Public Input

A website of the Florida House of Representatives' Redistricting Committee and

HPUBC0001 – Ortiz, Nicholas A

View in Google Maps


  • Congressional Redistricting Plan
  • 27 Districts
  • Complete: YES
  • Contiguous: These districts contain holes and noncontiguous geography
  • Direct Impacts: Statewide.
  • Submitted to the Florida House of Representatives
  • Submitted by Nicholas A Ortiz from St. Johns County

Open Plan in MyDistrictBuilder or Another Application:



Filed under: Congress - Complete Plans, ,

11 Responses - Comments are closed.

  1. Redistricting Committee staff note that the author of this plan provided the following comments:

    A “Memorandum of Law” at

  2. Arnold Colon says:

    Where will I find information about population in each of the districts?

  3. You’ll find the plan’s data, including population, in the CSV file that you can download. I’ve got your email, so I’ll send you the spreadsheet file in a minute.

  4. Ken says:

    I do not like this proposal. I used to be in Congressional District 8, then in 2001 my street was put on the outer limits of District 3 which stretches from Orlando to Jacksonville. And now I see the new proposal doing the same thing, District 26. It’s unfair, we want local representation. We do not want a representation over 2 hours away. I’ve made inquiries via email to our current representative and do not even get a reply. Let us go back to the district replacing district 8 so we can have the same representation as our neighbors.

  5. Mike says:

    District 26 is a violation of the civil rights of the citizens. Put 26 in Jacksonville and give the southern tip to the representatives in Orlando. Stop the racial gerrimandering now!

  6. Mike says:

    First, the author of this plan has done quite a good job in validating his plan submission with prior rulings of the SCOTUS. However, in the recent Bartlett v. Strickland ruling, his justification for current CD 3 (his District 26) is a misinterpretation of the ruling. In that ruling, on both the majority and descent opinions, there was a harsh warning to end race as THE predominate factor in drawing District boundaries. It was highly desired to create Districts that first, meet State Constitutional requirements and IF a minority-plurality District happened due to “shrinkage” of population as is the case in current District 3, then the “coalition” type District is acceptable under the VRA sections 2 and 5.

    The State legislature MUST consider that race must NOT be the predominate factor in creating Districts. To create “coalition” Districts when practical that PRESERVES the new Amendment 5 and 6 requirements WOULD meet Constitutional muster under Barnett v. Strickland’s ruling. If this Legislature is sincere about ending the appearances of “race” in this State, they MUST NOT consider race first. IF following the Amendments 5 and 6 requirements are achieved as best as humanly possible, racial considerations will disappear totally. AND that should be the goal and allow people to UNITE based on real debate on issues by ALL Candidates and Incumbents.

    Currently, District 3 is NOT a minority-majority District based on Voting Age Population as Bartlett was based on. Still, when the legislature followed their States Constitutional requirements of “no county division” rules, a coalition District WAS created and did NOT effectively dilute minority voting strength when they were working to elect candidates with INFLUENCE and not actual majorities. The ruling stated CLEARLY that unless there was a 50.01% VAP minority-majority original District, it did NOT require maintaining that District under the VRA sections 2 and 5. They were ALSO critical of creating “bleached” Districts that did NOT allow minorities to have influence in OTHER Districts by working as a group with others to elect candidates of their choice. They further clarified that there was a NOT a guaranteed RIGHT to have to elect candidates of choice, but ONLY the “opportunity” to do so and a “coalition” type District WOULD provide that when State Law was followed. Florida should be NO DIFFERENT!!!

    In this plan, I believe that the author misinterpreted totally the Bartlett ruling and also Amendment 6 compactness requirement of several Districts. Granted, creating “ideal” population Districts is admirable, it would totally violate Bartlett since he has attempted to “predict” voting patterns as the Courts have determined they are UNWILLING and INCAPABLE of doing. Hence, nor should ANY plan design! If this legislature is sincere about following State Law, they will eliminate ALL efforts to Pack, Stack, Bleach, or violate the voters will under Amendments 5 and 6. Listen to the people. They are far smarter than you might think. They want to be able to choose THEIR Representatives and NOT let the Representatives choose their voters. Do THAT, and you are but one step closer to eliminating the need for “racial gerrymandering” in this State which is an ADMIRABLE TRAIT TO HAVE and one that WOULD hold up under any scrutiny before the SCOTUS.

  7. Roger N. Thomas says:

    This plan bears way too many similarities to what is already in place and is demonstrably Gerrymandering..

  8. Carl Peterson says:

    New district 26 certainly appears to be a gerrymandered district, boundaries are not at all compact as most of the other districts appear to be. It really should be done with compactness not Oozing down towards Orlando.

  9. Stop playing silly games and make districts that make sense! District 26 is the same BS being made to hold a black democrat majority so not to give up a state republican stronghold. Make it fair or get off the committee!

  10. Roger N. Thomas says:

    Frankly asking a corrupt politician to turn in his spots is impossible. We MUST vote them out of office. How hard would a recall of Governor Scott and those politicians that favor Medieval beliefs be to accomplish?

  11. Stephen Marsh says:

    I like this plan but district 26 HAS GOT TO GO. I understand that this is a majority Minority district, but the issues from jacksonville to gainesville to orlando could not be more different. It seems like this is a plan to keep one incumbent in power (FL-3).

Plan Explorer

The Plan Explorer blog site highlights partial and complete redistricting plans submitted by Florida residents to the Florida House of Representatives. The site also includes suggestions submitted in writing. The tools to the left offer several ways to search the submitted plans.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 26 other followers

Thanks for Stopping By!

  • 40,957 visitors!
%d bloggers like this: