Case: Johnson v. DeGrandy

4:92-cv-40015 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida

Filed Date: Jan. 14, 1992

Closed Date: 1994

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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. T…

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)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/21490435/parties/de-grandy-v-wetherell/


Judge(s)

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)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Feldman, James A. (District of Columbia)

Klein, Joel I. (District of Columbia)

Meros, George N Jr. (Florida)

Odom, Francis Perry (Florida)

Judge(s)

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)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Feldman, James A. (District of Columbia)

Klein, Joel I. (District of Columbia)

Meros, George N Jr. (Florida)

Odom, Francis Perry (Florida)

Rumberger, Edwin T (Florida)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Doran, Richard Edward (Florida)

Foster, C. Allen (North Carolina)

Peters, James Aaron (Florida)

Turanchik, Edwin John (Florida)

Waas, George Lee (Florida)

Zack, Stephen N (Florida)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:92-cv-40015

Docket (Pacer)

De Grandy v. Wetherell

July 10, 2001

July 10, 2001

Docket

4:92-cv-40015

92-cv-10131

Opinion

Degrandy v. Wetherell

May 29, 1992

May 29, 1992

Order/Opinion

4:92-cv-40015

92-40220

92-40131

Opinion

Degrandy v. Wetherell

July 17, 1992

July 17, 1992

Order/Opinion

92-00519

92-00767

92-00593

[Noting Probable Jurisdiction]

Wetherell v. De Grandy

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 22, 1993

Feb. 22, 1993

Order/Opinion

4:92-cv-40015

92-00519

[Re. Oral Argument]

Johnson v. De Grandy

Supreme Court of the United States

June 1, 1993

June 1, 1993

Order/Opinion

4:92-cv-40015

92-00519

[Re. amicus participation]

Johnson v. De Grandy

Supreme Court of the United States

June 28, 1993

June 28, 1993

Order/Opinion

4:92-cv-40015

92-00519

92-00767

92-00593

Opinion

Supreme Court of the United States

June 30, 1994

June 30, 1994

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/21490435/de-grandy-v-wetherell/

Last updated Aug. 24, 2022, 3:07 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

Case closed (mbs,Tallahassee)

May 29, 1992

May 29, 1992

PACER

Case closed (mbs,Tallahassee) (Entered: 07/01/1996)

May 29, 1992

May 29, 1992

PLEADING #1-648 ON MANUAL DOCKET SHEET (bss,Tallahassee) (Entered: 03/12/1993)

March 12, 1993

March 12, 1993

PLEADING #1-648 ON MANUAL DOCKET SHEET (bss,Tallahassee)

March 12, 1993

March 12, 1993

PACER
649

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT, in part, of pltfs' claim for attorney's fees filed by plaintiff MIGUEL DE GRANDY, plaintiff MARIO DIAZ-BALART, plaintiff ANDY IRELAND, plaintiff CASIMER SMERICKI, plaintiff VAN B POOLE, plaintiff TERRY KETCHEL, plaintiff ROBERTO CASAS, plaintiff RODOLFO GARCIA JR, plaintiff LUIS ROJAS, plaintiff LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, plaintiff JAVIER SOUTO, plaintiff JUSTO LUIS POSO, plaintiff ALBERTO CARDENAS, plaintiff REY VELAZQUEZ, plaintiff LUIS MORSE, plaintiff ALBERTO GUTMAN, plaintiff KAREN E BUTLER, plaintiff AUGUSTA CARTER, plaintiff JEAN VAN METER, plaintiff ANNA M PINELLAS, plaintiff ROBERT WOODY, plaintiff GINA HAHN, plaintiff BILL PETERSEN, plaintiff TERRY KESTER, plaintiff MARGIE KINCAID, plaintiff BROOKS WHITE, defendant T K WETHERELL, defendant GWEN MARGOLIS, defendant LAWTON CHILES, defendant JACK GORDON, defendant PETER R WALLACE, defendant JIM SMITH, defendant ROBERT BUTTERWORTH, movant CUBAN AMERICAN BAR, movant GWEN HUMPHREY, movant NAACP BRANCHES, movant U. S. GOVERNMENT, movant GERALD HERBERT, movant CRAIG T JAMES, movant JIM BACCHUS, movant GEORGE C McGOUGH, movant FLORIDA AFLL-CIO, movant HALLEY B LEWIS, movant DANIEL J WEBSTER, movant ALZO REDDICK, movant REAVES BROWN, movant FERTEL, movant RON SILVER, movant ELAINE BLOOM, movant STEPHEN R McNAMARA (bss,Tallahassee) (Entered: 05/05/1993)

May 4, 1993

May 4, 1993

PACER

File Returned to Court. (bss,Tallahassee)

May 5, 1993

May 5, 1993

PACER
650

LETTER.....from Supreme Court of U.S. requesting transmittal of record. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 05/19/1993)

May 19, 1993

May 19, 1993

PACER

Transmittal of eight (8) boxes to Supreme Court attn: Sandy Nelson. No oversized exhibits sent pursuant to conversation w/Sandy Nelsen. Maps,etc. are being retained here until/or unless further instructed. (als,Tallahassee)

May 19, 1993

May 19, 1993

PACER
651

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF APPEAL RECORD BY SUPREME COURT DATED 5/21/93. (als,Tallahassee) (Entered: 06/01/1993)

May 28, 1993

May 28, 1993

PACER
652

ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ORDDERED THERE BEING NO VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT SHOWN, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISIONS GOING TO REMEDY. THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. () (Copies mailed as noted on document: ) (bss,Tallahassee) (Entered: 07/01/1994)

July 1, 1994

July 1, 1994

PACER
653

MANDATE OF USCA Re: it is ordered and adjudged by the court that the judgment of the above court in these causes is affirmed in part and reversed in part with costs and the causes are remanded to the USDC, Northern District of Florida for further proceedings in comformity with the opinion of this court. It is further ordered that the appellants BOLLEY JOHNSON, Speaker of the FL House of Rep., et al., recover one half costs from Miguel De Grandy, et al., 12,160.04 for their costs herin expended. (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 08/03/1994)

Aug. 2, 1994

Aug. 2, 1994

PACER

Consolidated Lead Case (vjr,Tallahassee)

Aug. 15, 1994

Aug. 15, 1994

PACER
654

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ORDER, affirmed in part and reversed in part with costs and the causes are remanded to the USDC for Northern FL, that the appellants Bolley Johnson, Speaker of FL house of Rep., et al., recover 1/2 costs from Miguel De Grandy, et al., 12,160.04 and 1/2 costs from US 12,160.04 for their costs herein expended (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 10/14/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994

Oct. 14, 1994

PACER
655

Record on Appeal returned from SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES, 8 boxes (vjr,Tallahassee) (Entered: 11/02/1994)

Nov. 2, 1994

Nov. 2, 1994

PACER

Called Atty. George Meros regarding status of case. He is to return call. (shr,Tallahassee)

March 21, 1996

March 21, 1996

PACER

Call placed to atty. George Waas regarding status of case. Mr. Waas advised that the case has been closed for some years. (shr,Tallahassee)

May 24, 1996

May 24, 1996

PACER
656

COPY of hard docket consisting of documents: 1-648 (kmb,Panama City) (Entered: 07/10/2001)

July 10, 2001

July 10, 2001

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Florida

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

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):

Private Plaintiff

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):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

General:

Voting

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

Voting:

Redistricting/district composition

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic