HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF FINAL BILL ANALYSIS
BILL #: HB 1C Establishing the Congressional Districts of the State
SPONSOR(S): Leek and others
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: SB 2-C
FINAL HOUSE FLOOR ACTION: 68 Y’s 38 N’s GOVERNOR’S ACTION: Approved
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
HB 1C passed the House on April 21, 2022, as SB 2-C.
The U.S. Constitution requires the reapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives every ten years, which
includes the distribution of the House’s 435 seats between the states, and the equalization of population between
districts within each state.
The 2020 Census revealed an unequal distribution of growth across Florida’s congressional districts. Therefore,
districts must be adjusted to correct population differences.
On March 4, 2022, the Florida legislature passed CS/SB 102 reapportioning the Congressional Districts of the
state. On March 29, 2022 Governor DeSantis vetoed CS/SB 102 and issued a proclamation calling the
Legislature into Special Session from April 19-22, 2022 to address the redrawing of the state’s congressional
districts.
Redistricting Plan P000C0109: SB 2-C reapportions the resident population of Florida into 28 single-member
Congressional districts, as required by state and federal law.
This bill substantially amends Chapter 8 of the Florida Statutes.
When compared to the existing 27 Congressional districts, this bill:
• Reduces the number of cities split from 39 to 16;
• Reduces the number of counties split from 18 to 17;
• Improves the statewide averages of the Convex Hull, Reock and Polsby-Popper mathematical
compactness scores, and
• Maintains a population deviation of one person.
The bill creates s. 8.062, F.S., and s. 8.063, F.S., which limit the choice of venue for state court actions
challenging the state’s congressional districts.
The bill appropriates $1 Million in nonrecurring funding from the General Revenue Fund to the Florida
Department of State for any litigation related expenses incurred as a result of challenges to the state’s
congressional districts.
The bill was approved by the Governor on April 22, 2022, the districts prescribed herein apply to the
qualification, nomination, and election for the office of U.S. Representative beginning in the primary and
general elections in 2022 and thereafter.
This document does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives .
STORAGE NAME: h0001Cz.DOCX
DATE: 5/6/2022
 I. SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Current Situation
The 2020 Census
According to Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Census Bureau is required to do an
“actual enumeration” of all people living in the United States every 10 years.1 While the census results in
many work products and data sets, the two most relevant to redistricting include the Apportionment
Counts and Public Law 94-171 redistricting data (commonly referred to as the “P.L. Data”) for each state.
The redistricting dataset contains summary statistics on population, demographics and housing per
census block. The included population data is categorized by total population and total population for
individuals 18 years and older, both by race and Hispanic or Latino origin.
For the first time in its 40 years of modern data collection and distribution, the U.S. Census Bureau missed
its statutory deadlines for delivering Apportionment Counts and the redistricting data to the states. 2 These
delays were a result of wildfires, hurricanes, civil unrest, and the COVID-19 pandemic experienced during
2020.
The actual release date of each state’s Apportionment Count was on April 26, 2021, close to four months
behind its statutory deadline of December 31, 2020. And the official release date for the redistricting data
was August 12, 2021, missing its statutory deadline of March 31, 2021 by close to six months. In an effort
to get redistricting data released to the states as efficiently as possible, the data was first released in a
“legacy file” format on August 12 while the official data release, deemed to be a more “user-friendly”
format, occurred on September 30, 2021.
Although the U.S. Census Bureau faced unprecedented hurdles and timeline delays, Florida’s
enumeration was completed at a 99.9 percent rate.3 Florida reached the same rate of completion as the
national average, and this success was aided by traditional paper methods, in addition to the census
being offered online for the first time in history.
Results of the 2020 Census
According to the 2020 Census, 21,538,187 people resided in Florida on April 1, 2020, which represents
a population growth of 2,736,877 in Florida residents between the 2010 to 2020 censuses. This increase
in population also resulted in Florida gaining a congressional district, bringing the total to 28 districts.
After the 2010 Census, the ideal population for each district in Florida was:
 Congressional: 696,345, based on 27 districts
 State Senate: 470,033, based on 40 districts
 State House: 156,678, based on 120 districts
1U.S. Const. art. 1, §2.
