Source: http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases-FL.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:22:16+00:00

Document:
Brown v. Detzner, No. 4:15-cv-00398 (N.D. Fla.): an action in federal court by Rep. Corrine Brown challenging the redrawing of congressional district 5 as a violation of the Voting Rights Act and as unconstitutional racial discrimination.
- Complaint (Aug. 12, 2015).
- Motion for preliminary injunction (exh. A) (Aug. 12).
- Response by leg. (exhs. A, B, C) (Sept. 1), SoS (Sept. 8).
- Motion to stay (Sept. 3).
- Order granting motion to stay (Sept. 8).
- Motion to dismiss by leg., SoS (Sept. 8).
- Motion to file amended complaint (Dec. 29).
- Amended motion for preliminary injunction (Dec. 29).
- Order granting in part motion to amend complaint (Jan. 13, 2016).
- Stipulation of partial dismissal (Jan. 20).
- Amended order (Apr. 19).
- Plaintiff Notice Of Appeal to US Supreme Court (Apr. 25).
- Notice of Transmittal to Supreme Court (Apr. 26).
- Motion for Sanctions and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Amended Motion) (Apr. 27).
- Bill of Costs (May 3).
- MOTION for Leave to File (Ex. A) (May 11).
- Motion to Dismiss (June 22).
- Stipulation of Dismissal (Sept. 8).
The latest: The complaint was filed on August 12, 2015, along with a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Hill v. Detzner, No. 3:15-cv-00380 (N.D. Fla.): an action in federal court challenging the state constitution's prohibition on partisan gerrymandering as an infringement of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
- Complaint (Aug. 27, 2015).
The latest: The complaint was filed on August 27, 2015. The case was voluntarily dismissed on November 10, 2015.
Norris v. Detzner, No. 3:15-cv-00343 (N.D. Fla.): an action in federal court challenging the state constitution's prohibition on partisan gerrymandering as an infringement of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
- Complaint (Aug. 4, 2015).
- Motion for preliminary injunction (Aug. 4).
- SoS opposition (Aug. 27).
- SoS motion to dismiss (Aug. 26).
The latest: The complaint was filed on August 4, 2015, along with a motion for a preliminary injunction. The complaint was dismissed on October 13, 2015.
Romo v. Detzner, No. 2012-CA-000412 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon County); No. 1D12-5280, No. 1D13-966, No. 1D14-2163, No. 1D14-3953, No 1D14-5614 & No. 1D15-1696 (Ct. of Appeal, 1st Dist.); No. SC13-949, No. SC13-951, No. SC14-987, No. SC14-1200 & No. SC14-1905 (Fla. Sup. Ct.); No. 13A1174 & No. 14A539 (U.S. S. Ct.); and No. 2012-CA-009234-2, No. 2013-CA-002907-2, No. 2013-CA-002909-2 & No. 2013-CA-006884-2 (D.C. Super. Ct.): an action in state court challenging the congressional plan on state constitutional grounds, including violations of state prohibitions on partisan and racial gerrymandering, and requirements of compactness and adherence to political boundaries.
- Romo complaint (Feb. 9, 2012), 1st (Mar. 7), 2nd amd. complaint (Apr. 3).
- League of Women Voters complaint (Feb. 17) and amended complaint (Apr. 3).
- MTD Romo complaint by legislature (Mar. 23), Att'y Gen., SoS (Mar. 26).
- MTD amd. cmplt. by Att'y Gen. (Apr. 18), leg., SoS (Apr. 19), intervenor (May 16).
- MTD League complaint by legislature, Att'y Gen., SoS (Mar. 28).
- MTD amd. cmplt. by Att'y Gen. (Apr. 18), leg. (Apr. 19), intervenor (May 16).
- Order denying motions to dismiss (May 30).
- Motions for summary judgment by League of Women Voters (app.), Romo (Mar. 26).
- Response by legislature, Att'y Gen., SoS (Apr. 5).
- Order denying plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment (Apr. 30).
- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment re unclean hands defense (Nov. 4, 2013).
- Order granting motion, rejecting unclean hands defense (Feb. 11, 2014).
- Chen/Rodden (Feb. 15, 2013), Darling, McCarty (Apr. 8).
- Chen/Rodden (Oct. 21), Hodge (Nov. 11), Hodge (Dec. 26).
- Chen/Rodden (Feb. 18, 2014), Hodge (Apr. 25), McCarty (Apr. 28).
- Leg. motion to determine standard re intent (Apr. 30), opp. (May 8).
