Title: Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, Inc., et al. v. Cord Byrd, etc., et al.

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2022 
 
CASE NO.: SC22-685 
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 
1D22-1470; 372022CA000666XXXXXX 
 
BLACK VOTERS MATTER 
CAPACITY BUILDING 
INSTITUTE, INC., ET AL. 
vs. 
CORD BYRD, ETC., ET AL. 
 
Petitioner(s) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
Petitioners’ request for a constitutional writ is denied.  “[T]he 
doctrine of all writs is not an independent basis for this Court’s 
jurisdiction,” but instead “is restricted to preserving jurisdiction 
that has already been invoked or protecting jurisdiction that likely 
will be invoked in the future.”  Roberts v. Brown, 43 So. 3d 673, 677 
(Fla. 2010).  Here Petitioners ask this Court to intervene in the First 
District Court of Appeal’s ongoing consideration of an appeal of an 
order imposing a temporary injunction.  At this time, this Court 
does not have jurisdiction over that matter.  And it is speculative 
whether the First District’s eventual decision will provide an 
appropriate basis for this Court’s exercise of discretionary review—
meaning that we cannot say that it is likely that there is any 
jurisdiction to protect.  Assuming without deciding that this Court 
would have the authority in these circumstances to issue a 
constitutional writ, we decline to exercise such authority.  All 
pending motions are denied and no motion for rehearing will be 
entertained. 
 
POLSTON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 
LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion. 
CANADY, C.J., and LAWSON, J., recused. 
 
CASE NO.: SC22-685 
Page Two 
 
 
LABARGA, J., dissenting. 
 
I dissent to the denial of the petitioners’ request for a 
constitutional writ.  As observed in the majority’s order, the all writs 
doctrine “ ‘is restricted to preserving jurisdiction that has already 
been invoked or protecting jurisdiction that likely will be invoked in 
the future.’  Roberts v. Brown, 43 So. 3d 673, 677 (Fla. 2010).”  
(Emphasis added.) 
 
Currently pending in the First District Court of Appeal is the 
State’s appeal of the temporary injunction granted by the circuit 
court.  Ultimately, the district court will issue a ruling on the merits 
of the temporary injunction.  Once that decision is rendered, as 
stated on page six of their all writs petition, the petitioners intend to 
invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction. 
 
At that juncture, this Court will determine whether to exercise 
its discretion to review the district court’s merits decision, and the 
all writs petition identifies three possible bases under article V, 
section (3)(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution for this Court to do so.   
CASE NO.: SC22-685 
Page Three 
 
 
 
Given this Court’s history of considering congressional 
redistricting cases, I cannot forecast that we will lack jurisdiction to 
review the district court’s merits decision.  At stake here is the 
mandate of 62.9% of Florida voters who voted in 2010 for one of 
what are commonly known as the Fair Districts Amendments to the 
Florida Constitution—by any measure of comparison, 62.9% of the 
vote is an overwhelming margin.1  See November 2, 2010 General 
Election, Fla. Dep’t of State, 
https://results.elections.myflorida.com/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11
/2/2010&DATAMODE= (last visited May 31, 2022). 
 
As we have previously done, see League of Women Voters of 
Florida v. Data Targeting, Inc., 140 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 2014), this 
Court should utilize its all writs authority here. 
 
 
1.  The Fair Districts Amendment relating to congressional 
redistricting was Amendment 6 on the 2010 general election ballot 
and was titled “Standards for Legislature to Follow in Congressional 
Redistricting.”  Amendment 5 on the same ballot related to state 
legislative redistricting was passed by 62.6% of voters.  See 
November 2, 2010 General Election, Fla. Dep’t of State, 
https://results.elections.myflorida.com/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11
/2/2010&DATAMODE= (last visited May 31, 2022). 
CASE NO.: SC22-685 
Page Four 
 
 
 
Consequently, I dissent. 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
 
 
so 
Served: 
 
MICHAEL R. BEATO  
 
CARLOS ALBERTO REY 
THOMAS A. ZEHNDER 
 
ANDY BARDOS 
DANIEL W. BELL 
 
 
CHRISTINA A. FORD 
HARLEEN K. GAMBHIR 
 
HENRY C. WHITAKER 
FREDERICK S. WERMUTH 
BRADLEY R. MCVAY 
GRAHAM W. WHITE  
 
MOHAMMAD O. JAZIL 
DANIEL E. NORDBY  
 
JEFFREY PAUL DESOUSA 
JOHN M. DEVANEY  
 
DAVID M. COSTELLO 
JONATHAN P. HAWLEY 
 
ASHLEY E. DAVIS 
JOSEPH N. POSIMATO 
 
ABHA KHANNA 
HON. KRISTINA SAMUELS, CLERK 
HON. GWEN MARSHALL, CLERK