Welcome to

In 2010 voters overwhelmingly told state lawmakers to draw new political maps without any favoritism for those in the legislature. Today, the task of deciding if lawmakers followed voters’ instructions fell to the Florida Supreme Court. As Mike Vasilinda tells us, a divided court seemed unsure of what it should do next.

By a two-to-one margin, voters in 2010 told lawmakers to be fair when drawing new districts. Keep them small, keep them compact, don’t favor an incumbent or party, said voters. But what they meant has never been interpreted by Florida’s Supreme Court.

The court got differing advice. State lawmakers said the court should take their word for it–they followed voters wishes.

“Coherent approach on how to apply and implement all of the standards,” George Meros, attorney of House of Representatives said. “This House map does so, and does so without any nefarious intent.”

But the City of Lakeland, which got split in two, says the city is a perfect example of not being compact or following political boundaries

“Unless we redrew the whole map, we can’t help Lakeland,” Supreme court Justice Barbara Pariente said.

“Yes, your honor, we think they should redraw the whole map,” the attorney for the city of Lakeland replied.

And the League of Women Voters and Fair Districts argued the maps still favor incumbents in the Senate, where none are pitted against each other. And they favor the GOP in the House.

“Both maps build in a very significant advantage for the Republican party over the Democratic Party,” Paul Smith with the League of Women Voters said.

The court was told that interpreting what voters meant was their job and lawmakers shouldn’t be taken at their word.”

“It could be fairer, that’s the main issue with the House,” Smith said. “But the Senate map, they disregarded a lot of this stuff and it’s a very biased map in terms of partisanship.”

The court has until next Saturday to rule on the maps.