- Trial memo by plaintiffs, leg., FL NAACP (May 9).
- May 19, May 20, May 21 (1, 2), May 22 (1, 2), May 23 (1, 2), May 27 (1, 2).
- May 28 (1, 2), May 29 (1, 2), May 30 (1, 2), June 2 (1, 2), June 3 (1, 2), June 4 (1, 2).
- Closing trial briefs by plaintiffs (June 11), leg., FL NAACP (June 13), reply (June 17).
- Proposed findings of fact by leg., FL NAACP (June 13).
- Plaintiffs' memo re evidentiary standard, response (June 25).
- Opinion striking congressional districts (July 10, 2014).
- Leg. motion to amend judgment (July 15).
- Romo resp. (July 23), LWV resp. (July 23).
- Romo supp. (July 29), LWV supp. (July 28).
- Leg. reply (July 29), FL NAACP opp. to plaintiff remedy (July 30).
- Order requiring new map by August 15 (Aug. 1).
- New congressional plan (exhs. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M) (Aug. 15) .
- Election officials' response (exhs. A, B) (Aug. 15).
- Plaintiffs' objections (exhs. A, B, C, D, E) (Aug. 18).
- Order approving remedial plan (Aug. 22, 2014).
- Notice of appeal (Aug. 29), notice of cross-appeal (Sept. 8).
- Suggestion of cert. to FL Sup. Ct. (Sept. 8), response (Sept. 12).
- Order certifying case to FL Sup. Ct. (Oct. 2).
- Plaintiffs' brief supporting accepting cert (Oct. 3), leg. response (Oct. 16).
- Order accepting case (Oct. 23).
- Briefs by plaintiffs (supp., app.) (Nov. 21), leg. (app.), FL NAACP (Dec. 19).
- Amicus brief by LatinoJustice PRLDEF et al. (Dec. 1).
- Replies by plaintiffs, FL NAACP (Jan. 16, 2015), leg. (Jan. 23).
- Opinion striking congressional districts b/c unlawful partisanship (July 9, 2015).
- Accompanying procedural order (July 9).
- Fl. House motion to relinquish jurisdiction to trial court to draw lines (Aug. 24).
- Response by Senate (Aug. 25), plaintiffs (Aug. 27).
- Order from trial court (Aug. 26).
- Fl. Sup. Ct. order on further proceedings (Sept. 4).
- Scheduling order with Sept. 25 deadline (July 15).
- Leg. memo re procedure in special session (July 20).
- Motion for protective order (July 12, 2012), opp. (I, II) (Aug. 28), reply (Aug. 31).
- Leg. supp. memo re privilege (Sept. 10).
- Order granting in part, denying in part, protective order for leg. privilege (Oct. 5).
- Leg. motion to compel (Oct. 10), opp. (Nov. 2), reply (Dec. 4).
- Plaintiffs' motion to compel (Oct. 29), opp. (Dec. 6).
- Motion for protective order re leg. privilege (Nov. 16).
- Order re discovery (Jan. 18, 2013).
- Motion to clarify/reconsider (Jan. 28), denied (Feb. 7).
- Non-parties' motion to quash (Dec. 4, 2012), resp. (Dec. 17).
- Order re discovery (Jan. 30, 2013).
- Further order re discovery (May 31).
- Leg. petition for cert. re protective order (app.) (Oct. 31).
- Response by SoS, LWV plaintiffs (Dec. 6), Romo plaintiffs (Jan. 11, 2013).
- Order preventing deposition of legislators (May 22).
- Non-parties' petition for cert. re motion to quash (Mar. 1, 2013).
- Response by SoS (Apr. 12), Fla. Senate (Apr. 22), reply (May 10).
- Order denying petition for cert. (July 17).
- Jurisdictional briefs by LWV plaintiffs (app.) (June 7), leg. (June 21).
- Jurisdictional briefs by Romo plaintiffs (app.) (June 7), leg. (June 21).
- Order accepting jurisdiction (July 2).
- Brief of petitioners (app.) (July 17), legislature (Aug. 1), plts. reply (Aug. 12).
- Amicus brief by former leg. presiding officers (Aug. 12).
- Order reversing, permitting discovery from legislators (Dec. 13).
- Order re special master (Sept. 10, 2013).
- Special master's discovery report re RPF (Sept. 20), consultants (Oct. 14).
- Plaintiffs' objections re RPF report (Oct. 10), RPF response (Oct. 22).
- Plaintiffs' objections re consultant report (Nov. 5), response (Nov. 27).
