Case: Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc. v. Byrd

This is a case challenging a redrawing of congressional districts in the state of Florida. The plaintiffs in this case were a coalition of non-profit, civil and voting rights organizations and citizens of the state of Florida. They filed their complaint in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida on April 22, 2022, against Florida’s Secretary of State, Attorney General, Senate, House of Representatives, and legislative leaders. The plaintiffs alleged that the redistricting plan enacted by the Florida State Legislature on March 4, 2022, amounted to racial and political gerrymandering that violated guarantees in the Florida constitution. As such, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to both bar the current map from being implemented as well as to order the state to adopt a new, constitutional plan. The case was assigned to Judge J. Layne Smith.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary injunction on April 26, 2022. That motion was granted by Judge Smith on May 12, 2022. In his order granting the injunction, Judge Smith found that the plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of proving that the plan violated the non-diminishment standard of the Florida constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment specifically as applied to Congressional District 5 in northern Florida, which had historically been a district in which Black voters were able to elect a Black candidate in House elections. The defendants' plan divided the district in a manner that would eliminate that possibility. The Court also found that the new plan did not create any new congressional districts in which Black voters would be able to elect a candidate of their choice. 

Judge Smith addressed the defendants’ argument that the non-diminishment standard in the Florida Constitution violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Judge Smith found that this argument was without merit because the defendants had not established that race was the predominant factor in the establishment of the original boundaries for Congressional District 5. He also found that the Amendment was narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest in promoting voting rights such that it does not violate the Equal Protection clause. 

Finding that the plaintiffs and others would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, Judge Smith agreed with the plaintiffs that their proposed map was an appropriately narrow remedy. The plaintiffs’ map was designed to minimize the administrative burden within counties affected by the changes to Congressional District 5 by following the same boundaries of the recently enacted Florida State House map while still restoring it as a district where Black voters have the ability to elect a candidate of their choice. Judge Smith ordered that the plaintiffs’ proposed map be used for the 2022 congressional elections. 

The next day, May 13, 2022, the defendants filed an appeal in the Florida District Court of Appeals for the First District which triggered an automatic stay pending review. The plaintiffs then filed an emergency motion to vacate the automatic stay in the circuit court. That motion was granted by Judge Smith on May 16, 2022. 

On May 20, 2022, the Florida District Court of Appeals issued an order reinstating the stay while the case was pending. 2022 WL 1698353. The court determined that there was a high likelihood that the temporary injunction was unlawful and that the preliminary remedy was more likely to change the status quo, rather than preserve it. Citing the exigency of the upcoming elections, the court reinstated the stay of the temporary injunction. The court of appeals issued an opinion on May 27, 2022, formally reinstating the stay for the same reasons. 

The plaintiffs filed an emergency petition with the Florida Supreme Court on May 23, 2022, requesting that the Supreme Court assume jurisdiction over the case. The Florida Supreme Court denied this request on June 2, 2022, finding that they did not have jurisdiction over the case at that time. The Supreme Court felt that it was speculative as to whether there would be an appeal from a pending decision of the District Court and thus found it inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction at that time. 340 So.3d 475.

On June 17, 2022, the court of appeals issued an opinion finding the injunction illegal. The court reiterated that a temporary injunction was only appropriate in the case that it preserved the status quo until a satisfactory hearing on the merits can be had. Because the temporary injunction did not return the parties to the condition that existed before the current controversy and instead went beyond it to craft an entirely new remedy, the Court found that it was unlawful. 340 So.3d 569. 

On May 16, 2022, the Florida Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the case against him. That motion was granted the next day. The individual legislators that had been named as defendants filed a similar motion on June 2, 2022, which was granted on July 22, 2022. On August 25, the remaining defendants, both houses of the Florida legislature and the Secretary of State, filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to Counts IV and V of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The defendants argued that the plan used political and geographic boundaries appropriately (Count IV) and drew districts that were sufficiently compact and did not create “unusual, bizarre, or tortured shapes” (Count V). On October 27, 2022, the plaintiffs filed notice of dismissal of Counts IV and V without prejudice. 

On October 27, 2022, Judge Smith granted in part and denied in part a motion for a protective order filed by independent legislators, which would prevent plaintiffs from deposing those legislators. The judge granted it to the extent that they may not be questioned about proceedings of the legislature that are not public record, but denied to the extent that they can be questioned about matters that are in the public record.

On June 16, 2023, after a long period of discovery, plaintiffs moved for a judgment on the pleadings, promptly entering a motion for summary judgment as well on June 23.

On September 2, 2023, Judge Smith put out an order granting the motion for a judgment on the pleadings based on specific affirmative defenses, declaring the enacted plan unconstitutional, enjoining defendants from enacting the plan and remanding the plan to the legislature to come up with a constitutional plan. The judge reasoned that plaintiffs effectively proved a violation of article III of the Florida constitution, since the enacted plan eliminates black voters' ability to choose a candidate of their choice in the new district created by the plan. He also reasoned that defendants did not do enough to prove their affirmative defense of racial gerrymandering, as they did not prove that race predominated in the drawing of any specifically identified district, they did not have standing to bring such a defense, and finally, that Florida's official standing doctrine barred the affirmative defense. Defendants immediately appealed the order to Florida's First District Court of Appeals.

As of November 18, 2023, proceedings are ongoing in the First District Court of Appeals.