League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner

PARIENTE, J.

John Stewart Mills, Andrew David Manko, and Courtney Rebecca Brewer of The Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, FL; David B. King, Thomas Alan Zehnder, Frederick Stanton Wermuth, and Vincent Falcone, III of King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, P.A., Orlando, FL; Adam Michael Schachter and Gerald Edward Greenberg of Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A., Miami, FL; Mark Herron and Robert J. Telfer, III of Messer Caparello, P.A., Tallahassee, FL; and John M. Devaney and Marc Erik Elias of Perkins Coie LLP,

Washington, District of Columbia, for Appellants/Cross–Appellees.

J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, FL; Raoul G. Cantero, III, Jason Nelson Zakia, and Jesse Luke Green of White & Case LLP, Miami, FL; George T. Levesque, General Counsel, The Florida Senate, Tallahassee, FL; Allison J. Riggs and George Edward Eppsteiner, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham, NC; Nancy Gbana Abudu, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida Foundation, Miami, FL; Matthew Joseph Carson, General Counsel, The Florida House of Representatives, Tallahassee, FL; and Charles Talley Wells of Gray Robinson, P.A., Orlando, FL, and Jason Lawrence Unger, Andre Velosy Bardos, and George N. Meros, Jr. of Gray Robinson, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Appellees/Cross–Appellants.

Martha Angela Pardo, Associate Counsel, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Orlando, FL, for Amici Curiae LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Florida New Majority, and Mi Familia Vota.

Opinion

PARIENTE, J.

This case is before the Court for approval of a final congressional redistricting plan in accordance with the Fair Districts Amendment and in accordance with our previous opinion in League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner (Apportionment VII), 172 So.3d 363 (Fla.2015). We approve in full the trial court's “Order Recommending Adoption of Remedial Map.” Our opinion today—the eighth concerning legislative or congressional apportionment during this decade since the adoption of the landmark Fair Districts Amendment—should bring much needed finality to litigation concerning this state's congressional redistricting that has now spanned nearly four years in state courts. Accordingly, the plan approved here shall be used in the 2016 congressional elections and thereafter until the next decennial redistricting.

In Apportionment VII, we affirmed the trial court's finding that the 2012 “redistricting process” and the “resulting map” apportioning Florida's twenty-seven congressional districts were “ ‘taint[ed]’ by unconstitutional intent to favor the Republican Party and incumbent lawmakers.” Id. at 369. Although we affirmed the trial court's finding of unconstitutional intent, we reversed the trial court's final judgment because it had not given proper legal effect to its finding of unconstitutional intent. As the trial court noted upon relinquishment, it “had not gone far enough in [its] requirements of the Legislature to correct the constitutional deficiencies.” Romo v. Detzner (Trial Court Order), Nos. 2012–CA–00412 & 2012–CA–00490, Order Recommending Adoption of Remedial Map at 2 (Fla.2d Jud.Cir.Ct. Oct. 9, 2015).

In Apportionment VII, we rejected the Challengers' request that the entire map be redrawn because “the remedy [should be] commensurate with the constitutional violations” and because the Challengers

did not “identify a neutral map that showed how all of the districts could be redrawn in a manner more objectively compliant with the constitutional requirements.” Id. at 413. We did acknowledge that the “admittedly gerrymandered 2002 map ... was used as a baseline” for the enacted plan, but the Challengers did not allege that fact as a “basis for invalidating the entire map.” Id.

We also rejected the Challengers' request that this Court redraw the map, although we concluded that this Court had that authority once constitutional violations had been demonstrated. Id. Instead, we provided the Legislature with the opportunity to pass a constitutionally compliant plan. Accordingly, we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of 100 days and directed the Legislature to redraw “Districts 5, 13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, and all other districts affected by the redrawing.” Id. at 371–72.

We did not anticipate, however, that the Legislature would be unable to agree on a final remedial redistricting plan. Although each legislative chamber passed a plan, the Legislature deadlocked, failing to enact a remedial plan in a special session held for that purpose. Accordingly, this Court provided additional directions to the trial court based on a motion “for further relinquishment of jurisdiction” filed by the Florida House of Representatives.