- Order on special master's reports (Mar. 20, 2014).
- Order re motion to compel (Feb. 11, 2014).
- Consultant disclosure order (May 2), order (May 16).
- Motion for rehearing (May 30), resp. (Dec. 30), reply (Jan. 16, 2015).
- Order denying rehearing (Mar. 18).
- Consultant's motion for stay (May 14), response (May 15).
- Consultant's brief (May 19), resp. (app.) (May 20), reply (app.) (May 21).
- Order reversing trial court disclosure (May 22).
- En banc order vacating panel decision, certifying to Fl. Sup. Ct. (June 19).
- Emergency petition for constitutional writ (May 23, 2014).
- Order temp. permitting disclosure of documents under seal (May 27).
- Emergency petition to Justice Thomas for stay (May 28).
- Petition withdrawn (May 30).
- Order accepting jurisdiction of disclosure issue (June 24).
- Briefs by consultant (July 9), plaintiffs (app.) (July 21).
- Brief by amicus press orgs. (July 31).
- Reply by consultant (Aug. 8).
- Opinion affirming trial ct's order to disclose documents (Nov. 13).
- Motion for stay pending cert. (Nov. 18), response (Nov. 20).
- Order approving 10-day stay to seek further relief from S. Ct. (Nov. 20).
- Motion to determine confidentiality of email chain (Nov. 20, 2014).
- Application to Justice Thomas for stay pending cert. petition (Nov. 20).
- Denial of application (Nov. 21).
- Notice of appeal (Apr. 15, 2015).
- Order to show cause re jurisdiction (Apr. 23).
- Plaintiffs' response (May 4).
- Order deferring jurisdictional issue (May 15).
- Voluntary dismissal of appeal by plaintiffs (July 27).
- Petition for subpoena re NCEC (Dec. 11, 2012).
- NCEC Motion to quash (Jan. 11, 2013), opp. (Feb. 4), reply (Feb. 11).
- Order denying motion to quash (Feb. 22).
- RNC/NRCC motion to quash (May 31).
- Order granting motion to quash (June 28).
- Order vacating June 28 grant, denying motion to quash (Aug. 5).
- Motion to enforce subpoenas (Nov. 20), opp. (Dec. 16).
- Order granting motion to enforce, in part (Jan. 28, 2014).
- Plaintiffs' supp. brief (Mar. 27), opp. (Apr. 3), reply (Apr. 10).
- 2nd motion to enforce subpoenas (Apr. 2), opp. (Apr. 16).
- Order granting motion to enforce (May 29).
- Petition for subpoena re RNC, NRCC (Apr. 25, 2013).
- Motion to quash, opp. (June 14), reply (July 1), surreply (Aug. 5).
- Order denying motion to quash (Aug. 5).
- Motion to enforce subpoenas (Nov. 20).
- Order re associational privilege (June 3).
- Petition for subpoena re DCCC (Oct. 9, 2013).
- Motion to quash (Nov. 4), opp. (Nov. 27), reply (Dec. 11).
- Order denying motion to quash (Apr. 14, 2014).
- Motion for reconsideration (Apr. 28), opp. (Apr. 30), reply (May 1), withdrawn (May 8).
- Order recognizing plaintiffs as prevailing but denying fees (Nov. 10, 2014).
- Notice of appeal (Dec. 8).
- Briefs by Romo plaintiffs, LWV plaintiffs (May 18, 2015).
- Legislature response (Aug. 14).
The latest: On April 30, 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and on May 30, it denied defendants' motions to dismiss. A lengthy fight over discovery ensued, with appeals up to the state supreme court; on December 13, 2013, that court recognized a legislative privilege but rejected claims of absolute immunity in the redistricting context, allowing discovery from legislators; a further parallel dispute resulted in the disclosure of documents from consultants allegedly assisting with the redistricting process. A trial was held from May 19-June 4, 2014; on July 10, 2014, the court struck down the congressional plan. The court found that districts 5 and 10 were insufficiently compact and the product of unlawful partisan intent.
On August 15, the legislature produced a new map; on August 22, the court ruled that the new map satisfied his earlier objections, and that 2014 elections will be held under the 2012 map, with the remedial map implemented for 2016. On appeal, the state supreme court reversed, finding several remedial districts improperly driven by partisanship. Under the trial court's latest scheduling order, a map must be drawn (and review of the map by the courts completed) by September 25. On August 21, 2015, the legislature adjourned a special session without coming to an agreement on a map, and the state House asked the trial court to draw lines instead.
