Filed Date: Jan. 14, 1992
Closed Date: 1994
Clearinghouse coding complete
On January 14, 1992, a member of the Florida House of Representatives and other registered voters representing African-American and Hispanic voters, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs sued the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, the President of the Florida Senate, the Governor of Florida, and other state officials for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs claimed that minority groups were not represented equally in both congressional and state districts. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court to assert jurisdiction to redistrict and reapportion the state.
On March 13, 1992, the Florida legislature ended its regular session without adopting a new districting plan. With a scheduled candidate qualification date of July 6, 1992, the court issued an expedited scheduling order to adopt congressional and state legislative district plans. However, the court made it clear that the Florida legislature was free to adopt its own in the interim. Subsequently, during a special session, the legislature adopted SJR 2-G, a state districting plan, but no congressional plan.
On April 30, 1992, a three-judge district court held the state’s current districting unconstitutional. The court identified the need for a constitutional Congressional districting plan and the need for a constitutional state districting plan
The court stayed consideration of the state plan that the Florida legislature passed. However, the state never passed a congressional plan and the decision for a plan to be adopted was left to the Court.
On May 29, 1992, Judge William Stafford, for a panel of three judges, approved Expert Plan 308. The court found the current congressional districting unconstitutional and held that Expert Plan 308 provided a constitutionally approvable plan for the congressional elections. The court ordered the defendants to conduct congressional elections in 1992 in accordance with Expert Plan 308.
Following this, the court also began hearings for SJR 2-G, the state districting plans, on May 27, 1992.
There were two parts of interest:
1.) House Plan: the House districting plan created only 9 Hispanic districts in South Florida, but it was argued that 11 could be created.
2.) Senate Plan: the Senate districting plan created 3 Hispanic districts in South Florida, but it was argued that at least a 4th could be created.
On July 17, 1992, Judge Stafford held that the Senate plan under SJR 2-G violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but that it was the best remedy available. In particular, the creation of a 4th Hispanic district would be at the expense of black voters in the area. However, the court held that the House plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court found that the House plan could have created two more majority Hispanic districts bringing the total in South Florida to 11.
The Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, brought suit against the original plaintiffs challenging the unconstitutionality of the House plan. On June 30, 1994, Johnson v. De Grandy, the Supreme Court decided that the House plan did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They held that section 2 did not require maximizing the number of districts where minority voters can elect their candidate. Instead, the true test is whether minorities have majorities in a number of districts proportional to their share of their the voting population. The Supreme Court decided 9 was representative and ordered adoption of the districting plans in accordance with SJR 2-G.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Brent Winslow (10/28/2016)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/21490435/parties/de-grandy-v-wetherell/
Hatchett, Joseph Woodrow (Florida)
Feldman, James A. (District of Columbia)
JR, GEORGE N (Florida)
Doran, Richard Edward (Florida)
Foster, C. Allen (North Carolina)
Hatchett, Joseph Woodrow (Florida)
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)
O'Connor, Sandra Day (District of Columbia)
Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)
Souter, David Hackett (District of Columbia)
Thomas, Clarence (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/21490435/de-grandy-v-wetherell/
Last updated Feb. 7, 2024, 3:15 a.m.
State / Territory: Florida
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 14, 1992
Closing Date: 1994
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A member of the State House of Representatives, Hispanic voters, and the NAACP representing African American voters.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Florida Legislature (Pensacola , Escambia), State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting:
Redistricting/district composition
Discrimination-basis:
Race:
National Origin/Ethnicity: