Florida Amendment 6, Congressional District Requirements Initiative (2010)

Florida Amendment 6
Election date November 2, 2010
Topic Redistricting policy
Status Approved
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Florida Amendment 6 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Florida on November 2, 2010. It was approved.

A “yes” vote supported amending the constitution to create policies for congressional redistricting, requiring that: no district is drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent; no plan denies racial or language minorities the ability to participate in the political process, to include electing representatives of their choice; all districts are one connected territory; each district is nearly equal in population;  created districts use existing political and geographical boundaries when possible; and districts be compact.

A “no” vote opposed amending the constitution to establish requirements for congressional redistricting.

Election results

Florida Amendment 6
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,153,199	62.93%
No		1,857,748	37.07%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How did the constitutional amendment change the redistricting process in Florida?

See also: Text of measure

Amendment 6 added a section to the state constitution that created requirements for the congressional redistricting process. It requires that no congressional district is drawn to intentionally favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent candidate in an election. The amendment also states that the plan can not deny any racial or language minority the ability to participate in the political process. In this instance, the political process includes the ability to elect representatives of their choice.

Under Amendment 6, congressional districts must be one connected territory, be nearly equal in population (when feasible), use existing political and geographical boundaries (when possible), and be compact.

How was Amendment 6 related to Amendment 5 on the 2010 ballot?

See also: Florida Amendment 5 (2010)

Both amendments concern the redistricting process in Florida. Amendment 6 concerns the redistricting process for congressional districts (for offices in the US House of Representatives) and Amendment 5 concerns the redistricting process for legislative districts (for the Florida House and Senate). Outside of that difference, the text of the two constitutional amendments are virtually identical.

Both amendments were approved by voters in the 2010 election; 62.9% of voters approved Amendment 6 and 62.6% of voters approved Amendment 5.

Aftermath

Gov. Rick Scott removes the amendments from federal approval

According to the federal Voting Rights Act, the state of Florida is required to receive pre-clearance of changes to its election laws that affect minority rights. The paperwork for this approval of the measures was filed December 10, 2010, by former Gov. Charlie Crist. On January 25, 2011, Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for Florida Governor Rick Scott, confirmed that the governor pulled back a request for federal approval of Amendment 5 and Amendment 6.

On Tuesday, January 25 Gov. Scott told the news media, "One of the things that we're looking at is the amendments that were passed, how they're going to be implemented. We want to make sure that with regard to redistricting, it's fair, it's the right way of doing it. So it's something I'm clearly focused on." Hughes stated, "Census data has not been transmitted to the state yet, and the Legislature will not undertake redistricting for months, so this withdrawal in no way impedes the process of redrawing Florida's legislative and congressional districts."

On February 3, 2011, supporters of Amendment 5 and 6 filed a lawsuit against Governor Rick Scott. Former Florida Sen. Dan Gelber and attorney for Fair Districts Florida said, "It's time to stop stonewalling. Governor Scott and Secretary Browning should not be abusing their power to frustrate the will of the 63% who voted for these reforms. The new standards must be sent to the Justice Department promptly to guarantee their implementation."

In response to the lawsuit, Hughes noted that the Florida State Legislature was months away from working on state redistricting and the governor is using the time to thoughtfully consider the policy.

On March 29, 2011, the House and Senate agreed to send Amendments 5 and 6 to the US Justice Department for pre-clearance. On May 31, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice approved the language of the constitutional amendments.

Brown v. State of Florida

On November 3, 2010, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart and Rep. Corrine Brown, filed a lawsuit to block the measures. Both lawmakers argued that the measure is unconstitutional. They stated, "The reason is simple: because traditional redistricting principles, such as maintaining communities of interest or minority access districts, will become entirely irrelevant if Amendments 5 and 6 are implemented, primarily because of the Amendments’ requirement of 'compact districts.' Certainly, minority communities do not live in compact, cookie-cutter like neighborhoods, and so district 'compactness' would defeat the ability of the state Legislature to draw access and majority-minority seats, since minority communities would become fragmented across the state."

In reaction to the lawsuit, Ellen Freidin of Fair Districts Florida said, "I can't imagine how this can be anything other than more effort by politicians to try and have districts drawn with no rules."

On September 9, 2011 U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro rejected the lawsuit filed by U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart. Ungaro stated that she was unswayed by the arguments and had already written an order prior to the September 2011 hearing. Additionally, Ungaro noted that the amendment was a "valid regulation of the legislative process."

In reaction to the news, Brown said, "I am disappointed in the judge’s ruling. But this is step one. We’re going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."