League of Women Voters of Florida v. Browning, No. 2012-CA-000490 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon County): an action in state court challenging the congressional plan on state constitutional grounds, including violations of state prohibitions on partisan and racial gerrymandering, and requirements of compactness and adherence to political boundaries.
- Complaint (Feb. 17, 2012).
The latest: On March 13, this case was consolidated with Romo v. Scott, above.
League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner (LWV II), No. 2012-CA-002842 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon County) & No. SC13-252 (Fla. Sup. Ct.): an action in state court challenging the state Senate plan on state constitutional grounds, including violations of state prohibitions on partisan gerrymandering, and requirements of compactness and adherence to political boundaries.
- Complaint (Sept. 5, 2012).
- Leg. defendants' motion for protective order (Oct. 16), response (Nov. 7).
- Leg. defendants' motion for protective order (Nov. 16).
- Motion to dismiss by leg. defendants (Oct. 22), SoS (Nov. 13).
- Response (Dec. 14), reply (Dec. 18).
- Order denying motion to dismiss (Jan. 18, 2013).
- Petition for writ of prohibition (app.) (Feb. 15), response (Feb. 28), reply (Mar. 8).
- Opinion denying writ and allowing case to proceed (July 11).
- Amd. complaint (Apr. 15, 2015).
- Non-parties' motion to quash subpoena (May 4).
- Plaintiffs' response (June 1).
- Non-parties' additional submission (June 23).
- Non-parties brief re 1st Amd. (June 23), response (June 24).
- Order denying in part motion to quash (June 26).
- Motion for reconsideration/clarification (July 7).
- Order of partial clarification (July 9).
- Amended motion for reconsideration/clarification, response (July 15).
- Non-parties' additional submission (July 2).
- Order on discovery matters of non-parties (July 6).
- Plaintiffs' disclosure of district challenges (May 8).
- Legislature's response (July 1).
- Stipulation striking Senate districts b/c unlawful partisanship (July 28, 2015).
- Leg. memo re procedure in special session (July 28).
- Deposition of John Guthrie, Staff Dir. of Senate Reapportionment (July 29).
The latest: On Jan. 18, 2013, the trial court denied a motion to dismiss, finding that the state Supreme Court's initial review of state legislative plans is not exclusive. That decision was essentially upheld by the state Supreme Court on July 11, 2013. On April 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, as litigation on this case began to proceed once again. On July 28, 2015, in the aftermath of the Romo congressional decision above, the state Senate conceded that it had drawn lines with undue partisanship, and resolved to redraw the map in a special session.
Calvin v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, No. 4:15-cv-00131 (N.D. Fla.): an action in federal court challenging county redistricting on equal population grounds, based on the inclusion of incarcerated individuals who are not county residents.
- Complaint (Mar. 9, 2015).
- Defendants' motion for summary judgment (July 29).
- Memorandum of law in support of plaintiffs' (Sept. 18).
- Exhibit 1 (Sept. 18).
- Exhibit 2 (Sept. 18).
- Exhibit 3 (Sept. 18).
- Exhibit 4 (Sept. 18).
- Exhibit 5 (Sept. 18).
- Exhibit 6 (Sept. 18).
- Plaintiffs' first requests for admission and second request for production (Sept. 18).
- Response by Jefferson County School Board (Sept. 18).
The latest: The complaint was filed on March 9, 2015; the county filed a motion for summary judgment on July 29.
Warinner v. Detzner, No. 6:13-cv-01860 (M.D. Fla.) & No. 4:14-cv-00164 (N.D. Fla.): an action in federal court challenging congressional district 5 as an unjustified racial gerrymander.
- Complaint (Nov. 29, 2013), and amended complaint (Jan. 16, 2014).
- Motion to dismiss or transfer venue (Jan. 9, 2014).
- Order denying motion as moot (Jan. 22).
- Motion to dismiss or transfer venue (Feb. 3), response (Feb. 5).
- Order transferring venue to N.D. Fla. (Mar. 26).
- Motion to dismiss b/c abstention (Feb. 11), response (Feb. 28), reply (Mar. 18).
- Order denying motion as moot (Sept. 24).
- Index of plaintiffs' evidence in state ct. suit, addtl. evidence (June 12).
- Index of defendants' evidence in state ct. suit (June 19).
- Order staying case pending resolution of state case (Sept. 24).
- Motion to intervene by Rep. Brown (Aug. 6, 2015).
- Notice of voluntary dismissal (Aug. 10).
