Title: In Re: Redefinition of Appellate Districts and Certification of Need for Additional Appellate Judges

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
______________ 
 
No. SC21-1543 
______________ 
 
IN RE:  REDEFINITION OF APPELLATE DISTRICTS AND 
CERTIFICATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL  
APPELLATE JUDGES. 
 
November 24, 2021 
 
PER CURIAM. 
Consistent with the recommendations of a Court-appointed 
assessment committee, this Court has determined that a sixth 
appellate district should be created in Florida and that 
accompanying changes should be made to the existing boundaries 
of the First, Second, and Fifth districts.1  Also consistent with the 
 
1.  Article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides in 
pertinent part: 
 
Determination of number of judges.—The 
supreme court shall establish by rule uniform criteria for 
the determination of the need for additional judges except 
supreme court justices, the necessity for decreasing the 
number of judges and for increasing, decreasing or 
redefining appellate districts and judicial circuits.  If the 
supreme court finds that a need exists for increasing or 
decreasing the number of judges or increasing, 
 
- 2 - 
assessment committee’s recommendations, the Court has 
determined that six new appellate judgeships are needed for the 
continued effective operation of the newly aligned district courts of 
appeal of this state.  The subject of trial court certification of need 
for additional judges is addressed in a separate opinion.2 
I.  Background 
In May 2021, this Court appointed a District Court of Appeal 
Workload and Jurisdiction Assessment Committee3 composed of 
appellate judges, trial court judges, and lawyers to evaluate the 
necessity for increasing, decreasing, or redefining the appellate 
districts.  The Committee evaluated the operation of the existing 
districts using the five criteria prescribed in Rule of General 
 
decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial 
circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular session of the 
legislature, certify to the legislature its findings and 
recommendations concerning such need. 
 
2.  See In re Trial Court Certification of Need for Additional 
Judges, No. SC21-1542 (Fla. Nov. 24, 2021). 
 
3.  See In re District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction 
Assessment Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC21-13 (May 6, 
2021). 
 
 
- 3 - 
Practice and Judicial Administration 2.241: effectiveness, efficiency, 
access to appellate review, professionalism, and public trust and 
confidence.  The Committee filed its final report4 with the Court on 
September 30, 2021.  By this certification, the Court adopts the 
Committee’s recommendation for a realignment of the state’s 
appellate districts in order to create a sixth district, which we 
conclude would significantly improve the judicial process. 
II.  District Realignment 
A discussion of the full background and reasoning for the 
Committee’s recommendation concerning a new appellate district is 
contained in the Committee’s final report and recommendations.  A 
majority of the Committee recommended the creation of at least one 
additional district court, with a plurality supporting the creation of 
a sixth district and the adjustment of the existing district lines in 
the manner we certify in this opinion. 
The “primary rationale” for this recommendation “is that 
creation of an additional DCA would promote public trust and 
 
4.  District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction 
Assessment Committee Final Report and Recommendations, 
https://www.flcourts.org/DCA-Committee-Report. 
 
- 4 - 
confidence.”  This rationale is linked specifically to the provisions of 
rule 2.241(d), which sets forth “public trust and confidence” as one 
of the criteria to be considered when determining the necessity for 
increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts.  The rule 
sets forth several factors to be evaluated in connection with the 
public trust and confidence criterion: 
Public Trust and Confidence. Factors to be 
considered for this criterion are the extent to which each 
court: 
(A) handles its workload in a manner permitting its 
judges adequate time for community involvement; 
(B) provides adequate access to oral arguments and 
other public proceedings for the general public within its 
district; 
(C) fosters public trust and confidence given its 
geography and demographic composition; and 
(D) attracts a diverse group of well-qualified 
applicants for judicial vacancies, including applicants 
from all circuits within the district. 
 
Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(d)(5). 
 
Regarding these factors, the Committee report observes: 
Specifically, an additional [district court] would help 
provide adequate access to oral arguments and other 
proceedings, foster public trust and confidence based on 
geography and demographic composition, and attract a 
diverse group of well-qualified applicants for judicial 
vacancies including applicants from all circuits within 
each district.  
 
Assessment Committee Report at 3-4. 
 