In its detailed Trial Court Order, the trial court approved the House's proposed configuration of Districts 1 through 19—recommending the House's proposed plan over the Senate's where there was disagreement between the two chambers—but concluded that the Legislature had not met its burden of defending its proposed configurations for Districts 20 through 27. The trial court further recommended that the district configurations set forth in an alternative plan submitted by the Coalition Plaintiffs were more compliant with the tier-two constitutional requirements that “districts shall be compact” and “where feasible, utilize existing political and geographic boundaries.” Art. III, § 20, Fla. Const. Consequently, the trial court concluded that the Legislature had not justified its decision to adopt a less tier-two compliant plan with respect to the eight challenged South Florida districts.

Having considered the trial court's order and the parties' supplemental briefs, having considered the entire record of both the three-day evidentiary hearing and the special session, having considered the remedial plans submitted by the parties, and having heard oral argument, we approve in full the trial court's recommendations regarding the remedial congressional redistricting plan.

In so doing, we reject the Legislature's contention, echoed by Justice Canady, that our decision today moves the “goalposts” on the Legislature in its redrawing of the districts. Concurring in part and dissenting in part op. of Canady, J., at 302–03. The goal has not changed and has always been compliance with the Fair Districts Amendment. At this stage, after a finding that the 2012 congressional redistricting plan had been drawn with improper intent, the Legislature bears the burden of justifying its redrawn configurations. The Legislature did not escape this burden when it was unable to agree on a plan to enact and subsequently asked all parties to submit alternative plans to the trial court. The trial court's order, agreed to by the parties, required that each party submitting an alternative plan “identify every person involved in drawing, reviewing, directing or approving the proposed remedial

plan.” All parties, then, had a full opportunity to review and comment upon the various proposed plans submitted to the trial court, thereby providing a full and fair public airing of the contending arguments relating to the constitutionality of each plan.

We additionally dismiss the contention that the trial court and this Court have adopted a plan drawn by “Democratic operatives.” Dissenting op. of Polston, J., at 305. As this opinion makes clear, the only subject of current dispute between the Legislature and the Challengers are eight South Florida districts, including two redrawn districts in which Democratic incumbents were actually paired against each other in the same district. From the outset, we have encouraged the public to submit proposed plans that can be evaluated by the objective criteria of the Fair Districts Amendment. What we were faced with in the factual record in Apportionment VII was not that Republican political operatives publicly submitted plans but that Republican political operatives successfully infiltrated the redistricting process with the coordination and cooperation of the Legislature, resulting in a redistricting plan that was tainted with improper partisan intent.

After our determination in Apportionment VII that the Legislature's plan had been drawn with improper intent, we “shifted the burden to the Legislature to justify its decisions in drawing the congressional district lines.” Apportionment VII, 172 So.3d at 396–97. In examining the Challengers' plan, we review for compliance with the objective constitutional standards we have promulgated throughout our redistricting decisions. Therefore, we reject the assertion in Justice Polston's dissent that this Court is violating separation of powers by affirming the trial court and approving the plan that most faithfully follows the objective criteria set forth in the Fair Districts Amendment. See dissenting op. of Polston, J., at 305–06. All plans were evaluated by the same objective criteria. As the trial court found, the map submitted by the Coalition Plaintiffs—not the Democratic Party, or the Senate, or the House—was “hands down the best tier two performing map of the group” and was “more compact and splits fewer cities than any of the others.” Trial Court Order at 12.

In approving the trial court's recommendation, we are acutely aware that this case represents the first time that congressional districts have been challenged under the Fair Districts Amendment. As we have stated before, “the trial court had scant precedent to guide it,” Apportionment VII, 172 So.3d at 370; neither did the Legislature nor the Challengers. We again commend the trial court for its diligence and all parties for their professionalism.

We emphasize that although the Challengers and the Legislature disagree as to some of the redrawn districts, the disagreement is limited to only eight districts in South Florida (Districts 20 through 27). All parties agree as to three districts that were not redrawn in any proposed plan (Districts 1, 8, and 19), as well as to ten redrawn districts (Districts 5, 13, and 14, which were invalidated in Apportionment VII, and additionally Districts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, and 18 that were affected by the redrawing of the districts). The configuration of the remaining six districts—9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17—is the subject of the dispute between the House and the Senate, when the chambers could not agree to the passage of a final plan.

