The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Reapportionment
BILL: SB 2-C
INTRODUCER: Senator Rodrigues
SUBJECT: Establishing the Congressional Districts of the State
DATE: April 18, 2022 REVISED:
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Rojas Ferrin RE Favorable
I. Summary:
Senate Bill 2-C apportions the state into 28 single-member Congressional districts as required by
the United States (U.S.) Constitution, Federal Voting Rights Act, Florida Constitution, and
applicable court decisions.
II. Present Situation:
The 2020 Census revealed an unequal distribution of population growth across Florida’s
Congressional districts. Therefore, districts must be adjusted to comply with the “one person, one
vote” principle such that each district must be substantially equal in total population. 1
According to the 2020 Census, 21,538,187 people resided in Florida as of April 1, 2020. That
represents a population growth of 2,736,877 people from 2010 to 2020, approximately a 15
percent increase. Due to the population growth within the last decade, Florida is apportioned an
additional congressional seat, increasing its representation to 28. 2
Table 1 below shows the changes in population for each of Florida’s current congressional and
state legislative districts and their respective ideal populations.
1
See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568 (1964).
2
United States Census Bureau, 2020 Census Apportionment Results (April, 26, 2021),
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/dec/2020-apportionment-data.html.
BILL: SB 2-C Page 2
Table 1. Florida Congressional and State Legislative Districts Summary 2010 – 2020
According to the 2020 Census, the congressional district with the largest population has 955,602
people (186,381 more than the ideal), and the congressional district with the smallest population
has 727,465 people (41,756 less than ideal).
Background
The terms “redistricting” and “reapportionment” are often used interchangeably to describe the
process of redrawing Congressional and state legislative district boundaries after each decennial
census. Redrawing districts is necessary to accommodate population growth and shifts, ensuring
that each district contains equal or nearly equal populations in compliance with applicable state
and federal law.
The U.S. Constitution requires the apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives after
each decennial census to distribute each of the U.S. House of Representatives’ 435 seats between
the 50 states and to equalize population between districts within each state. 3
The 2020 Census
Established by the U.S. Constitution, the census has been conducted every 10 years by the
United States Census Bureau since 1790 to determine the number of people living in the United
States. Article I, s. 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that “The actual enumeration shall be made
within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every
subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.4
Florida is one of 21 states that explicitly requires the use of census data for redistricting. 5 Article
X, s. 8 of the Florida Constitution designates each decennial census of the state taken by the
3
Art. I, s. 2, U.S. Const.
4
Art. I, s. 2, U.S. Const.
5
National Conference of State Legislatures Redistricting Law 2020, Appendix B: Redistricting and Use of Census Data.
BILL: SB 2-C Page 3
United States as the official census of the state. 6 Florida Statutes also designate the most recent
federally conducted decennial census as the official census for redistricting. 7
Public Law (P.L.) 94-171 requires the Census Bureau to provide states the opportunity to
identify the small area geography for which data is needed to conduct legislative and
congressional redistricting. The law also requires the U.S. Census Bureau to furnish these
tabulations of population to each state, at the county, tract, block group, and block levels, within
one year of Census Day. 8
Title 13, U.S. Code requires that the state-level apportionment population counts be delivered to
the President of the United States within 9 months of the census date. In the 2020, 2010, and
most 20th century censuses, the census date has been April 1, meaning that the statutory deadline
for delivering the counts to the President is December 31 of the census year. 9
The delivery of 2020 Census results was delayed due to several factors affecting the Census
Bureau’s collection and processing, including the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters that
included hurricanes and wildfires, civil unrest, and legal challenges. 10
The state population counts for apportionment were delivered to the President on April 26, 2021
(originally due December 31, 2020). The U.S. Census Bureau provided redistricting data as
legacy format summary files, which is tabular data, for all states on August 12, 2021 (originally
due April 1, 2021). The full redistricting data toolkit was delivered to all 50 states and the public
on September 16, 2021 (originally due April 1, 2021).