The latest: The complaint was filed on November 29, 2013. The case was stayed pending resolution of Romo v. Detzner, above; then, with the order in Romo requiring redrawing of several congressional districts, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.
In re 2012 Joint Resolution of Apportionment, No. SC12-1 (Fla. Sup. Ct.): an action in the state Supreme Court, which automatically reviews state legislative lines.
- Petition for decl. judgment & app. (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H1, H2, H3) (Feb. 10, 2012).
- Att'y Gen., Senate (app.), House (app.) (Feb. 17).
- Election Sups., City of Lakeland, Fla. Dem. Party (app.) (Feb. 17).
- League of Women Voters (app. (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M)) (Feb. 17).
- League of Women Voters (Feb. 22).
- Florida House (app.), Florida Senate (app.), Att'y Gen. (Feb. 23).
- Opinion upholding House, striking Senate districts (Mar. 9).
The latest: On March 9, the state Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the state House plan and striking down the state Senate plan. In particular, it found in the Senate plan several violations of Florida's newly amended state constitution, including impermissible indicia of intent to favor incumbents (including in the numbering of districts), inadequate protections of minority populations, and violations of compactness and political geography requirements.
League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Scott, No. 4:11-CV-10006 (S.D. Fla.): When the Governor withdrew a request to preclear the ballot initiatives known as Amendments 5 and 6 (which became Art. III, §§ 20 and 21 of the Florida Constitution when passed in 2010), plaintiffs sued in federal court to force a preclearance submission.
- Complaint (Feb. 3, 2011).
- Amendments submitted for preclearance by state legislature (Mar. 29, 2011).
The latest: The state moved for dismissal on mootness grounds, and the case was dismissed on April 15, 2011. The Amendments were actually precleared on May 31, 2011.
Diaz-Balart v. Scott, No. 1:10-CV-23968 (S.D. Fla.) and No. 11-14554 (11th Cir.): a challenge in federal court to the ballot initiative known as Amendment 6, which became Art. III, § 20 of the Florida Constitution when passed in 2010, on the grounds that it impermissibly restrains the legislature's power to draw district lines under Art. I, § 4 of the federal Constitution.
- Original (Nov. 3, 2010), 1st (Nov. 8), and 2nd amended complaint (Jan. 31, 2011).
- Intervenor FL House of Rep. complaint (Jan. 14).
- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Apr. 25) and state's response (May 25).
- State (May 25) and Intervenor Fla. NAACP (May 25) motions for summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs' response (June 9), State's reply (June 24), Fla. NAACP reply (June 24).
- Plaintiffs' sur-reply (July 12), State's response (July 12).
- Order granting summary judgment to the defendants (Sept. 9).
- Appellant's brief (Oct. 28), reply (Dec. 2).
- Secretary of State's brief (Nov. 17).
- Defendant-intervenors' brief (Nov. 18).
- Opinion affirming trial court (Jan. 31).
The latest: On September 9, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants, rejecting the plaintiffs' challenges to Amendment 6. The court held that the federal constitution grants power to the states to regulate elections through the legislative process, but that this grant includes any legislative process provided by state law, including (where relevant) citizen initiatives. On January 31, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision.
In re 2012 Joint Resolution of Apportionment, No. SC12-460 (Fla. Sup. Ct.): an action in the state Supreme Court, which automatically reviews state legislative lines, to review the newly redrawn state Senate lines.
- Petition for decl. judgment (Apr. 5, 2012).
- app. (A, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, C1, C2, C3, C4, D1, D2, D3, D4).
- app. (E1, E2, E3, E4, F1, F2, F3, F4, G, G3, G4).
- Senate (app.), SoS (Apr. 13).
- Election Sups., Fla. Dem. Party (app.) (Apr. 10), City of Lakeland (Apr. 11).
- Fla. League of Women Voters (app. (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, [no K], L)) (Apr. 10).
- Fla. NAACP (Apr. 10).
- Replies by Fla. Dem. Party, Fla. League, Fla. NAACP (Apr. 16).
- Opinion approving redrawn Senate map (Apr. 27).
The latest: On April 27, the court approved Florida's redrawn state Senate plan, finding the redrawn districts to be in keeping with Florida's state constitutional standards.
Florida v. United States, No. 1:12-cv-00380 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of Florida's congressional and state legislative districts.
- Complaint (Mar. 12, 2012) and amended complaint (Mar. 30).
- Preclearance by DOJ (Apr. 30).
- Notice of voluntary dismissal (May 1).
The latest: After the plans were precleared on April 30, the suit was dismissed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 20
 § 4
 v.