This Court has an “obligation to provide certainty to candidates and voters regarding the legality of the state's congressional districts.” 172 So.3d at 372. And as Chief Justice Labarga recently made clear, an “orderly and foreseeable constitutional end

point must be reached in this process. Anything less makes a mockery of the will of the voters who passed the Fair Districts Amendment.” League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, No. SC14–1905, Order at 6 (Fla. Sup.Ct. order filed Sept. 4, 2015) (Labarga, C.J., concurring) (the “Second Relinquishment Order”). We reiterate that “this case does not pit this Court versus the Legislature, but instead implicates this Court's responsibility to vindicate ‘the essential right of our citizens to have a fair opportunity to select those who will represent them.’ ” Id. at 414 (citing League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Fla. House of Representatives (Apportionment IV), 132 So.3d 135, 148 (Fla.2013)).

Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Court Order recommending a remedial plan, and the congressional redistricting plan approved by this Court shall be utilized in the 2016 Florida congressional elections and in Florida congressional elections thereafter until the next decennial redistricting. The trial court shall enter a final judgment incorporating the approved plan.

PRIOR PROCEDURAL POSTURE: APPORTIONMENT VII

This Court's decision approving the Trial Court Order in all respects does not come to us in a vacuum. Far from it. The Fair Districts Amendment set forth what we have referred to as tier-one and tier-two standards. The tier-one standards mandate three requirements: (1) no apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; (2) districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and (3) districts shall consist of contiguous territory. Art. III, § 20(a). We previously explained the tier-one standards:

The Florida Constitution prohibits drawing a plan or district with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent; there is no acceptable level of improper intent. By its express terms, Florida's constitutional provision prohibits intent, not effect, and applies to both the apportionment plan as a whole and to each district individually. The minority voting protection provision imposes two requirements that plainly serve to protect racial and language minority voters in Florida: prevention of impermissible vote dilution and prevention of impermissible diminishment of a minority group's ability to elect a candidate of its choice. Finally, districts must be contiguous.

In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176 (Apportionment I ), 83 So.3d 597, 684–85 (Fla.2012).

The tier-two standards circumscribe how districts can be drawn so as to guard against gerrymandering and thus require: (1) districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; (2) districts shall be compact; and (3) districts shall utilize existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible. Article III, § 20(a). We have described the tier-two requirements as follows:

The Legislature is required to make districts as nearly of equal population as is practicable, but deviations from equal population may be based on compliance with other constitutional standards. Compactness refers to the shape of the district; the goal is to ensure that districts are logically drawn and that bizarrely shaped districts are avoided. Compactness can be evaluated both visually and by employing standard mathematical measurements. As to utilizing political and geographical boundaries,

we accept the House's view of geographical boundaries as those that are easily ascertainable and commonly understood, such as “rivers, railways, interstates, and state roads.” Strict adherence to these standards must yield if there is a conflict between compliance with them and the tier-one standards. Importantly, the extent to which the Legislature complies with the requirements contained in tier two serves as an objective indicator of impermissible legislative purpose proscribed under tier one (e.g., intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent).

Apportionment I, 83 So.3d at 685.

In Apportionment VII, which dealt specifically with the 2012 congressional plan under Article III, section 20(a), and the litigation arising from the legislatively adopted plan, we affirmed the trial court's finding that the Legislature's enacted map was “taint[ed] by unconstitutional intent.” 172 So.3d at 371. The facts and history of the underlying litigation are fully set forth in that opinion, upholding the trial court's ruling that the congressional redistricting plan enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2012 was constitutionally invalid, in violation of the “Fair Districts” standards set forth in article III, section 20, of the Florida Constitution. Id. at 393. But we held, nevertheless, that the trial court committed “two legal errors, which significantly affected its determination of the proper effect of its finding that the Legislature violated the Florida Constitution.” Id. The first legal error was that the trial court did not give effect to its finding of improper intent in analyzing the challenges to the individual districts. Id. at 393–96. The second legal error was that once the trial court found the Legislature intended to favor a political party or incumbent in the drawing of the plan, the trial court should have shifted the burden to the Legislature to justify its redistricting plan. Id. at 396–97.

In other words, as the trial court recently noted about our decision:

On July 9, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in [ Apportionment VII ], affirming my finding of constitutional violation but determining that I had not gone far enough in my requirements of the Legislature to correct the constitutional deficiencies. The Court directed the Legislature to draw a third map and gave specific instructions as to how to address problems it noted with certain districts (5, 13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27.)

Trial Court Order at 2.

During the relinquishment proceedings, this Court considered the issue of the Legislature's burden to be important. After the trial court concluded that there was unconstitutional intent and a “violation of the Florida Constitution's prohibition on partisan intent ... the burden should have shifted to the Legislature to justify its decisions in drawing the congressional district lines.” Apportionment VII, 172 So.3d at 370–71. As we stated:

Once a tier-one violation of the constitutional intent standard is found, there is no basis to continue to afford deference to the Legislature. To do so is to offer a presumption of constitutionality to decisions that have been found to have been influenced by unconstitutional considerations. The existence of unconstitutional partisan intent is contrary to the very purpose of the Fair Districts Amendment and to this Court's pronouncements regarding the state constitutional prohibition on partisan political gerrymandering.

Accordingly, after reaching the conclusion that the “redistricting process” and the “resulting map” had been “taint[ed]” by unconstitutional intent,

the burden should have shifted to the Legislature to justify its decisions, and no deference should have been afforded to the Legislature's decisions regarding the drawing of the districts. In other contexts, states have placed the burden on their legislatures to justify the validity of a redistricting plan when the plan has “raised sufficient issues” with respect to state constitutional requirements. In re Legislative Districting of State, 370 Md. 312, 805 A.2d 292, 325 (2002).

Because there are many ways in which to draw a district that complies with, for example, the constitutional requirement of compactness, which party bears the burden of establishing why a decision was made to accept or reject a particular configuration can ultimately be determinative.

Id. at 400 (emphasis supplied).

Applying the correct standard of review that placed the burden on the Legislature to justify its decisions based on the trial court's finding of unconstitutional intent, we analyzed the constitutional deficiencies of eight specifically challenged districts. We ultimately relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court and mandated that the Legislature redraw “Congressional Districts 5, 13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, and all other districts affected by the redrawing.” Id. at 371–72. In so doing, we provided “clear guidance as to the specific deficiencies in the districts that the Legislature must redraw,” and we gave the Legislature 100 days from the date of our July 9, 2015, opinion to enact a remedial congressional redistricting plan and to submit that plan to the trial court for approval. Id. at 416–17.

We further stressed that “transparency is critical in light of both the purpose of the Fair Districts Amendment to outlaw partisan manipulation in the redistricting process and the trial court's finding here that ‘an entirely different, separate process' to favor Republicans and incumbents was undertaken contrary to the Legislature's assertedly transparent redistricting effort.’ ” Id. at 414–15. Thus, we set forth four specific guidelines that we urged the Legislature to follow: (1) “conduct all meetings in which it [made] decisions on the new map in public and to record any non-public meetings”; (2) “provide a mechanism for challengers and others to submit alternative maps” and to permit debate on the merits of the proposed alternative maps; (3) “preserve all e-mails and documents related to the redrawing of the map”; and (4) “to publicly document the justifications for its chosen configuration.” Id.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: AFTER RELINQUISHMENT

After this Court issued its opinion, the President of the Florida Senate and the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives issued a joint proclamation on July 20, 2015, convening a special session for the purpose of enacting a remedial congressional redistricting plan. That same day, the Senate President and the House Speaker issued a joint memorandum to members of the Legislature, explaining procedures for the special session.