213 U.S.C. § 141 (1976).
3 2020 Census Response Rate Update: 99.98% Complete Nationwide. U.S. Census Bureau (Oct. 19, 2020), 2020 Census Response
Rate Update: 99.98% Complete Nationwide (last visited Jan.14, 2022).
STORAGE NAME: h0001Cz.DOCX PAGE: 2
DATE: 5/6/2022
 After the 2020 Census, the ideal population for each district in Florida was:
 Congressional: 769,221, based on 28 districts
 State Senate: 538,455, based on 40 districts
 State House: 179,485, based on 120 districts
As in previous decades, the 2020 Census revealed an unequal increase and shift in population growth
amongst the state’s legislative and congressional districts. Therefore, districts must be adjusted to comply
with “one-person, one vote,” such that each district must be nearly as equal in population as practicable.
Table 1 below shows the changes in population for each of Florida’s current Congressional districts and
their subsequent deviation from the new ideal population of 769,221 residents.
Table 1. Florida Congressional Districts Change in Population from 2010 to 2020
Over/Under Over-Under
NAME 2010 Pop 2020 Pop Change % Change
Population Population %
1 696,345 807,881 111,536 16.02% 38,660 5.55%
2 696,345 727,856 31,511 4.53% -41,365 -5.94%
3 696,345 766,133 69,788 10.02% -3,088 -0.44%
4 696,345 871,884 175,539 25.21% 102,663 14.74%
5 696,345 748,910 52,565 7.55% -20,311 -2.92%
6 696,345 796,254 99,909 14.35% 27,033 3.88%
7 696,345 788,518 92,173 13.24% 19,297 2.77%
8 696,344 783,753 87,409 12.55% 14,532 2.09%
9 696,344 955,602 259,258 37.23% 186,381 26.77%
10 696,345 873,804 177,459 25.48% 104,583 15.02%
11 696,344 820,835 124,491 17.88% 51,614 7.41%
12 696,345 807,137 110,792 15.91% 37,916 5.45%
13 696,345 727,465 31,120 4.47% -41,756 -6.00%
14 696,345 787,447 91,102 13.08% 18,226 2.62%
15 696,345 819,853 123,508 17.74% 50,632 7.27%
16 696,345 884,047 187,702 26.96% 114,826 16.49%
17 696,345 779,955 83,610 12.01% 10,734 1.54%
18 696,344 794,724 98,380 14.13% 25,503 3.66%
19 696,345 835,012 138,667 19.91% 65,791 9.45%
20 696,344 776,283 79,939 11.48% 7,062 1.01%
21 696,345 788,007 91,662 13.16% 18,786 2.70%
22 696,345 785,756 89,411 12.84% 16,535 2.37%
23 696,345 769,356 73,011 10.48% 135 0.02%
24 696,345 742,542 46,197 6.63% -26,679 -3.83%
25 696,345 771,434 75,089 10.78% 2,213 0.32%
26 696,345 787,914 91,569 13.15% 18,693 2.68%
27 696,345 739,825 43,480 6.24% -29,396 -4.22%
STORAGE NAME: h0001Cz.DOCX PAGE: 3
DATE: 5/6/2022
 The law governing the reapportionment and redistricting of congressional and state legislative districts
invokes the U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution, federal statutes, and a variety of state and federal
case law. Therefore, all redistricting plans must comply with all requirements of the U.S. Constitution, the
federal Voting Rights Act, the Florida Constitution, and applicable court decisions.
U.S. Constitution
The U.S. Constitution requires the reapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives every 10 years
to distribute each of the House of Representatives’ 435 seats between the states and to equalize
population between districts within each state.
Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “[t]he Time, Places and Manner of holding
Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of
choosing Senators.” The U.S. Constitution thus delegates to state legislature’s authority, subject to
congressional regulation, to create congressional districts.