- 5 - 
We agree with the Committee’s conclusion that public trust 
and confidence will be enhanced by the creation of a sixth district 
court.  We recognize that the rule factors related to public trust and 
confidence are largely subjective and that they are affected by  
circumstances that go beyond the number of district courts and the 
configuration of district boundaries.  Nonetheless, we believe that 
the factors are meaningful considerations and that the Committee 
has identified a reasonable basis for its proposal. 
A salient issue relevant to this criterion is the serious 
underrepresentation among district court judges of judges from 
within the Fourth Judicial Circuit, which contains Jacksonville, one 
of Florida’s largest metropolitan areas.  Under the current 
configuration of district courts, the Fourth Judicial Circuit 
generates 29 percent of the filings of the First District Court, but 
only two judges—constituting 13 percent of the judges on the First 
District Court—are from the Fourth Judicial Circuit.  Even more 
striking, the population of the Fourth Circuit—with its 2 out of 15 
DCA judges—makes up 37.5% of the population of the current First 
 
- 6 - 
District.5  Although no district court configuration will perfectly 
address every relevant consideration, the configuration proposed in 
the Committee’s plurality plan would help address this geographical 
anomaly existing in the current district court system. 
The creation of a new district court, like any other significant 
change in the judicial system, would be accompanied by some 
degree of internal disruption, but we conclude that any such 
internal disruption in the district courts associated with the 
creation of a sixth district court would be short-lived and would be 
outweighed by the benefit of enhanced public trust and confidence. 
Appended to this certification is a map showing the 
geographical areas to be within the recommended, realigned 
districts.  Also appended to this certification is a table showing the 
counties and judicial circuits affected by the proposed new district 
boundaries.  As shown, the Fourth Judicial Circuit6 moves from the 
 
 
5.  As of January 1, 2019, the population of the Fourth Circuit 
was 1,264,060 and the population of the First District was 
3,346,191. 
 
6.  The Fourth Judicial Circuit is composed of Clay, Duval, 
and Nassau counties. 
 
 
- 7 - 
First District into the Fifth District, composed of the Fourth, Fifth, 
Seventh, and Eighteenth judicial circuits; the Ninth Judicial 
Circuit7 moves from the Fifth District into the Second District, 
composed of the Ninth, Tenth, and Twentieth judicial circuits; and 
the Sixth,8 Twelfth,9 and Thirteenth10 judicial circuits move from 
the Second District to compose a newly created Sixth District Court 
of Appeal.  The boundaries of the Third and Fourth district courts 
are unaffected by this proposal. 
The Court acknowledges that a variety of operational issues 
with policy and fiscal implications will arise from creating an 
additional district court and revising the territorial jurisdiction of 
other courts.  For example, the Florida Constitution, under article 
V, section 4, requires the appointment of a clerk and a marshal to 
 
 
7.  The Ninth Judicial Circuit is composed of Orange and 
Osceola counties. 
 
 
8.  The Sixth Judicial Circuit is composed of Pasco and 
Pinellas counties. 
 
 
9.  The Twelfth Judicial Circuit is composed of DeSoto, 
Manatee, and Sarasota counties. 
  
 
10.  The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is composed of 
Hillsborough County.  
 
- 8 - 
each district court.  A new district court will also require associated 
administrative, security, and information technology support staff.  
Additionally, the realigned Second District will require an interim 
facility in which to operate while a more permanent facility is 
considered.  The Court is prepared to assist the Legislature, as 
needed, in determining an appropriate level of court system 
resources associated with the creation of the new district court, the 
details of which will be dependent upon the policy direction the 
Legislature establishes.  Other potential operational effects on 
justice system entities are discussed in the Committee’s report. 
III.  Additional Judges 
This opinion also fulfills our constitutional obligation to 
determine the State’s need for additional district court judges in 
fiscal year 2022/2023 and to certify our “findings and 
recommendations concerning such need” to the Florida 
Legislature.11  Certification is “the sole mechanism established by 
our constitution for a systematic and uniform assessment of this 
 