On January 11, 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit heard the challenge against the voter-approved amendment. On January 31, 2012, the court rejected the challenge and upheld the amendment. The decision was made unanimously and can be found here.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment 6 was as follows:

“

Standards for Legislature to Follow in Congressional Redistricting

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for Amendment 6 was as follows:

“

Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact of the ballot measure, which appeared on ballots directly under the ballot title and ballot summary, was as follows:

“

The fiscal impact cannot be determined precisely. State government and state courts may incur additional costs if litigation increases beyond the number or complexity of cases which would have occurred in the amendment’s absence.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article III, Florida Constitution

The ballot measure added new section to Article III of the Florida Constitution. The following underlined text was added.

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 20. Standards for establishing congressional district boundaries

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall 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; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.

(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.

(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

Support

Fair Districts Florida led the campaign in support of Amendment 6.

Supporters

Officials

• Former Gov. Bob Graham (D)
• Former State Comptroller Bob Milligan (R)

Organizations

• NAACP
• League of Women Voters
• ACLU
• SEIU

Arguments

• Fair Districts Florida: "Politicians who control the Legislature, also control redistricting. They design districts to protect incumbents and to make sure they can maintain power. They make deals to draw favorable districts for their allies and they try to draw their political adversaries out of office. They pack large numbers of unfavorable voters in into a few districts to minimize the opposition’s chance to win. Florida needs Amendments 5 and 6 to establish rules to curb this effect."
• Frmr. Gov. Bob Graham and Frmr. State Comptroller Bob Milligan: "Under our current system, elections are essentially rigged before the ballots are even printed. Districts are assigned to a particular party, and voters who will be favorable to that party are allocated accordingly. Or even worse, districts are designed to favor a particular incumbent...Florida has fewer competitive legislative elections than almost any state in the union."
• Ellen Friedin, a Miami lawyer who chairs the initiative campaign: "The whole point here is to draw districts that make sense geographically and that are not rigged to accomplish a particular political result."
• Mark McCullough, a spokesman for Service Employees International Union: "[SEIU's] goal is really just to establish some fairness standards when the Legislature begins drawing congressional and legislative boundaries. If you look at the state of Florida, there are some crazy districts out there."
• AARP Florida State Director Lori Parham: "AARP believes that voters should choose their representatives, rather than having government representatives choose their voters."

Opposition

Protect Your Vote led the campaign in opposition to Amendment 6.

Opponents

Officials

• Sen. Sen. Mike Haridopolos (R)
• Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R)
• House Majority Leader Adam Hasner (R)
• Sen. Gary Siplin (D)

Arguments

• House Majority Leader Adam Hasner: "[Amendment 6] is a stealth agenda funded by the left to do in the courts what they can't do at the ballot box. This is the top priority of Democrats in 2010 and it must be stopped."

• US Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart: "These amendments will have the effect of bleaching the state of Florida as it was before 1992 when minorities did not have the ability to elect candidates of their choice. It's unworkable. It will have a devastating effect on minorities across the state."

• Sen. Gary Siplin: "My review of the proposals suggests that the amendments set forth by Fair Districts Florida do not do enough to create or preserve majority-minority and minority access districts within the state."

• Former NAACP Chairman Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr.: "I am categorically opposed to Constitutional Amendments 5 and 6...because these proposed amendments fundamentally violate the voting rights of all Floridians, especially minority voters."

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Florida ballot measures, 2010

Support

• The Miami Herald was in favor of both Amendments 5 and 6, relating to amending the current practice of drawing legislative and congressional district boundaries. In an article, the editorial board wrote, "Taking the rigging out of redistricting and reapportionment would give voters real choices closer to home come election time...Amendments 5 and 6 will give control of elections back to Florida's voters, where it belongs."

• Orlando Sentinel endorsed Amendment 5 and 6. In response to oppositional arguments, the Sentinel stated, "The power establishment acts as if this would be the world's end. It wouldn't. It'll just help end the power establishment's stranglehold on voters."

• Florida Today supported Amendment 5 and 6. In an editorial, they said, "Like hundreds of thousands of other Florida citizens, they were disgusted with the rigged system legislative leaders use every 10 years after the Census to redraw political boundaries in ways that favor incumbents and whatever party holds power. The citizens’ initiative succeeded, and Amendments 5 and 6 will appear on November ballots, giving voters the power to force creation of fairer district maps. That’s a chance they deserve and should take. And one we’ve been advocating for many years, including when Democrats had a lock on power in Tallahassee and preserved it by drawing skewed districts to ensure they held onto seats." Their support for both measures was reiterated in an October editorial, "The importance of passing the amendments can’t be overstated. Stand up for better government Nov. 2. Vote “yes” on 5 and 6."

• The Tampa Tribune supported both Amendment 5 and 6. In an editorial the board said, "The current system empowers politicians, not voters. Approving the proposed standards would bring order to the process. Wedges should not be driven between communities, counties and voters...Voters have good reason to support amendments 5 and 6. A logical electoral map that keeps neighborhoods together could reinvigorate a healthy election system where voters pick their politicians rather than the other way around."