The memorandum directed legislative staff to work with House and Senate legal counsel to develop a “Base Plan” that complied with this Court's opinion. The legislative leaders determined that the Base Plan would be “drafted solely by staff in collaboration with counsel, without [the leaders'] participation or the participation of any other member.” However, contrary to the Court's suggested guidelines that “all meetings in which it makes decisions on the new map” should be held “in public” or otherwise recorded for preservation,

none of the meetings during which staff developed the Base Plan in collaboration with counsel—as well as outside counsel—were recorded or transcribed. The memorandum did direct, in accordance with this Court's recommended guidelines in Apportionment VII, that legislators retain and compile all communications related to redistricting.

Pursuant to the instructions set forth by legislative leadership, legislative staff then developed a Base Plan, in consultation with counsel for the House and Senate. This Base Plan was released publicly on August 5, 2015. In addition to redrawing the eight districts specifically invalidated by this Court—Districts 5, 13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27—legislative staff made changes to fourteen other districts that were affected thereby—Districts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, and 23.

The Legislature met in special session from August 10, 2015, to August 21, 2015. The House and Senate considered amendments to the Base Plan, and each chamber ultimately passed its own amended plan. As to proposed Districts 26 and 27, the League of Women Voters of Florida and Common Cause sent a letter to the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate criticizing the configuration of those districts as not having been drawn in a constitutionally compliant manner. Senator Dwight Bullard proposed an amendment that configured those same two districts in a more tier-two compliant manner.

The plan last passed by the House (H110C9071, the “House Plan”) differs from the Base Plan in Districts 9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 23, as a result of the House's stated purpose of keeping additional cities whole. The plan last passed by the Senate (S026C9062, the “Senate Plan”) differs from the Base Plan in Districts 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 23, as a result of the Senate's stated purpose of reducing the number of times Hillsborough County was split and keeping both Sarasota County and certain cities whole. The House and Senate Plans themselves differ only in six central and southwest Florida districts (Districts 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17). Because the Legislature was unable to agree on and enact a single plan during the special session, the “Florida Legislature adjourned its special redistricting session sine die on August 21, 2015, without having enacted a remedial congressional redistricting plan as required by the Court's July 9, 2015, opinion.” Second Relinquishment Order at 1.

After the Legislature failed to enact a remedial congressional plan, the House filed a “Motion For Further Relinquishment of Jurisdiction,” specifically requesting that this Court “initiate proceedings toward the judicial adoption” of a remedial redistricting plan and allow all parties to submit proposed remedial congressional plans to the trial court for its review. This Court granted the motion, in part, and directed the trial court to make a recommendation to this Court as to “which map proposed by the parties—or which portions of each map—best fulfills the specific directions in [this] Court's July 9, 2015, opinion and all constitutional requirements.” See Second Relinquishment Order at 2–3.

In the Second Relinquishment Order, we reemphasized that the “burden remains on the House and Senate to justify their chosen configurations.” Id. at 2. We also explicitly rejected the proposition advanced by the House that any plan recommended by the trial court and ultimately approved by this Court would be “interim” or “provisional.” Id. at 4. Doing so would make “a mockery of the will of the voters who passed the Fair Districts amendment.” Id. at 6 (Labarga, C.J., concurring).

THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

After this Court issued the Second Relinquishment Order, the parties submitted an agreed scheduling order to the trial court, which the trial court entered:

On or before Monday, September 14, 2015, each party that intends to present a proposed remedial plan at the evidentiary hearing shall serve the proposed remedial plan in .doj format. The disclosing party shall identify every person involved in drawing, reviewing, directing, or approving the proposed remedial plan. The Court will not consider any proposed remedial plan that is not timely disclosed in compliance with all provisions of this Order.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Pursuant to that order, the parties submitted a total of seven proposed plans to the trial court. The House submitted the House Plan, the last plan passed by that chamber during the unsuccessful special session. The Senate submitted the Senate Plan, the last plan passed by that chamber during the special session, as well as a plan drawn after the special session by legislative staff at the direction of the Reapportionment Committee Chair, Senator William Galvano (the “Galvano Plan”). The Galvano Plan differs from the House Plan in four districts (Districts 9, 15, 16, and 17) and from the Senate plan in six districts (Districts 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17).