11.  Art. V, § 9, Fla. Const. 
 
 
- 9 - 
need.”  In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 889 So. 2d 
734, 735 (Fla. 2004). 
The Court continues to use a verified objective weighted 
caseload methodology as a primary basis for assessing judicial 
need.12  When applied to the district courts as they currently exist, 
the methodology does not indicate the need for certification or 
decertification of additional judgeships.  However, the simultaneous 
consideration of the creation of an additional district court and the 
realignment of existing district boundaries raises policy 
considerations with workload implications. 
Article V, section 8 of the Florida Constitution provides that 
“[n]o person shall be eligible for office of justice or judge of any 
court unless the person is an elector of the state and resides in the 
territorial jurisdiction of the court.”  The District Court of Appeal 
Workload and Jurisdiction Assessment Committee recommended 
that no existing district court judge’s position be decertified while 
that judge is in office and that no existing district court judge have 
 
12.  Our certification methodology relies primarily on the 
relative weight of cases disposed on the merits to determine the 
need for additional district court judges.  See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & 
Jud. Admin. 2.240. 
 
- 10 - 
to change residence in order to remain in office as a result of the 
realignment of districts.  The Committee also recognized that, if 
such a policy approach were adopted, there might not be sufficient 
judges residing within included counties to meet the estimated 
judicial workload of that realigned district.  In turn, the number of 
judges in another district may initially exceed its estimated need 
after realignment.  Although it was not charged with determining 
the need for additional judges, the Committee used a modified 
weighted caseload methodology, only slightly different from that 
used in certification, to estimate judicial need as it considered 
realignment of existing districts and creation of an additional 
district.  That methodology suggested the need for six appellate 
judges to meet the workload of realigned districts without a 
sufficient number of judges who currently reside within the 
boundaries of the districts. 
The Court concurs with the Committee’s recommendation that 
realignment of districts not result in decertification of judges or a 
requirement for judges to change their residence in order to remain 
in office.  Thus, we adopt the Committee’s methodology to meet the 
need of districts without sufficient resident judges and in this 
 
- 11 - 
opinion certify the need for six additional district court judgeships, 
one in the realigned Second District and five in the realigned Fifth 
District.  This assessment is based on the assumption that each 
existing judge who resides within a county that was proposed for 
assignment to a new district court would be considered a judge of 
the new district court. 
The creation of the new judgeships we have certified would 
result in six district courts of appeal composed of the following 
judicial officers: 
First District: 13 judges (all presently sitting). 
Second District: 10 judges (9 presently sitting and 1 to be   
 
 
added). 
Third District: 10 judges (all presently sitting). 
Fourth District: 12 judges (all presently sitting). 
Fifth District: 12 judges (7 presently sitting and 5 to be added). 
Sixth District: 13 judges (all presently sitting). 
Further, the Court recommends that the legislation 
implementing the territorial jurisdiction changes specify that 
vacancies will not be deemed to occur as a result of the changes 
and recommends that excess judicial capacity in a given district 
 
- 12 - 
court be addressed over time through attrition, as guided by this 
Court’s annual certification of the need for additional appellate 
judges.  The creation of an additional district and changes to the 
territorial boundaries of other districts are milestone events that 
have not occurred since the creation of the Fifth District Court of 
Appeal in 1979.  It will take some time to fully assess the impact of 
these changes on workload and judicial need for any given court 
and statewide. 
We decertify no district court judgeships.  As noted above, the 
Court recommends that the creation of an additional district and 
realignment of existing districts not result in decertification of 
existing judges, pending an opportunity to fully assess workload 
need over time through future certification processes.  In addition, 
statutory amendments and other relevant circumstances militate 
against decertification of any appellate court judgeships. 
Specifically, the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 
(COVID-19) pandemic in the circuit and county courts has been 
significant.  Those operational impacts at the trial court level have a 
direct bearing on the number of appeals filed in the district courts.  
 
- 13 - 
An increase in district court workload is anticipated as the trial 
courts fully return to normal operations. 
Another issue requiring consideration, because it influences 
this Court’s ability to accurately project judicial need, is the 
transfer of circuit court authority to hear appeals from county court 
final orders and judgments in criminal misdemeanor cases and 
most civil cases to the district courts of appeal effective January 
2021 (Chapter 2020-61, sections 3 and 8, Laws of Florida).  These 
changes are affecting the respective distribution of judicial workload 
between the circuit and district courts.  However, given that this 
change occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been 
difficult to determine the ultimate workload associated with this 
statutory change. 
IV.  Certification 
 