Redistricting Criteria and Concepts
Florida follows various criteria and standards as it relates to drawing congressional districts,
including the United States (U.S.) Constitution, Federal Voting Rights Act, Florida Constitution,
and applicable court decisions.
The United States Constitution
The United States (U.S.) Constitution requires the reapportionment of the U.S. House of
Representatives after each decennial census to distribute each of the U.S. House of
Representatives' 435 seats between the states and to equalize population among districts within
each state. 11
Article I, s. 4 of the U.S. Constitution grants each state legislature the exclusive authority to
apportion seats designated to that state by providing the legislative bodies with the authority to
6
Art. X, s. 8, Fla. Const.
7
Section 11.031, F.S. (2021).
8
United States Census Bureau, Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data (Aug. 12, 2021),
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/summary-files.html.
9
United States Census Bureau, About Congressional Reapportionment (Nov. 22, 2021),
https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sector/congressional-apportionment/about.html.
10
Styles, Kathleen, 2020 Census: Overview (2021),
https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/Redistricting/NCSL_Census_Update_KathleenStyles.pdf.
11
Art. I, s. 2, U.S. Const.
BILL: SB 2-C Page 4
determine the times, place, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives.
Consistent therewith, Florida adopts its Congressional apportionment plans by legislation subject
to gubernatorial approval.
In addition to state-specific requirements to redistrict, states are obligated to redistrict based on
provisions within the United States Constitution. In Wesberry v Sanders, the United States
Supreme Court held that districts must be as nearly equal in population as practicable. 12 Derived
from the Fourteenth Amendment, this principle is commonly referred to as “one person, one
vote.” 13 For Congressional districts, “as practicable” has been interpreted to mean exactly equal
based on census data available at the time of redistricting. 14
The requirement that each district be equal in population applies differently to Congressional
districts than to state legislative districts. The populations of Congressional districts must achieve
absolute mathematical equality (+/- one person from the ideal population), with no de minimis
exception. 15 Limited population variances are permitted if they are “unavoidable despite a good
faith effort” or if a valid “justification is shown.” 16 In practice, Congressional districting has
strictly adhered to the requirement of exact mathematical equality and in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler,
the Court rejected several justifications for violating this principle.
The Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted to prohibit racial predominance. 17 The U.S
Supreme Court has stated: “The equal protection clause prohibits a state, without sufficient
justification, from separating its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race.” A
redistricting plan “that expressly distinguishes among citizens because of their race [must] be
narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.” Such strict scrutiny review
applies not only to redistricting plans that expressly distinguish citizens because of race, but also
those plans “that, although race neutral, are, on their face, unexplainable on grounds other than
race.” 18
The Federal Voting Rights Act
The Federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) prohibits any state or political subdivision from enacting a
map that results in the denial or abridgment of any U.S. citizen’s right to vote on account of race,
color, or status as a member of a language minority group and purposeful discrimination. 19 The
VRA also protects against retrogression—or backsliding—in the ability of racial and language
minorities to elect representatives of their choice. 20
Section 2 of the VRA requires the creation of a district that performs for racial and language
minorities where a minority population is geographically compact and sufficiently numerous to
be a majority in a single-member district, the minority population is politically cohesive, the
12
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).
13
See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568 (1964).
14
See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).
15
See Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 531 (1969).
16
Id.
17
See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
18
Id.