The “Romo Plaintiffs” submitted one plan (the “Romo Plan”), which adopted the House's configuration for twenty-two districts but proposed new configurations for Districts 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27. The Romo Plaintiffs' proposed configuration for Districts 21 and 22 retained a vertical configuration, unlike the Coalition Plaintiffs' plans and the Legislature's plans, which included a stacked configuration that paired two Democratic incumbents against each other in District 21.

The Coalition Plaintiffs submitted three plans—“CP–1,” “CP–2,” and “CP–3.” CP–1 adopted the House's configuration for nineteen districts and proposed new configurations for Districts 20 through 27 in South Florida. CP–2 and CP–3 both adopt the House's configuration for twenty-five districts and each contains an alternative configuration for Districts 26 and 27. The differences between CP–2 and CP–3 are minor, as each variation moves all of Homestead into District 26 and equalizes population in ways that do not move predominately black communities out of District 26 by using different major roadways as district boundary lines.

During the trial court's three-day evidentiary hearing, testimony was received from those persons involved in “drawing, reviewing, directing, or approving” the proposed remedial plans. John O'Neill, the Coalition Plaintiffs' map drawer, testified about how he drew the Coalition Plaintiffs' maps. Harvard University Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, the Romo Plaintiffs' map drawer, also testified at the remedial hearing about how he drew the Romo map. In lieu of live testimony, the trial court also admitted the report of the Coalition Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Allan Lichtman, which considered how the Coalition Plaintiffs' plans performed for Hispanics.

Professors Dario Moreno and Baodong Liu, experts hired by the Legislature, testified about how the Legislature's and the Challengers' plans performed for Hispanics. The Legislature also called to testify the professional staff that drew its maps: Jay Ferrin, the Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Reapportionment, Jason Poreda, the Staff Director of the House Select Committee on Redistricting, and Jeffrey Takacs, a special advisor to that Committee. Senator William Galvano, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Reapportionment,

and Senator Tom Lee, a member of the Committee, also testified for the Senate. Both senators testified in support of the Senate Plan, and Senator Lee specifically dispelled any suggestion that he proposed his amendment—which was incorporated into the Senate Plan—with the intent to disfavor any incumbent or to favor himself.

THE TRIAL COURT ORDER

After receiving proposed orders from the parties, the trial court entered its own comprehensive order, recommending adoption of a remedial map. It first analyzed the seven proposed remedial maps submitted by the parties: the single map submitted by the House; two maps submitted by the Senate; three maps submitted by the Coalition Plaintiffs; and the one map submitted by the Romo Plaintiffs.

In doing so, the trial court first set forth what it understood to be the applicable legal standard and parameters of review and determined that, pursuant to this Court's directions, “the burden remains on the House and Senate to justify their chosen configurations, and that no deference is due to their choices regarding the drawing of the districts.” Trial Court Order at 5. In interpreting this Court's direction in the Second Relinquishment Order to “especially focus on the House and Senate maps, any amendments offered thereto, and the areas of agreement,” the trial court concluded that meant that the “maps passed by each chamber, especially where they are in agreement, are the closest [they] will come to an expression of the preferences of the elected representatives of the people as to a remedial map.” Id. The trial court then determined that it would:

[F]irst evaluate the maps proposed by the House and Senate to determine which map, or portions thereof, best meet the Court's criteria. Then I should evaluate that configuration in light of any challenges thereto by the Plaintiffs to determine if the Legislative defendants can meet their burden as noted above, or if some other configuration best fulfills the Court's directions and all constitutional requirements.

Id.

The trial court decided that if, in its review, it determined that the parties were “in agreement as to any particular district,” then “it is no longer an issue for [the trial court] to resolve.” Id. at 7–8. The trial court further concluded that it was “not at liberty to draw something different than what is contained within the maps proposed by the parties.” Id. at 8.

In its review of the Legislature's proposed plans for Districts 1 through 19, the trial court concluded that these districts were not disputed by the Challengers and that they were “on the whole, more compact and contain fewer city and county splits than in the 2012 and 2014 legislative maps.” Id. The trial court noted that of these districts, Districts 5, 13, and 14 were three that were required to be redrawn. Id.

The trial court then considered the Challengers' general complaint that the “actual drawing of the base map was not open to the public, nor recorded.” Id. at 8–9. It determined that although “[r]ecording the sessions would probably have been a good idea,” there was no way to “prevent a map drawer from manipulating lines with a partisan intent.” Id. at 9. Ultimately, the trial court stated that it remained convinced that:

[T]he best, if not perfect, way to guard against improper partisan intent in a map is to look closely at any tier two shortcomings and scrutinize the purported reasons for those shortcomings. If there is a way to make a map more compliant without sacrificing tier-one requirements, then it should be done. This will result in not only a more compact map that splits less cities and counties, it will go far in minimizing the risk, or the perception, that it was drawn with a partisan intent.

Id.

The trial court also dismissed the Legislature's argument that the Coalition Plaintiffs' plans were drawn with improper intent:

Moreover, I find no evidence to suggest that CP–1 was drawn with improper partisan intent. Mr. O'Neill, Coalition Plaintiffs' map drawer, testified that he strove to draw the most tier-two compliant configuration of South Florida, did not consider political or incumbent data in drawing the maps, and was not given any other direction but to focus on and comply with the requirements of Article III, section 20 and Apportionment VII and to improve compactness and adherence to major roadways where possible.

Id. at 14.

The trial court found the Coalition Plaintiffs' map drawer, O'Neill, “to be straightforward in his testimony, logical in his approach to drawing the districts, and persuasive in his conclusions.” Id. The trial court further found “no evidence to suggest that CP–1 was drawn with improper partisan intent.” Id.

The trial court determined that CP–1 was the best plan as to Districts 20 through 27, and specifically noted that with respect to the tier-two constitutional standards—that is, how compact the districts are and how well they utilize existing political and geographical boundaries—CP–1 is “more compact and splits fewer cities than any of the others.” Id. at 12. The trial court also found CP–1 more visually compact and “follow[ed] major roadways far more closely than the legislative proposals.” Id. at 4.

The trial court stated that because the Legislature had “the burden of defending its choices in all respects,” the Legislature should have “taken another look at the South Florida districts, not for political performance but for better tier two compliance, either in response to the Plaintiffs' complaint, or better yet, on its own initiative.” Id. at 4, 11. Yet, the Legislature did not:

The map drawers and their bosses seemed uninterested in exploring other possible configurations to see if these districts could be drawn more compact and reduce county and city splits. I would think the Legislature would have anticipated questions about improving tier two compliance and have been prepared to respond to such questions by saying they had explored several possibilities, and they chose the most compliant version.

Id. at 11. As the trial court noted, the Coalition Plaintiffs were able to easily improve tier-two compliance:

The Coalition Plaintiffs' map drawer seemed to have no trouble improving tier two compliance considerably. Indeed, CP–1 is hands down the best tier two performing map of the group. As to Districts 20–27 it is more compact and splits fewer cities than any of the others.

Id. at 12.

When reviewing CP–1 as to Districts 20 through 27, the trial court paid special attention to the Legislature's configuration of Districts 26 and 27, districts this Court specifically invalidated in Apportionment VII:

I understand why the Plaintiffs might be suspicious as to Districts 26 and 27. The Florida Supreme Court, in its July 9th Order, found that the Legislature had needlessly split the City of Homestead, thereby turning one Democratic and one Republican district into two Republican-leaning districts. The proposed map, 9071, which admittedly does not split Homestead, actually enhances the partisan effect in favor of the Republican Party. The irony of the cure being worse than the illness is not lost on me.

Id. at 10. (Emphasis supplied.)

Because the House and the Senate could not agree on six districts in central Florida, the trial court was tasked with recommending which configuration for that region best complied with the directives this Court set out in Apportionment VII and all other constitutional requirements. Accordingly, the trial court recommended adoption of the House Plan for Districts 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17.

After careful analysis, including an evaluation of the expert witnesses offered by both sides, the trial court recommended that this Court adopt the House's configuration of Districts 1 through 19 and the configuration of Districts 20 through 27 contained in CP–1. In its order, the trial court found that the Legislature did not meet “its burden of justifying the proposed versions of Districts 20 through 27 in [the House's and the Senate's plans].” Id. at 19.

ANALYSIS