Opinion ID: 2815835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: trial court’s second legal error: applying a

Text: DEFERENTIAL STANDARD OF REVIEW The trial court’s error in failing to properly analyze the challenge to the plan “as a whole” was compounded by its error in the deferential standard of review it applied after finding the existence of unconstitutional intent. Certainly, we recognize the difficult task the trial court faced, considering numerous issues of first impression and attempting to be faithful to this Court’s redistricting decisions. And we commend the trial court for the superb and professional manner in which it handled this difficult litigation. But, we conclude nevertheless that the trial court failed to recognize the critical differences between this Court’s “facial” review of the state legislative redistricting plans in Apportionment I and the nature of the fact-based claims presented in this case. This legal error in the standard of review, as with the legal error in not recognizing the independent significance of the challenge to the plan “as a whole,” led to the trial court’s failure to give any independent legal significance to its finding of unconstitutional intent when examining the challenges - 64 - to individual districts. Once the trial court found unconstitutional intent, there was no longer any basis to apply a deferential standard of review; instead, the trial court should have shifted the burden to the Legislature to justify its decisions in drawing the congressional district lines. The trial court’s error as to the standard of review can be traced to its analysis in evaluating the challengers’ claims, which it set forth as follows: It seems that the more reliable focus in such an inquiry would be on what was actually produced by the Legislature, the enacted map. Specifically, an analysis of the extent to which the plan does or does not comply with tier two requirements is a good place to start. Can one draw a map that meets tier-two requirements but nonetheless favors a political party or an incumbent? Sure, but it is more difficult. Furthermore, a failure to comply with tier-two requirements not only supports an inference of improper intent, it is an independent ground for finding a map unconstitutional. See Apportionment I, 83 So. 3d [at] 640-641. Additional direct and circumstantial evidence of intent may serve to strengthen or weaken this inference of improper intent. Therefore, I first examine the map for apparent failure to comply with tier-two requirements of compactness and utilization of political and geographical boundaries where feasible, then consider any additional evidence that supports the inference that such districts are also in violation of tier-one requirements. (Emphasis supplied.) In other words, the trial court began by asking whether there was any tier-two violation—whether the district was compact, and whether it followed existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible. Then, the trial court considered the direct and circumstantial evidence of tier-one improper intent only as “additional evidence” to “strengthen or weaken” an “inference of improper intent” that was identifiable from tier-two deficiencies. The trial court - 65 - did so despite finding that the direct and circumstantial evidence itself had established a violation of the tier-one constitutional standards. Although the trial court relied on Apportionment I as support for the standard of review it applied, the standard from that case—a facial review based on purely objective, undisputed evidence in the limited record before the Court—does not directly translate to this one—a fact-intensive challenge based on direct and circumstantial evidence developed during an adversarial trial. Discerning which aspects of the standard set forth in Apportionment I apply and which do not is thus of critical importance. In Apportionment I, this Court rejected the arguments of the Attorney General and the House of Representatives “that a challenger must prove facial invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt,” as is generally considered to be the standard applied to a typical lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a legislative enactment outside the context of redistricting. 83 So. 3d at 607. This Court considered the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to be both “a departure from [its] precedent in legislative apportionment jurisprudence” and “ill-suited” to the nature of its review. Id. “Unlike a legislative act promulgated separate and apart from an express constitutional mandate,” this Court stated, “the Legislature adopts a joint resolution of legislative apportionment solely pursuant to the ‘instructions’ - 66 - of the citizens as expressed in specific requirements of the Florida Constitution governing this process.” Id. at 607-08. Although the legislative redistricting plan comes before this Court “with an initial presumption of validity,” this Court explained that “the operation of this Court’s process in apportionment cases is far different than the Court’s review of ordinary legislative acts,” including “a commensurate difference in [its] obligations.” Id. at 606. Noting that the “new requirements” of the Fair Districts Amendment “dramatically alter[ed] the landscape with respect to redistricting,” this Court held that its scope of review had “plainly increased, requiring a commensurately more expanded judicial analysis of legislative compliance.” Id. at 607. As this Court would later reason, “the framers and voters” of the Fair Districts Amendment “clearly desired more judicial scrutiny” of the Legislature’s decisions in redistricting. Fla. House of Representatives v. League of Women Voters of Fla. (Apportionment III), 118 So. 3d 198, 205 (Fla. 2013). “It is this Court’s duty, given to it by the citizens of Florida, to enforce adherence to the constitutional requirements and to declare a redistricting plan that does not comply with those standards constitutionally invalid.” Apportionment I, 83 So. 3d at 607. However, this Court acknowledged in the context of its review in Apportionment I that it would “defer to the Legislature’s decision to draw a district in a certain way, so long as that decision does not violate the constitutional - 67 - requirements.” Id. at 608. This Court emphasized that its “responsibility [wa]s limited to ensuring compliance with constitutional requirements.” Id. “[E]ndeavoring to be respectful to the critically important role of the Legislature,” this Court stated that its duty was “not to select the best plan, but rather to decide whether the one adopted by the legislature is valid.” Id. (quoting In re Apportionment Law—1992, 597 So. 2d at 285). Echoing this Court’s language in Apportionment I, the trial court determined—based on “the nature of the legislation and the nature of what is reviewed”—that it should apply the same standard to the challenge presented in this case. Therefore, reciting the principles from Apportionment I, the trial court set forth the standard for its review as follows: I will therefore, in this case, apply the standard of review articulated in Apportionment I, deferring to the Legislature’s decision to draw a district in a certain way, so long as that decision does not violate the constitutional requirements, with an understanding of my limited role in this process and the important role of the Legislature. My duty “is not to select the best plan” but to determine whether [the challengers] have proved the plan invalid. Apportionment I, 83 So. 3d 597 at 608. The trial court then cited this standard, and its deferential review, in rejecting challenges to certain individual districts. We conclude that the trial court was correct, initially, in rejecting the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, as this Court did in Apportionment I. As this Court stated, “[u]nlike a legislative act promulgated separate and apart from an - 68 - express constitutional mandate, the Legislature adopts a joint resolution of legislative apportionment solely pursuant to the ‘instructions’ of the citizens as expressed in specific requirements of the Florida Constitution governing this process.” Apportionment I, 83 So. 3d at 607-08. Just as there is a difference in evaluating legislative intent with respect to the specific constitutional mandate outlawing improper partisan intent in redistricting, so too is there “a difference between the Court’s role in reviewing a legislative apportionment plan to determine compliance with constitutionally mandated criteria and the Court’s role in interpreting statutes.” Id. at 607 n.5. The “reason for the different standard,” the trial court correctly noted, is that “the inquiry is into the process, the end result, and the motive behind the legislation”—not “a question of searching for a reasonable interpretation of a statute which would make it constitutional.” In this respect, the trial court was right to rely on Apportionment I in concluding that the nature of the legislation and the specific constitutional mandate outlawing partisan political gerrymandering require a different standard of review than applied in traditional cases challenging legislative enactments. Where the trial court erred, however, was in discounting the differences between Apportionment I and this case to conclude that the same standard must apply, even though this case involved direct and circumstantial evidence of tier-one - 69 - constitutional violations that this Court had no ability to review in Apportionment