In accordance with article V, section 9 of the Florida 
Constitution, we therefore certify the need for six additional district 
court of appeal judgeships, bringing to 70 the total number of 
judges on the state’s district courts of appeal, and we recommend 
that the state’s judicial districts be aligned as follows: 
 
- 14 - 
First District: to contain the First, Second, Third, Eighth, and 
Fourteenth judicial circuits. 
Second District: to contain the Ninth, Tenth, and Twentieth 
judicial circuits. 
Third District: to contain the Eleventh and Sixteenth judicial 
circuits. 
Fourth District: to contain the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and 
Nineteenth judicial circuits. 
Fifth District: to contain the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and 
Eighteenth judicial circuits. 
Sixth District: to contain the Sixth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth 
judicial circuits. 
 
To implement these proposals, the Court certifies to the 
Legislature the need to amend chapter 35, Florida Statutes, to 
create a new district court of appeal and realign the other district 
court boundaries as described above.  As to judges currently 
residing in the realigned districts, no vacancies in office shall be 
deemed to occur by reason of the realignment of districts.  
Consequently, if the certified plan is adopted the two First District 
judges residing in Duval County shall be judges of the Fifth District 
 
- 15 - 
(which will include Duval County); the three Second District judges 
residing in Pinellas County, one residing within Pasco County, one 
residing in Manatee County, and eight residing in Hillsborough 
County shall be judges of the Sixth District (which will include 
those counties); and the six Fifth District judges residing in Orange 
County shall be judges of the Second District (which will include 
Orange County). 
 
We recommend no decertification of district court judgeships. 
 
We further certify that the realignment of the state’s judicial 
districts and the certification of six district court judges, as set forth 
in the appendix to this opinion, are necessary, and we recommend 
that the Legislature enact the applicable laws and appropriate 
funds so that the adjustments can be implemented. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, and 
COURIEL, JJ., concur. 
GROSSHANS, J., concurs in result only. 
POLSTON, J., dissents with an opinion. 
 
POLSTON, J., dissenting. 
 
 
The majority certifies a need for an additional district court of 
appeal and 6 additional district court of appeal judges that is not 
 
- 16 - 
supported by any of the 5 chief judges of the district courts of 
appeal or by any district court of appeal judge on the District Court 
of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction Assessment Committee.  I 
agree with the district court of appeal judges that no changes are 
justified. 
 
Under our annual certification process for the need for 
additional judges, no district court requested certification of 
additional judgeships, and none are justified by the average 
projected judicial need analysis performed.  In the last 20 years, 
there has been a net addition of 2 district court of appeal judges.  
One was decertified in the Third District Court of Appeal in 2009, 
one added to the Fifth District Court of Appeal in 2015, and 2 were 
added to the Second District Court of Appeal in 2015.  No more 
changes have been needed in the last 6 years, and the answer 
should be the same now.  There is no objective justification for the 6 
additional judges certified by the majority. 
Instead, the majority approves the Committee’s 
recommendation to create an additional district court of appeal 
because it believes there should be more judges from Jacksonville 
as a matter of public trust and confidence.  It is the creation of the 
 
- 17 - 
Sixth District Court of Appeal that provides the rationale for 6 new 
judges, not needed workload capacity.  Two of the 15 judges on the 
First District Court of Appeal are from Jacksonville, which the 
majority treats as “serious underrepresentation.”  Majority op. at 5.  
Objectively, that is not the case. 
Looking specifically at Jacksonville, Duval County had 926 
cases filed in fiscal year 2019-20 at the First District.13  Using the 
same metrics the Court uses to determine the certified need for 
judges on district courts of appeal, taking those 926 Duval cases 
divided by 239, the 3-year average weighted judicial workload per 
judge (2017-18 to 2019-20) for the First District, there would be a 
calculated need for 3 judges specifically as to Duval.  Arguably the 
average number should be even higher as eligible judges are based 
 
 
13.  The information used in this paragraph was obtained 
from the Committee’s report, Appendix D-41, the DCA Workload 
and Jurisdiction Assessment Committee, DCA Filings and 
Dispositions by Circuit/County, Fiscal Year 2017-18, 2018-19, and 
2019-20; Appendix D-12 District Courts of Appeal Judicial 
Workload Per Judge and Percent Change; and Certification of Need 
for Additional Judges FY 2022-23, 2A-1 District Courts of Appeal 
Fiscal Year 2022-23.  Amounts per judge are rounded down, 
consistent with the annual practice to determine the number of 
needed positions. 
 
