Public Input

A website of the Florida House of Representatives' Redistricting Committee and www.floridaredistricting.org

HPUBC0106 – Yost, Mike

View in Google Maps

Summary:

  • Congressional Redistricting Plan
  • 10 Districts
  • Complete: 260,051 unassigned census blocks
  • Contiguous: YES, these 10 districts are contiguous
  • Direct Impacts: Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Holmes, Washington, Bay, Jackson, Calhoun, Gulf, Gadsden, Liberty, Franklin, Leon, Wakulla, Jefferson, Madison, Taylor, Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Dixie, Levy, Gilchrist, Columbia, Baker, Union, Bradford, Alachua, Marion, Citrus, Hernando, Sumter, Lake, Orange, Seminole, Brevard, Volusia, Putnam, Clay, Flagler, St. Johns, Duval and Nassau counties
  • Submitted to the Florida House of Representatives
  • Submitted by Mike Yost of Duval County

Open Plan in MyDistrictBuilder or Another Application:

Statistics:

Maps:

Filed under: Congress - Partial Plans, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses - Comments are closed.

  1. Staff note that the plan author provided the following comments:

    “First, the concept of Amendment 6 was followed as much as possible in creating compact districts, following natural or political boundaries, and keep counties whole where ever possible. There is a small deviation that could easily be “tweeked” to create equal population per District. (This is a semi-refined map)”

    “District 3- Since this in no longer a “Black Minority- Majority” district, following the Bartlett v. Strickland Supreme Court Ruling, it was attempted to create this as a “coalition” District. The total VAP of minorities is 36%- well within the “25% would be to0 little and 39% would be not too small” interpretation of the Dissenting Opinion of Bartlett. Further interpretation of Bartlett’s opinions, the VRA does NOT “guarantee” a win for Minorities, but gives “opportunity” to elect candidate of their choice. In Gingles, one of the primary considerations is that a District be sufficiently COMPACT and containing a Minority-Majority capability for electing a candidate of choice. This map meets that requirement also. Current configuration would fail under both Bartlett and also Gingles. It also further expands opportunities for Minorities in other Districts as this map does.”

    “It also follows the Amendment 6 of “not favoring one political party over another” requirement. Total voter registration of the new District is 48% D, 35% R, and 16% NPA, as opposed to the current District 3 configuration of 61% D, 20% R, 17% NPA. New boundaries does favor D’s, but no longer a 3:1 advantage.
    District 6 was designed to follow more rural counties, including dividing the rural part of Lake County. It more closely represents that demographic throughout the District.”

    “Other Districts attempted to keep as many Counties whole as possible. Divisions were along natural boundaries when possible and also meant to keep “communities of interest” together where possible – rural vs. population centers. Divisions of major population centers were made only whenever it was deemed needed for overall District population requirements. Major cities were divided based on “communities of interest” and “whole towns/cities” within a county were kept whenever possible.”

  2. Ken says:

    I like your proposal for the old District 3, did not like how it has been stretched between Jacksonville and Orlando.

  3. Smith Lavelle says:

    This proposal is based on a genuinely ignorant reading of the recently adopted Amendment 6 to Florida’s Constitution.

    First, Amendment 6 states that “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.” This submission greatly “diminishes” the ability of racial minorities in the Jacksonville, Gainesville and Orlando areas to elect a candidate of their choice. This submission is facially unconstitutional per state law.

    It is correct that the existing congressional district 3 has no protection under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act. However, quoting from a dissenting opinion in that Strickland case has got to be the most inappropriate and convoluted way of justifying a violation of state law. This submission treats the words in state law as though they have no meaning. This submission blatantly crosses swords with the words “intent,” “result” and “diminish,” and is likely little more than a political ploy.

    Second, the language of Amendment 6 reads that “No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor.” The Amendment 6 does not contemplate prohibiting districts that favor or disfavor. By their very nature, every district will favor or disfavor someone. The key word is “intent.” The author of this plan has in his own words admitted intent to alter the complexion of congressional district, as a centerpiece of this submission, and I would surmise that his “intent” may be bordering on unlawful.

    You can’t just read the law to be what you want it to be. Every word in the law has meaning. Words like “diminish” and “intent” have consequences, and this submission overlooks those consequences, probably intentionally.

    • Ken says:

      You state “Second, the language of Amendment 6 reads that “No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor.” Isn’t that how District 3 was constructed to begin with – the intent to favor. And I’m not referring to racial, it was set up to favor the Democratic party. I’m in Orlando and feel I am not represented well when the Representative is from a totally different community with different needs. Jacksonville is a port city while Orlando is a resort community.

    • Since the minority communities of Jacksonville, Gainesville, and Orlando are basically islands with a lot of majority-white population in between them, they have never enjoyed any guarantee of being joined together in a single district. The Republicans at the state level have done this not because any Federal regulation requires them to, but because the districts surrounding district 3 all become reliable Republican wins. Now we have a state regulation requiring districts that are as compact as possible. The only minority requirement that trumps the compactness requirement is if the majority-minority areas are themselves geographically contiguous, then they shouldn’t be separated. This is true of district 17 but not district 3.

  4. Mike says:

    To further clarify my map, especially in District 3. From the Redistricting Law Manual on the Florida Redistricting main page:

    Consideration of race. Although the Supreme Court has held several redistricting plans unconstitutional because
    of racial gerrymandering, the Court has made it clear that race-conscious redistricting is not always
    unconstitutional. “[T]his Court never has held that race-conscious state decision making is impermissible in all
    circumstances.”(330)
    The Court has said that, if a minority district were created through a process that adhered to traditional districting
    principles such as compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions, and maintaining communities of
    interest, or other race-neutral criteria such as incumbent protection, the plan would not be found to purposefully
    distinguish between voters on the basis of race and would not be held unconstitutional.(331)
    A reapportionment statute typically does not classify persons at all; it classifies tracts of land, or
    addresses. Moreover, redistricting differs from other kinds of state decision making in that the
    legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware of age, economic
    status, religious and political persuasion, and a variety of other demographic factors. That sort
    of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible discrimination.(332)

    Shaw v. Reno, (330) 509 U.S. 630, 642 (1993).
    Miller v. Johnson, (331) 515 U.S. 900, 915-16 (1995).
    (332) 509 U.S. at 646.

    Furthermore, in examining the Gingles v. Thornburg ruling, a distinct 3 prong test is established for District creation of minority Districts:

    1. It is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district;
    2. It is politically cohesive; and
    3. In the absence of special circumstances, bloc voting by the White majority usually defeats the minority’s
    preferred candidate.

    The first question is, does the current configuration of District 3 meet all three tests?

    Currently, as configured today, it would be highly questioned to consideration of being Compact. Politically cohesiveness is questionable with recent elections showing otherwise- especially in the Jacksonville mayoral race which also applies to test 3- voting as a bloc as a white majority.

    The ruling in the Bartlett v. Strickland case further defines Gingles as it established that 50% +1 voter requirement of a majority-minority District before preservation is required.

    Now, in following the recent Amendments, there is one specific paragraph that seems to be forgotten-

    “(c) The order in which the standards within subsections 1(a) and (b) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.”

    The attempt was made to meet that standard of the District map for CD 3. It was attempted to meet the requirements of NOT favoring one political party over the other (it has a more balanced political party representation), create a District in which racial minorities would be able to participate and elect candidates of their choice (it is nearly 38% minorities), and it attempted to utilized natural/political boundaries as much as possible. Again, under Gingles, geographical compactness IS a requirement as is Section 20 of our State Constitution (…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.).

    Creating a district in balance with ALL the requirements was the sole intent of drawing CD-3 as it was drawn. No one factor was favored over another and consideration was made to ALL the various Supreme Court rulings without taking one over the other as being interpreted more strongly in this map.

    Mike Yost

www.floridaredistricting.org

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.

Most Frequently Visited Redistricting Plan Submissions

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

Join 27 other followers

Thanks for Stopping By!

  • 40,783 visitors!
%d bloggers like this: