Redistricting software florida

Orlando Weekly. Tuesday, January 11, Bloggytown. Related Florida House's proposed redistricting map would 'nuke' Rep. Stephanie Murphy's district in aggressive gerrymander. Florida House's proposed redistricting map would 'nuke' Rep. Related Senate leader of Florida's redistricting process wants to be more open this time around. Senate leader of Florida's redistricting process wants to be more open this time around.

Related As this decade's districts are redrawn, it seems unlikely Florida will redeem itself from the sins of the past. As this decade's districts are redrawn, it seems unlikely Florida will redeem itself from the sins of the past. More Blogs ». Speaking of Most Popular Most Read. January , Newsletters Never miss a beat Sign Up Now Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox. Newest Slideshows.

The Voting Rights Act requires the creation of a district that performs for racial and language minorities where 1 a minority population is geographically compact and sufficiently numerous to be a majority in a single district; 2 the minority population is politically cohesive; 3 the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority-preferred candidate; and 4 under all of the circumstances, the minority population has less opportunity than others to participate in the political process and elect representatives of its choice.

The Voting Rights Act also prohibits purposeful discrimination and protects against retrogression—or backsliding—in the ability of racial and language minorities to elect representatives of their choice.

Prior to the U. Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder, which negated the coverage formula in the Act, these requirements applied only to certain counties in Florida: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe.

Districts containing parts of these covered jurisdictions had to be submitted to and precleared by a federal court or the United States Department of Justice before the redistricting plan could be enforced.

The Shelby County decision means the preclearance process established by the Voting Rights Act is no longer in effect, but it does not affect the validity of the diminishment standard in the Florida Constitution. Article III, Section 16 of the State Constitution requires the Legislature to divide the state into 30 to 40 contiguous senatorial districts and 80 to contiguous house districts.

A district is contiguous if all of its territory is in actual contact, uninterrupted by the territory of another district. Contact at a corner or right angle is insufficient, but territory may cross bodies of water. The Constitution allows state legislative districts to overlap, either partially or entirely.

These Amendments prohibit line-drawing that intentionally favors or disfavors a political party or an incumbent. The Amendments also afford protection to racial and language minorities. According to the Florida Constitution, legislators must complete redistricting during regular legislative session in the second year following the census.

Click [show] to expand the tables. All proposed map plans for congressional, Senate, and House districts, including those prepared by members of the public, can be found here. Use the "Plan type:" dropdown to specify whether you want to view U. House, state House, or state Senate maps. Use the "From:" dropdown to specify whether you want to view maps proposed by the House or Senate Redistricting Committees, the courts, or the public.

Click [show] on the table below to view a list of links to plans developed by the House and Senate Committees on Reapportionment as of Jan.

Florida is drawing congressional district maps following the census. New congressional district maps have not yet been enacted. Florida is drawing state legislative district maps following the census. New state legislative district maps have not yet been enacted. This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting , state legislative redistricting , state-based requirements , redistricting methods used in the 50 states , gerrymandering , and recent court decisions.

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution , the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states.

Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states.

Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable. The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting , "Any district with more or fewer people than the average also known as the 'ideal' population , must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional. The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting.

In the mids, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims , the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution ] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below. In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following: [21].

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act , states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts.

A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment , and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation. In Gill v.

Whitford , decided on June 18, , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts , did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

In Cooper v. Harris , decided on May 22, , the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.

Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end.

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes.

Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents.

The court ruled on April 4, , that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v.