Florida mapmaker admits using partisan data in GOP gerrymander despite voter-approved ban

As Florida Republicans rush to enact a new congressional gerrymander, the map’s architect admitted to relying on partisan data — raising concerns that Gov. Ron DeSantis’ plan defies a voter-approved ban on partisan gerrymandering.

Jason Poreda, a senior analyst in DeSantis’ administration, was tasked with redrawing Florida’s political boundaries, describing himself as “the map drawer.”

Under questioning in legislative hearings Tuesday, Poreda acknowledged that using partisan data — information about how voters have supported Democrats or Republicans — was part of his process in drafting the new map.

“I used it, along with all of the other traditional redistricting criteria,” Poreda said. “It was not at the exclusion of everything else, and was not predominant over anything else.”

At the same time, Poreda rejected the idea that the map was drawn simply to benefit Republicans.

“My intent was not to draw a partisan map in any way. But it was considered in certain circumstances. Generally, when the entire district was nearly complete, using all of the other balancing of all of the other standards, making sure that everything was good,” he said. “It may have come into play in that final balance to try to get down to equal, or something along those lines as an example.”

In 2010, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved the Fair Districts amendments to explicitly ban partisan gerrymandering — the practice of drawing districts to advantage one political party.

The state Supreme Court later enforced that ban aggressively, throwing out maps after finding they were drawn with improper partisan intent and declaring there is “no acceptable level of improper intent.”

In practice, Florida mapmakers are not supposed to even try to tilt districts toward a party. But Poreda’s testimony suggests partisan considerations were at least part of the equation.

“Partisan or electoral performance data was considered, but certainly not at the exclusion of all of the other standards,” he told lawmakers.

The political context — and impact — of the map is not subtle. Florida’s redraw is part of a broader push by Republicans, pressured by President Donald Trump, to shore up GOP control of the U.S. House.

Independent analyses show the map would shift multiple Democratic-held districts toward Republicans and could transform Florida’s current 20-8 congressional delegation into a 24-4 GOP advantage.

That outcome, paired with Poreda’s acknowledgment, has fueled accusations that the administration is once again disregarding the will of voters for partisan gain.

Those concerns are compounded by a sweeping legal argument advanced by DeSantis’ team, that lawmakers can disregard the Fair Districts amendments altogether.

Attorneys representing DeSantis, told legislators the map is constitutional because federal law overrides key parts of the voter-approved amendments.

In other words, the administration is not just defending how the map was drawn — it is questioning whether the constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering still applies.

The process itself has also drawn scrutiny. Unlike traditional redistricting, which typically involves extensive legislative input and public hearings, this map was largely crafted within the governor’s office and then presented to lawmakers for approval.

Poreda described a methodical, top-down process — starting in South Florida and working outward, with changes in one district creating a “ripple effect” across the state. That kind of comprehensive redesign is how large partisan shifts are typically achieved.

Taken together, a single mapmaker acknowledging partisan input, a dramatically lopsided outcome and a legal theory that could render the state’s anti-gerrymandering protections effectively meaningless paint a stark picture for voting rights advocates.

Even as the Florida Supreme Court has grown more conservative in recent years — and upheld DeSantis’ last gerrymander — its earlier rulings still establish a clear principle that partisan intent, at any level, violates the state constitution.

Jen Rice contributed to this reporting.