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, with no de minimis exception.4 Limited population variances are permitted if they
are “unavoidable despite a good faith effort” or if a valid “justification is shown.” 5
In addition to state specific requirements, states are obligated to redistrict based on the principle
interpreted by the Court as “one-person, one-vote.”6 In Reynolds, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the
14th Amendment required that seats in state legislature be reapportioned on a population basis. The
Supreme Court concluded:
…”the basic principle of representative government remains, and must remain, unchanged
– the weight of a citizen’s vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. Population
is, of necessity, the starting point for consideration and the controlling criterion for
judgment in legislative apportionment controversies…The Equal Protection Clause
demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens,
of all places as well as of all races. We hold that, as a basic constitutional standard, the
Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state
legislature must be apportioned on a population basis.” 7
The Court went on to conclude that decennial reapportionment was a rational approach to readjust
legislative representation to take into consideration population shifts and growth.8
In practice, congressional redistricting has strictly adhered to the requirement of exact mathematical
equality. In Kirkpatrick v. Preisler the Court rejected several justifications for violating this principle,
including “a desire to avoid fragmenting either political subdivisions or areas with distinct economic and
social interests, considerations of practical politics, and even an asserted preference for geographically
compact districts.”9
4 Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 531 (1969).
5
Id.
6 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
7 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568 (1964).
8 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 584.
9 Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. at 531.
STORAGE NAME: h0001Cz.DOCX PAGE: 4
DATE: 5/6/2022
 For state legislative districts, the courts have permitted a greater population deviation amongst districts.
The populations of state legislative districts must be “substantially equal.” 10 Substantial equality of
population has come to generally mean that a legislative plan will not be held to violate the Equal
Protection Clause if the difference between the least populous and most populous district is less than 10
percent.11 Nevertheless, any significant deviation (even within the 10 percent overall deviation margin)
must be “based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy,” 12
including “the integrity of political subdivisions, the maintenance of compactness and contiguity in
legislative districts, or the recognition of natural or historical boundary lines.” 13
However, states should not interpret this 10 percent standard to be a safe haven. 14 Additionally, nothing
in the U.S. Constitution or case law prevents states from imposing stricter standards for population
equality.
Florida’s benchmark maps from the 2012 redistricting cycle have population deviation ranges of 3.97%
for its State House districts, 1.98% for it State Senate districts, 15 and plus or minus one person for
Congressional districts.16 The Congressional districts proposed by the bill have a population deviation
range of one person.
The Voting Rights Act
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965. The VRA protects the right to vote as guaranteed
by the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In addition, the VRA enforces the protections of the 14 th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by ensuring minority voters an equal opportunity to participate in the
political process and to elect candidates of their choice.
The Voting Rights Act – Section 2
Common challenges to congressional and state legislative districts generally arise under Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act. Section 2 provides: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State…in a manner which results in a denial
or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in
contravention of the “guarantees” provided to language minorities.17 This provision prohibits “vote-
dilution,” which was further defined in the Gingles case. The purpose of Section 2 is to ensure that
minority voters have an equal opportunity along with other members of the electorate to participate in the
political process and elect representatives of their choice. 18
10 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 568.
11 Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1 (1975); Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 418 (1977).
12 Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 579.
13 Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 444 (1967).
14
Marylanders for Fair Representation Inc. vs. Schafer, 849 F. Supp. 1022, 1032 (D. Md. 1994).
15 Florida House of Representatives, Staff Analysis of 2012 Senate Joint Resolution 1176, p. 21 and 40 (March 9, 2012).
16 Florida House of Representatives, Staff Analysis of 2012 Senate Bill 1174, p. 17 (March 9, 2012).
17 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a).
18 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b); Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 155 (1993).
STORAGE NAME: h0001Cz.DOCX PAGE: 5
DATE: 5/6/2022
 The Supreme Court set forth the criteria of a vote-dilution claim in Thornburg v. Gingles.19 A plaintiff must
show that:
1. A minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-
member district;
2. The minority group is politically cohesive, and
3. White voters vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable them usually to defeat the candidate preferred by
the minority group.
The three “Gingles factors” are necessary, but not sufficient, to show a violation of Section 2. 20 To
determine whether minority voters have been denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political
process and elect representatives of their choice, a court must examine the totality of the circumstances.21
This analysis requires consideration of the so-called “Senate factors,” which assess historical patterns of
discrimination and the success, or lack thereof, of minorit