing the Senate, said that claim had not been substantiated.
The House is said to have more than 30 "competitive" districts in its plan.
Attorney George Meros, representing the House, said six of its 10 Redistricting Committee members are paired against each other. He said six of 10 Hispanic Republican representatives in Dade County also are pitted against each other.
More than three hours of sometimes-arcane debate revolved around the legal definitions of terms used in the Fair Districts Amendment 5. The measure, approved in 2010, was promoted by the League of Women Voters, the National Education Association and allied groups to require that legislative districts be "compact" and "contiguous."
Three justices appointed by former Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles repeatedly challenged attorneys representing the Republican-controlled House and Senate.
Fred Lewis said the court has the duty to "place parameters" on redistricting efforts, and pointed to what he saw as a "contradiction" in how Senate mapmakers split the city of Lakeland and how they drew districts in the Panhandle.
Barbara Pariente shared Lewis' concern over the Senate map that dissected Lakeland into four districts while drawing Panhandle districts "with no discernible principles."
Peggy Quince, who was jointly appointed by the departing Chiles and incoming Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, opined that voter approval of Fair Districts gave the court "a different obligation to look at these maps more in-depth."
But Chief Justice Charles Canady was skeptical of the critics' claims, and the court's ability to adjudicate in detail.
"You're asking us to second-guess legislative judgment on fact-intensive issues. We can't enter into this in a 30-day proceeding," Canady told Smith.
Still, the far-ranging debate continued, and frequently bogged down over terminology. While Pariente suggested that "compactness" is a primary objective in redistricting, Canady called the term "vague in this context" and subject to varying interpretations and logistical priorities.
The contending parties also jousted over minority representation. The Senate's representatives said they did the best job of creating and protecting majority-minority districts.
For example, Carvin said a district drawn by Smith's coalition would pair Sen. Gwen Margolis, D-Miami, with a Hispanic incumbent "to diminish his chances" of re-election.
Though every Democrat voted against the House redistricting plan, Smith appeared to cut it some slack, saying that chamber "deserves credit" for its work.
Discussion over "severability" of the House and Senate maps ensued -- suggesting that the court could reject one chamber's work and accept the other.
The court adjourned at 12:40 p.m. and will render its decision at a time to be announced.
Reach Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341.
