Florida Supreme Court greenlights GOP gerrymander that violates state ban

The Florida Supreme Court has cleared the way for Republicans to use Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) gerrymandered congressional map in 2026, despite the state’s voter-approved ban on partisan gerrymandering. 

The only judge to dissent from the order was the sole state Supreme Court justice who was not appointed by DeSantis.

In its decision, the court’s majority declined to weigh in on the map itself, effectively allowing it to be used this year. But Justice Jorge Labarga, the lone dissenting judge, rebuked the court, insisting it should have intervened as it did in past elections.

“For a second time in fewer than three years, in a substantively similar context, the district court has elected a path of delayed appellate review,” Labarga wrote. “Only this time, the votes of even more Floridians are at stake.”

Justice Adam S. Tanenbaum disagreed in a fiery concurrence. 

“There is no need for special treatment in this case,” Tanenbaum wrote, reasoning that “this court in the past has allowed congressional elections to move forward on redistricting plans that have been declared, directly or indirectly, to be unconstitutional.”

The Florida legislature passed the map — drawn by the governor’s office — at DeSantis’ insistence, disregarding reluctance from within his own party and fierce opposition from Democrats. With the new map, the GOP could gain up to four more seats in Congress.

A group of Florida voters and voting rights advocates filed a lawsuit* May 4 arguing the new GOP map violates Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment (FDA), which was passed by voters in 2010 and prohibits partisan gerrymanders.

However, Florida Circuit Judge Joshua Hawkes, a DeSantis appointee, handed the governor a major victory, denying plaintiffs’ request to temporarily block the state from using the map for the 2026 midterms. 

Hawkes largely ignored plaintiffs’ arguments that the map violated the FDA, instead concluding that, whether or not it complies with state law, the new map is the better option because of its compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callis that erased protections for minority voters. 

“To the extent the Court has to balance Florida’s FDA prohibition of improper partisan intent and the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection guarantees, it seems clear that the potential partisan intent is the lesser of the two evils,” Hawkes wrote.

Hawkes declined to weigh in on defendants’ broader argument that the FDA is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Plaintiffs quickly appealed the ruling, and the Florida Supreme Court granted their request for expedited briefing on whether the court should promptly take the case.

Since assuming office in 2019, DeSantis has appointed all but one justice on the state Supreme Court. He recently boasted about the court’s ideological transformation under his leadership.

“When I got elected, we had probably the most liberal supreme court in the country,” DeSantis told reporters in April while signing the state’s latest voter suppression bill into law. “Now I’ve put six [justices] on and we have the most conservative supreme court in the country.”

Now, the court has delivered the decision DeSantis wanted. 

“The Florida Supreme Court has REJECTED the challenge to the state’s redistricting plan and new map,” he proclaimed on social media.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R), in a social media post, called the order a “COMPLETE AND TOTAL VICTORY.”

*The Elias Law Group (ELG) is representing plaintiffs in the case. ELG Firm Chair Marc Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket.