Title: Advisory Opinion to the Governor Re: Whether Article III, Section 20(A) of the Florida Constitution Requires the Retention of a District in Northern Florida, etc.

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC22-139 
____________ 
 
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR RE: WHETHER 
ARTICLE III, SECTION 20(A) OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION 
REQUIRES THE RETENTION OF A DISTRICT IN NORTHERN 
FLORIDA, etc. 
 
February 10, 2022 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
On February 1, 2022, the Governor of Florida requested an 
advisory opinion from this Court pursuant to article IV, section 1(c) 
of the Florida Constitution relating to the constitutionality of 
redistricting congressional District 5.  Specifically, the Governor 
asks, “whether Article III, Section 20(a) of the Florida Constitution 
requires the retention of a district in northern Florida that connects 
the minority population in Jacksonville with distant and distinct 
minority populations (either in Leon and Gadsden Counties or 
outside of Orlando) to ensure sufficient voting strength, even if not 
a majority, to elect a candidate of their choice.”  The Governor also 
cites precedent from this Court and the United States Supreme 
- 2 - 
 
Court pertaining to this issue and seeks further “guidance on what 
the non-diminishment standard” requires and “clarification from 
this Court on what constitutes a proper benchmark for determining 
whether a minority group’s ability to elect a candidate of its choice 
has been diminished.”  On February 2, 2022, this Court requested 
“briefs from interested persons addressing whether the Governor’s 
request is within the purview of [article IV, section 1(c)], and if so 
whether the Court should exercise its discretion to provide an 
opinion in response to the request.” 
Several interested persons argue that the Court does not have 
jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion under the circumstances 
described by the Governor’s request.  We need not make that 
determination because assuming the Court has jurisdiction, which 
we do not decide, we exercise our discretion to deny the request for 
an advisory opinion.  See Advisory Op. to Governor re 
Implementation of Amendment 4, The Voting Restoration Amendment, 
288 So. 3d 1070, 1074 (Fla. 2020) (“After concluding that the 
Governor’s request was within the purview of article IV, section 1(c) 
of the Florida Constitution, we agreed to exercise our discretion to 
provide an advisory opinion.”); In re Advisory Op. to the Governor, 
- 3 - 
 
509 So. 2d 292, 300 (Fla. 1987) (“It is the decision of the Court that 
this request is answerable under the above-noted section of the 
Constitution and we exercise our discretion to do so.”). 
This Court’s advisory opinions to the Governor are generally 
limited to narrow questions.  See, e.g., Advisory Op. to Governor re 
Implementation of Amendment 4, 288 So. 3d at 1075 (answering 
only “the narrow question of whether the phrase ‘all terms of 
sentence’ includes LFOs ordered by the sentencing court”).  Here, 
the scope of the Governor’s request is broad and contains multiple 
questions that implicate complex federal and state constitutional 
matters and precedents interpreting the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
While this Court acknowledges the importance of the issues 
presented by the Governor and the expressed need for quick 
resolution and finality, history shows that the constitutionality of a 
final redistricting bill for all congressional districts will be subject to 
more judicial review through subsequent challenges in court.  
Moreover, the Governor’s request might necessitate fact-intensive 
analysis and consideration of other congressional districts, not just 
District 5.  We have no record before us setting forth a functional 
analysis of statistical evidence, such as the voting age of minority 
- 4 - 
 
populations and election results.  A record will assist the judiciary 
in answering the complex federal and state constitutional issues 
implicated by the Governor’s request.  See generally Brown v. 
Firestone, 382 So. 2d 654, 671 (Fla. 1980) (a declaratory action 
challenging the constitutionality of legislative action in circuit court 
will enable the parties “to develop a full record upon which the 
court can base an intelligent decision”). 
Accordingly, we respectfully deny the request for an advisory 
opinion.  No rehearing will be permitted. 
 
It is so ordered. 
POLSTON, LABARGA, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., 
concur. 
CANADY, C.J., and LAWSON, J., recused. 
 
Original Proceeding – Advisory Opinion to the Governor 
 
Mohammad Jazil and Michael Beato of Holtzman Vogel Josefiak 
Torchinsky PLLC, Tallahassee, Florida, and Jason Torchinsky of 
Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC, Haymarket, Virginia; 
and Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Joshua Pratt and Nicholas 
Meros, Deputy General Counsel, Executive Office of the Governor, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for The Honorable Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida 
 
Henry C. Whitaker, Solicitor General, Daniel W. Bell, Chief Deputy 
Solicitor General, and Evan Ezray, Deputy Solicitor General, Office 
of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
- 5 - 
 
 
for Interested Party, Attorney General Ashley Moody 
 
Henry M. Coxe III and Michael E. Lockamy of Bedell, Dittmar, 
DeVault, Pillans & Coxe, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida; and Jacob 
Tuttle Newman, Peter A. Nelson, Catherine J. Djang, and Gregory L. 
Diskant of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, New 
York, 
 
for Interested Parties, Common Cause Florida and 
FairDistricts Now 
 
Joseph W. Jacquot, Lauren V. Purdy, and Pierce N. Giboney of 
Gunster, Jacksonville, Florida, 
 
for Interested Party, Mayor Lenny Curry 
 
Daniel E. Nordby of Shutts & Bowen LLP, on behalf of the Florida 
Senate, Tallahassee, Florida; and Andy Bardos of GrayRobinson, on 
behalf of the Florida House of Representatives, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Interested Parties, the Florida Senate and the Florida 
House of Representatives 
 
Thomas A. Zehnder and Frederick S. Wermuth of King, Blackwell, 
Zehnder & Wermuth, P.A., Orlando, Florida; Abha Khanna and 
Jonathan P. Hawley of Elias Law Group LLP, Seattle, Washington, 
Graham W. White and Christina A. Ford of Elias Law Group LLP, 
Washington, District of Columbia; and John M. Devaney of Perkins 
Coie LLP, Washington, District of Columbia, 
 
 
for Interested Party, All On The Line Florida 
 
Carl Christian Sautter, Washington, District of Columbia, Larry S. 
Davis, Hollywood, Florida, Benedict P. Kuehne and Michael T. 
Davis, Miami, Florida, and Jason B. Blank, Fort Lauderdale, 
Florida, 
 
for Interested Party, Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, 
Member of Congress, Florida Congressional District 20