The number of ways to send or receive a message in today's world is almost limitless. You can shoot off an email, bang out a tweet or -- if you want to go old school -- write a letter. But one of the best ways to send a message remains filing a lawsuit.
After all, it was lawsuits (and repeatedly being rebuffed by the Florida Supreme Court) that finally prompted the state Senate to admit this week that it drew an unconstitutional map three years ago when crafting boundaries for its 40 districts. And it was the possibility of a lawsuit that brought a gambling deal with the Seminole Tribe back into the headlines after months of simmering on the backburner.
Lawsuits can also keep messages from being sent -- one court restricted communications between doctors and their patients about gun ownership, for example. But for most of the week, when someone went to court, it was to move a conversation along, not to stop it.
BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, AGAIN
For all intents and purposes, the results of the first test of the "Fair Districts" amendments to the state Constitution -- which were aimed at stopping political gerrymandering -- are in. The House passed the test, perhaps surprising Capitol insiders used to rumors about the dealings of former Speaker Dean Cannon. The Senate did far worse.
The only map the House drew alone -- that for its own chamber -- hasn't been seriously challenged by critics of the redistricting process. But the Senate districts, crafted solely by the upper chamber, and the congressional map that was a joint product by the House and Senate have both been labeled unconstitutional.
The Florida Supreme Court struck down eight of the 27 districts in the congressional plan July 9. Having already seen justices reject a first draft of the Senate map in 2012 and then call for the broad-based revamp of the congressional districts, lawmakers decided to cut their losses and agree to redo the Senate plan during a special session that will start in October.
"This appears to me to be an unprecedented admission," attorney David King, who fought the maps, told reporters during a conference call Tuesday. "This is remarkable. The Florida Senate has admitted that they drew an unconstitutional map and, as a consequence of that, they now have agreed to fix the problem."
And it was, specifically, the Senate. A joint memo from House Speaker Steve Crisafulli and Senate President Andy Gardiner laid full responsibility for the mess at the feet of the upper chamber. The message from the House seemed to be: Don't look at us.
"By entering into this consent judgment, the Senate accepts full responsibility for the enacted Senate plan (that will be redrawn)," wrote Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island, and Gardiner, R-Orlando. "The House was not involved in drawing the Senate map, nor did the House amend the Senate map prior to its enactment. The House did not intend to favor or disfavor any political party or incumbent, and had no knowledge of any constitutional infirmities relating to the enacted Senate plan."
The litigation over redistricting has already proven costly for the state. Lawmakers have spent more than $6.7 million since July 2009 on the redistricting process -- either preparing for, drawing or defending the maps for the House, Senate and the state's congressional delegation. And the tab could grow if those fighting the maps win a court order for the Legislature to pay their legal bills, a figure that will end up exceeding $1 million, King said.
And there are pitfalls. The agreement on the Senate districts between the Legislature and the map's opponents, who include the League of Women Voters of Florida and Common Cause Florida, doesn't list the districts that have to be changed. And the opponents' objections have encompassed 28 districts -- fully 70 percent of the districts represented in the 40-member Senate. Anything less than a sweeping overhaul could lead to more legal action.
BANK ON IT
Even bigger bucks are at stake in discussions between the state and the Seminole Tribe of Florida over gambling. The tribe is refusing to fold on its push to continue hosting blackjack and baccarat at most of its casinos, but Gov. Rick Scott's administration is trying to shut down the lucrative "banked" card games.
This week, letters swapped between the state Department of Business and Professional Regulation and the tribe indicated that the two sides may be heading toward a showdown later this year over the card games, part of a 20-year gambling "compact" inked in 2010.
Authorization of the card games expired Friday, though the compact gives the tribe 90 days to put an end to the games, which include blackjack, baccarat and chemin de fer.
In a letter sent to tribal chief James Billie, Department of Business and Professional Regulation Secretary Ken Lawson asked the tribe "to discuss your plan and proposed timeline for the closure of banked card games at your tribal facilities."
The tribe quickly responded with a letter to the governor's office requesting mediation in the dispute.
"The tribe alleges the state has triggered the exception to the sunset provision for banked card games, as well as other compact remedies, by electing to permit other entities in Florida to conduct various types of banked card games," part of the letter said.
The 2010 agreement gave the tribe exclusive rights to operate banked card games at five of its seven facilities for five years. In exchange, the Seminoles pledged to pay Florida a minimum of $1 billion over the same time period, an amount the tribe has exceeded. The tribe and its lawyers contend that the state has allowed other gambling operators to operate banked card games, however, in violation of the exclusivity deal.
Billie sent Scott and state legislative leaders a "notice of commencement of compact dispute resolution procedures" last month outlining what the tribe considers violations of the agreement.
If the state refuses to renew the deal, it is almost certain the Seminoles will turn to the courts to resolve the matter.
Lawsuits about the state's gambling rules would hardly be new. Later in the week, three newly filed legal challenges accused gambling regulators of overstepping their authority with proposed rules that would prohibit obstacles on horse tracks, force jockeys to wear white pants and protective equipment like helmets and require jai alai frontons to be covered.
The challenges came two days after the department's Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering published changes to the proposed rules that included a number of concessions to the pari-mutuel industry. The complaints came from jai alai operators in Ocala and Miami and from the North Florida Horsemen's Association, which represents about 200 owners, trainers and riders in the barrel racing industry linked with Gretna Racing in Gadsden County.
DON'T SHOOT OFF AT THE MOUTH
Another legal battle over another contentious issue, though, seemed to be winding down. For the second time in little more than a year, a federal appeals court upheld a controversial Florida law that restricts doctors from asking questions and recording information about patients' gun ownership.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was a victory for the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates and a defeat for medical groups that argued, at least in part, that the law infringed on doctors' First Amendment rights.
The appeals court last July also upheld the 2011 law but issued a revised ruling Tuesday. After last year's decision, medical groups continued challenging the law, including asking for a rehearing before the entire Atlanta-based appeals court.
Dubbed the "docs vs. glocks" law, the measure includes a series of restrictions on doctors and other health providers. As an example, it seeks to prevent physicians from entering information about gun ownership into medical records if the physicians know the information is not "relevant" to patients' medical care or safety or to the safety of other people.
A federal district judge in 2012 sided with opponents of the law and issued an injunction against it. But the appeals court last July and again Tuesday overturned the injunction.
"The purpose of the act, as we read it, is not to protect patient privacy by shielding patients from any and all discussion about firearms with their physicians; the act merely requires physicians to refrain from broaching a concededly sensitive topic when they lack any good-faith belief that such information is relevant to the medical care or safety of their patients or others,'' said the majority opinion, written by Judge Gerald Tjoflat and joined by Judge L. Scott Coogler.
STORY OF THE WEEK: The Florida Senate admitted that districts it drew during the 2012 redistricting process were unconstitutional, sparking plans for a special session to redraw the boundaries.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "Political organizations that try to second guess the professionalism of the commission and the agency are interlopers who obviously put bears before the safety and lives of children." -- National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer, on a legal challenge to a bear hunt authorized by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