• The Palm Beach Post supported both Amendment 5 and 6. In an editorial the board said, "Under Amendments 5 and 6, legislators could not draw districts "to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party"...To voters, these rules make sense. To the ruling political and lobbying classes in Tallahassee, they're terrifying because they could change a system that benefits insiders...Florida voters deserve more competitive districts and more chance to pick their politicians. Amendments 5 (for the Legislature) and 6 (for Congress) would give them that chance."

• The Bradenton Herald supported both redistricting measures. The editorial board said, "Amendments 5 and 6 drive a stake into gerrymandering by requiring district lines follow existing geographic and political boundaries and be as compact and contiguous as possible...The amendments — 5 covers legislative seats and 6 congressional districts — also protect racial and language minorities...The amendments are common sense approaches that put voters, not politicians, first and foremost. We recommend yes votes on Amendments 5 and 6."

• The Pensacola News Journal supported both Amendment 5 and 6. In an editorial, the board said, "These are the two most important amendments on the ballot, governing the redrawing of legislative and congressional districts every 10 years after the Census. Unlike many proposed amendments, this issue really should be enshrined in the Florida Constitution...These amendments are bitterly opposed by incumbent politicians of both major parties, which should tell voters all they need to know."

• The Naples Daily News supported both Amendment 5 and 6. "We are not naive enough to believe politics will ever be totally removed from redistricting. Yet, when we see an opportunity to restore some common sense to legislative districts that snake up and down our state — often connecting communities with few common interests — we say “go for it," said the editorial board.

• The (Panama City) News Herald supported Amendments 5 and 6. "If it implements these standards, Florida wouldn’t be setting an extreme precedent. It would be catching up to much of the rest of the nation. Forty-four states already require that redistricting adhere to local boundaries; 36 require compactness; and 12 prohibit protecting incumbents....Vote "yes" on Amendments 5 and 6, which will send a big "no" to Tallahassee politicians who seek to win elections at the drawing table, not the ballot box," said the editorial board.

• The Northwest Daily News supported Amendment 5. "AMENDMENT 5 would establish fairness standards to use in redrawing Florida’s legislative districts; the new lines couldn’t favor any incumbent or political party. This is common sense. Vote yes on Amendment 5," said the editorial board.

• The St. Petersburg Times said, "Florida is a purple state, not red or blue. Its elected lawmakers in the Legislature and Congress should mirror that diversity and work together for a state and a nation that are neither far left nor far right. The Times recommends voters approve Amendments 5 and 6."

• The South Florida Sun-Sentinel said, "It's time for fair districts, time for voters to pick their candidates, not for politicians to pick their voters. Vote yes on Amendments 5 and 6."

• The Florida Times-Union said, "These amendments probably would make the districts a little less contorted - maybe a lot less so. That is why we recommend that voters should support the reasonable Amendments 5 and 6."

• The Ledger said, "Gerrymandering defeats the purpose of representative government. The Ledger recommends fighting it by voting Yes on Amendments 5 and 6."

Opposition

• Creative Loafing's Irreverent View was opposed to both Amendments 5 & 6. The editorial board said, "Irreverent View recommends a “No” vote on Amendments 5 and 6. The premise for these amendments appear well intentioned, however they were pushed by Democrat partisans who would like to regain power and who never had a problem with ridiculously drawn districts when it benefited them. Even if passed, these two amendments only provide “guidance” and don’t specify how the end goal is to be accomplished. The state constitution is no place to tinker with a temporarily perceived wrong. If citizens don’t want gerrymandered districts, they should demand better from their legislators."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Florida ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2010.

Fair Districts Florida registered to support the amendment.

Protect Your Vote registered to oppose the amendment.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$8,635,199.45	$39,346.63	$8,674,546.08	$8,631,384.34	$8,670,730.97
Oppose	$3,934,000.00	$0.00	$3,934,000.00	$3,919,000.00	$3,919,000.00
Total	$12,569,199.45	$39,346.63	$12,608,546.08	$12,550,384.34	$12,589,730.97

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.