19
52 U.S.C.A. s. 10301.
20
52 U.S.C.A. s. 10303.
BILL: SB 2-C Page 5
majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority-preferred
candidate, and 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. 21
Section 5 of the VRA prohibits purposeful discrimination and protects against retrogression—or
backsliding—in the ability of racial and language minorities to elect representatives of their
choice.22 Section 5 contains a coverage formula that was applied to “covered jurisdictions” to
determine if there was a history of discrimination against racial or language minorities. 23 Such
jurisdictions had to be “precleared” before any of the changes could take effect, meaning that any
substantial changes made to voting laws, including redistricting plans, in these “covered
jurisdictions” could not be implemented without first obtaining federal permission. 24 In Florida,
Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe counties were subject to Department of
Justice preclearance in regards to redistricting until the coverage formula was invalidated in 2013
in Shelby County v. Holder.25 However, as Apportionment I states, “Florida's new constitutional
provision, codified the non-retrogression principle of Section 5 (VRA) and has now extended it
statewide. In other words, Florida now has a statewide non-retrogression requirement
independent of Section 5.”26
The Florida Constitution
In 2010, voters amended the Florida Constitution to create additional standards for establishing
Congressional district boundaries. 27 The standards are set forth in two tiers.
Tier–One Standards
Article III, s. 20(a) of the Florida Constitution prohibits line-drawing that intentionally favors or
disfavors a political party or an incumbent. It also affords protection to racial and language
minorities. Districts may 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. Finally, it requires that districts must be
contiguous. The order in which the tier-one standards are set out in the Constitution does not
establish any priority among those standards within the tier. 28
The tier-one standards provide that “[n]o apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the
intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.” 29 The Florida Supreme Court has
held that Florida’s constitutional provision “prohibits intent, not effect” because “any redrawing
of lines, regardless of intent, will inevitably have an effect on the political composition of a
21
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S. Ct. 2752, 92 L. Ed. 2d 25 (1986).
22
52 U.S.C.A. s. 10303.
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
Shelby Cty., Ala. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 186 L. Ed. 2d 651 (2013).
26
In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 624 (Fla. 2012).
27
Art. III, s. 20, Fla. Const.
28
Art. III, s. 20(c), Fla. Const.
29
Art. III, s. 20(a), Fla. Const.
BILL: SB 2-C Page 6
district and likely whether a political party or incumbent is advantaged or disadvantaged.” 30
Nonetheless, there is no acceptable level of improper intent. 31
The tier-one standards also provide protections for racial and language minorities. Districts may
“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.” 32
The Court has interpreted the tier-one constitutional provisions that relate to racial or language
minorities’ ability to participate in the political process or elect a candidate of their choice to
mean that “the Legislature cannot eliminate majority-minority districts or weaken other
historically performing minority districts where doing so would actually diminish a minority
group's ability to elect its preferred candidates…in addition to majority-minority districts,
coalition or crossover districts that previously provided minority groups with the ability to elect a
preferred candidate under the benchmark plan must also be recognized.” 33
The Court went on to say, “that under Florida's provision, a slight change in percentage of the
minority group's population in a given district does not necessarily have a cognizable effect on a
minority group's ability to elect its preferred candidate of choice. This is because a minority
group's ability to elect a candidate of choice depends upon more than just population figures.” 34
In order to draw districts that comply with the tier-one standards, a functional analysis is required
to be performed.
A “functional analysis,” as it has been termed, is an inquiry into a racial or language minority
group’s ability to elect a candidate of choice that requires “consideration not only of the minority
population in the districts, or even the minority voting-age population in those districts, but of
political data and how a minority population group has voted in the past.” 35 The map drawing
application in use for the 2022 Redistricting Cycle includes over 350 data points in the following
categories to enable users to perform this type of analysis: 36
2012 – 2020 General Election Voter Registration Information;
 Total Registration
 Registration by Party
 Registration by Race or Ethnicity
 Registration by Race or Ethnicity and Party
 Registration by Party and Race or Ethnicity
2012 – 2020 General Election Voter Turnout Information;
 Total Turnout
30
In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012).
31
Id.
32
Art. III, s. 20(a), Fla. Const.
33
In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 625 (Fla. 2012).
34
Id.
35
Id.
36
See Florida Senate Committee on Reapportionment, Functional Analysis (October, 2021), available
at:https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/Show/RE/MeetingPacket/5264/9438_MeetingPacket_5264_3.pdf.
BILL: SB 2-C Page 7
 Turnout by Party
 Turnout by