- 18 - 
on the presumptive need of 315 average weighted judicial workload 
per judge after application of the additional judgeships.  Based on 
that number, there would be a calculated need for 2 judges 
specifically as to Duval.  Again, there are already 2 judges from 
Jacksonville on the First District.  So looking at the most recent 
data, either there is no calculated need for an additional judge from 
Jacksonville, or perhaps one.  Taking an average over 3 years 
(2017-18 to 2019-20), Duval had 1,178 filings, which would be a 
calculated need of 4 judges (based on 239, the 3-year average per 
judge), or 3 judges (based on 315, the average presumptive need per 
judge).  Using this 3-year average, there would be a calculated need 
for 1 or 2 more Jacksonville judges out of 15.  At most, the 
additional 2 judges from Jacksonville are 13% of the 15 on the First 
District.  Serious underrepresentation cannot be found at 13%. 
As the majority notes, Jacksonville is a large metropolitan 
area.  But the Florida Constitution does not provide for redistricting 
in the court system based on population size as it does for 
legislative representation, and the Committee properly did not do 
so.  See generally art. III, § 16, Fla. Const. (providing 
reapportionment after each decennial census).  It is court filings, 
 
- 19 - 
not population size that matters to how many judges are needed.  
As noted in the Committee’s September 30, 2021, Final Report and 
Recommendations, page 10, “the number of [district court of 
appeal] filings, from calendar year 2016 through calendar year 2020 
declined each year while Florida’s population continued to increase 
during the same period.”  The statewide district court of appeal 
filings per 100,000 population steadily decreased each year from 
116 in 2016 to 70 in 2020.  Jacksonville’s population size is not 
justification to add a sixth district court of appeal. 
Moreover, the relevant portion of the rule setting out the 
factors for public trust and confidence is whether the court 
“attracts [a] diverse group of well-qualified applicants for judicial 
vacancies, including applicants from all circuits within the district.”  
Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.241(d)(5)(D).  Significantly, the 
rule requires that the court attracts well-qualified applicants, not 
that certain applicants must be selected.  Jacksonville has 
outstanding lawyers and judges, and I have the upmost respect for 
them.  It is undisputable that there have been numerous well-
qualified Jacksonville applicants to the First District, including 
making the short list, who were not selected in recent history or by 
 
- 20 - 
different governors over the last 20 years.  But it is the governor’s 
selection, not the inability to attract well-qualified applicants, that 
is relevant under the rule.  See generally art. V, § 11, Fla. Const. 
(the governor fills vacancies in judicial office). 
 
Further, the majority accepts the Committee’s certification 
justification to provide adequate access to oral arguments.  Again, 
this has no basis.  The First District has panels that regularly travel 
to Jacksonville for oral arguments, in addition to Pensacola and 
Orlando (workers compensation cases).  And all of the oral 
arguments are available live on the internet on the First District’s 
website. 
 
Rule 2.241(b)(8) has not been properly considered by the 
majority: 
(8) Whether or not an assessment committee is 
appointed, the supreme court shall balance the potential 
impact and disruption caused by changes in judicial 
circuits and appellate districts against the need to 
address circumstances that limit the quality and 
efficiency of, and public confidence in, the judicial 
process.  Given the impact and disruption that can arise 
from any alteration in judicial structure, prior to 
recommending a change in judicial circuits or appellate 
districts, the supreme court shall consider less disruptive 
adjustments including, but not limited to, the addition of 
judges, the creation of branch locations, geographic or 
subject-matter divisions within judicial circuits or 
 
- 21 - 
appellate districts, deployment of new technologies, and 
increased ratios of support staff per judge. 
 
 
This rule emphasizes that the Court should consider the 
disruptive effect of changes and attempt to minimize it by other 
means first.  The cost for a new district court of appeal is very 
expensive.  The September 13, 2021, letter to Judge Scales, Chair of 
the Committee, from Judge Roberts, Chair of the DCA Budget 
Commission, notes significant fiscal impacts including facilities, 
staffing, and operational expenses that would necessitate additional 
funding without causing significant negative fiscal impact on the 
current district court budget.  The disruptions to the branch are 
significant.  See majority op. at 13-15 (describing realignment 
boundaries and current judges).  This certification is analogous to 
rebuilding a ship for what should be swapping out a couple of deck 
chairs at most. 
 
Rule 2.241(b)(1) states that the Court “shall certify a necessity 
to increase, decrease, or redefine judicial circuits and appellate 
districts when it determines that the judicial process is adversely 
affected by circumstances that present a compelling need for the 
certified change.”  (Emphasis added.)  There is no compelling need 
 
- 22 - 
for adding an additional district court of appeal.  The majority 
makes no such finding. 
 
Rule 2.241(b)(2) provides that the Court “may certify a 
necessity to increase, decrease, or redefine judicial circuits and 
appellate districts when it determines that the judicial process 
would be improved significantly by the certified change.”  The 
Committee provides no objective justification that the judicial 
process will be improved significantly by adding an additional 
district court of appeal. 
 
The Court’s rules and its responsibilities, along with the 
Legislature, in the certification process are at the direction of the 
Florida Constitution.  As explained by article V, section 9 of the 
Florida Constitution, titled “Determination of number of judges”: 
The supreme court shall establish by rule uniform 
criteria for the determination of the need for additional 
judges except supreme court justices, the necessity for 
decreasing the number of judges and for increasing, 
decreasing or redefining appellate districts and judicial 
circuits.  If the supreme court finds that a need exists for 
increasing or decreasing the number of judges or 
increasing, decreasing or redefining appellate districts 
and judicial circuits, it shall, prior to the next regular 
session of the legislature, certify to the legislature its 
findings and recommendations concerning such need.  
Upon receipt of such certificate, the legislature, at the 
next regular session, shall consider the findings and 
 
- 23 - 
recommendations and may reject the recommendations 
or by law implement the recommendations in whole or in 
part; provided the legislature may create more judicial 
offices than are recommended by the supreme court or 
may decrease the number of judicial offices by a greater 
number than recommended by the court only upon a 
finding of two-thirds of the membership of both houses of 
the legislature, that such a need exists.  A decrease in 
the number of judges shall be effective only after the 
expiration of a term.  If the supreme court fails to make 
findings as provided above when need exists, the 
legislature may by concurrent resolution request the court 
to certify its findings and recommendations and upon the 
failure of the court to certify its findings for nine 
consecutive months, the legislature may, upon a finding of 
two-thirds of the membership of both houses of the 
legislature that a need exists, increase or decrease the 
number of judges or increase, decrease or redefine 
appellate districts and judicial circuits. 
 
(Emphasis added.) 
Specifically, the Florida Constitution authorizes the 
Legislature to make its own determination regarding appellate 
districts notwithstanding what the Court determines, with a two-
thirds vote of the membership of both houses.  Accordingly, if the 
Court were to determine there is no justification for changes under 
its rules, the Legislature is free to act according to the Constitution 
and draw the lines as a policy decision to provide more Jacksonville 
judges.  That is the proper response to the Committee’s 
recommendation. 
 
- 24 - 
 
Because there is not a compelling need or significant 
improvement to the judicial process as required by rule 2.241(b), I 
would not certify a new district court of appeal or any additional 
district court of appeal judges. 
I respectfully dissent. 
Original Proceeding – Certification of Need for Additional Appellate 
Judges 
 
 
- 25 - 
APPENDIX 
District Court Need 
 
District  
District 
Court 
Certified 
Judges 
1 
0 
2 
1 
3 
0 
4 
0 
5 
5 
6 
0 
Total 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 26 - 
Recommended Realignment of Districts 
 
 
Counties and Judicial Circuits Affected 
County 
Circuit 
Current 
District  
Proposed 
District 
Clay 
Fourth 
First 
Fifth 
Duval 
Fourth 
First 
Fifth 
Nassau 
Fourth 
First 
Fifth 
Orange 
Ninth 
Fifth 
Second 
Osceola 
Ninth 
Fifth 
Second 
Pasco 
Sixth 
Second 
Sixth 
Pinellas 
Sixth 
Second 
Sixth 
DeSoto 
Twelfth 
Second 
Sixth 
Manatee 
Twelfth 
Second 
Sixth 
Sarasota 
Twelfth 
Second 
Sixth 
Hillsborough 
Thirteenth 
Second 
Sixth