District redrawing plan dies

District redrawing plan dies

March 24, 2006

Daytona Beach News-Journal (FL)

TALLAHASSEE - The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a ballot proposal that sought to strip lawmakers of their power to draw political districts, handing a major victory to incumbent legislators.

Justices said a proposed constitutional amendment - backed by groups such as Common Cause Florida and labor unions - should not go on the November ballot because it included misleading language and too many subjects.

The proposal would have created a 15-member commission to draw legislative and congressional districts, taking away a power that lawmakers have used for decades to protect their seats and help the party in control. Some lawmakers challenged the proposal, with House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City , setting aside $50,000 to fight it in the Supreme Court.

"I think there's a great deal of relief," Senate President Tom Lee, R-Brandon, said after the ruling.

But Ben Wilcox, the executive director of Common Cause Florida , said he thinks lawmakers have a "clear conflict of interest" in drawing their own districts. He said that conflict will remain unless voters pass a constitutional amendment to take the redistricting power away.

"I have little hope that the Legislature will ever change the redistricting process on its own," Wilcox said. "It's too tempting to them to have that power to draw their own districts."

Supporters of the amendment collected 689,000 petition signatures to get the proposed amendment onto the November ballot but also needed approval from the Supreme Court. Justices review ballot proposals to make sure they are not confusing and don't lump together too many issues.

The court rejected the proposed amendment, in part, because the ballot summary - part of what voters would see when they go to the polls - described the appointment of the 15-member commission as "nonpartisan." Justices said the term was misleading because Republican and Democratic leaders would each appoint six members of the commission, while the remaining three would be appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

"While the commission itself may operate in an independent, nonpartisan fashion, the method of selecting the commission members is decidedly partisan," the court said in its 6-1 ruling.

Bense said that if the amendment had passed, each party would have appointed hard-line "Rambo" partisans to the commission. Wilcox said, however, the nonpartisan wording in the proposal reflected the supporters' goal for the outcome of the commission's work.

Justices also rejected the proposed amendment because they said it included more than one subject. That position stemmed from part of the amendment that called for the commission to divide the state into single-member legislative districts.

The current constitution allows the state to be divided into districts that would have multiple lawmakers - a practice that was used decades ago. Justices said the proposed requirement of single-member districts was s separate subject from creating the commission.

Redistricting , which is done once a decade, is a divisive process that can play a major role in deciding who gets elected to the Legislature and Congress.

As an example, Republican leaders in 2002 packed black and Democratic voters into one House district in Volusia County , making it easier for GOP candidates to win the six other House seats in Volusia and Flagler counties.

With Republicans holding huge majorities in the House and Senate, party leaders such as Bense and Gov. Jeb Bush adamantly opposed the proposed constitutional amendment. After Thursday's ruling, state GOP Chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan issued a statement applauding the Supreme Court and saying that "we can now focus on the issues important to Florida 's voters, not on the wasteful creation of a super-legislature accountable to no one."

But Wilcox, whose watchdog group has long called for overhauling the redistricting process, said it is possible supporters could propose another constitutional amendment in the future.

That would require writing a new amendment and collecting hundreds of thousands of additional petition signatures.

What it means

The high court's decision means voters won't have a say over whether lawmakers continue to redraw legislative and congressional districts - at least not this year.

The justices' ruling speaks only to the language of the ballot summary and not its merits.

Supporters, who gathered more than 611,000 signatures in hopes of getting the issue on the November ballot, vow to try again.

Critics, noting that voters in Ohio and California recently shot down similar proposals, don't believe Florida residents would have supported the measure even if it had been on the ballot this year.

Author: JIM SAUNDERS - TALLAHASSEE BUREAU CHIEF

Section: Section A

Page: 01A

Dateline: TALLAHASSEE