Committees in support of Amendment 6
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Fair Districts Florida	$8,635,199.45	$39,346.63	$8,674,546.08	$8,631,384.34	$8,670,730.97
Total	$8,635,199.45	$39,346.63	$8,674,546.08	$8,631,384.34	$8,670,730.97

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the support committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
National Education Association	$1,150,000.00	$14,106.60	$1,164,106.60
Christopher Findlater	$896,020.29	$0.00	$896,020.29
Florida Education Association	$650,000.00	$0.00	$650,000.00
Florida Watch Ballot Committee	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
America Votes	$400,000.00	$0.00	$400,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Amendment 6
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Protect Your Vote	$3,934,000.00	$0.00	$3,934,000.00	$3,919,000.00	$3,919,000.00
Total	$3,934,000.00	$0.00	$3,934,000.00	$3,919,000.00	$3,919,000.00

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the opposition committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Republican Party of Florida	$2,607,500.00	$0.00	$2,607,500.00
Florida Association of Realtors Advocacy Fund	$278,000.00	$0.00	$278,000.00
Miriam Adelson	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Florida

The ballot measure was an initiated constitutional amendment. Proponents collected signatures to place the initiative on the ballot.

In Florida, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8% of the votes cast in the preceding presidential election. Florida also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equaling at least 8% of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election be collected from at least half (14) of the state's 28 congressional districts. Before 2020, signatures remained valid for a period of two years. Signatures must be verified by February 1 of the general election year the initiative aims to appear on the ballot.

Proposed measures are reviewed by the state attorney general and state supreme court after proponents collect 25% of the required signatures across the state in each of one-half of the state's congressional districts. After these preliminary signatures have been collected, the secretary of state must submit the proposal to the Florida Attorney General and the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC). The attorney general is required to petition the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the measure's compliance with the single-subject rule, the appropriateness of the title and summary, and whether or not the measure "is facially invalid under the United States Constitution."

Stages of this ballot initiative

Below is a timeline of this initiative:

• September 28, 2007: The initiative was approved by the Secretary of State to begin gathering signatures.
• April 23, 2008: Fair Districts Florida submitted sufficient signatures to place the initiative before the Attorney General for their review.
• May 29, 2008: The initiative was sent to the Florida Supreme Court for their decision on the constitutionality of the measure.
• January 29, 2009: The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the initiative was constitutional and could be placed on the ballot if it received sufficient signatures.
• January 22, 2010: The Secretary of State determined that Fair Districts Florida submitted 686,016 valid signatures, which was more than the required 676,811 to place the initiative on the ballot.
• April 26, 2010: The Florida State Legislature placed Amendment 7 on the ballot. The amendment was similar to Amendments 5 and 6 in that it would prohibit lawmakers from favoring a political party of an incumbent when creating districts. However, it would allow lawmakers to create districts based on communities of common interest. Supporters of Amendment 6, including Florida State Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and Democracia Ahora, challenged Amendment 7. They stated it was a "trick amendment and it is a blatant effort to fool voters." On August 31, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that Amendment 7 would not be placed on the ballot.
• May 10, 2010: U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart filed a lawsuit against Amendment 6 in Leon County Circuit Court, stating that the amendment was inconsistent and would create unattainable standards for the redistricting process.

Dawn Roberts v. Corrine Brown

Dawn Roberts v. Corrine Brown

Dismissed on August 10, 2010

Court Information
Issue	Is Amendment 6 unconstitutional, and is it sufficiently consistent to create implementable policies for the congressional redistricting process?
Court	Florida Supreme Court
Lower Court	Florida Circuit Court
Ruling
Ruling	Amendment 6 is not unconstitutional, it would not create unworkable conditions for redistricting, and it should be placed on the November 2010 ballot.
Order(s)	Order: Florida Supreme Court (August 31, 2010)
Participants
Plaintiff(s)	Dawn Roberts
Defendant(s)	Corrine Brown

On Monday, May 24, 2010 U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart filed a lawsuit against Amendment 6 in Leon County Circuit Court. Balart stated, "Amendment 6 is riddled with inconsistencies and, if passed, would set unworkable standards in drawing districts." They also stated that the requirements of Amendment 6 would dilute minority voting powers in Florida. Ellen Freidin of Fair Districts Florida responded to the lawsuit, saying, "They clearly haven’t read the language of our amendments. We specifically have addressed their concerns."

On July 12 a Leon County judge denied a request by Secretary of State Dawn Roberts and FairDistricts Florida to dismiss the lawsuit. The case was scheduled to be heard on July 26 before Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford.

Roberts asked the Florida Supreme Court to either order Fulford to dismiss the case or take over. On July 13 Roberts said, "the continuing proceedings in the circuit court not only interfere with this Court’s jurisdiction, but are consuming the limited resources of the Secretary and potentially interfere with her ability to have the ballots prepared for the 2010 general election."

On July 19 the Florida Supreme Court agreed to hear the case directly. In late August 2010 the court dismissed challenges to both Amendment 5 and Amendment 6.

The case number was 10-1362. Court briefings and documents can be found here.

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• Redistricting policy on the ballot
• 2010 legislative sessions

Florida

• Florida ballot measures
• Florida ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Florida Division of Elections, "Initiatives / Amendments / Revisions Database"