Florida Redistricting Push Awaits Supreme Court Ruling on Voting Rights (Upcoming Florida Special Legislative Session)

When President Trump called for the redrawing of Texas’s Congressional maps (discussed in a prior post), he included the possibility that other states could follow. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis was one of the first to respond to the President’s call, stating that he believed the state to be “malapportioned” and that “it would be appropriate to do a redistricting in the mid-decade.” He also stated that the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais regarding the Voting Rights Act would undoubtedly impact the current map and require changes to be made. As a result, he called for a legislative special session from April 20 to 24 to pass amended maps.

Florida Redistricting Legal Challenges and Court Precedents

Florida’s Judicial Precedent

Florida’s most recent attempts at re-districting actually go back to 2022 when the Governor vetoed the map approved by GOP lawmakers and advocated for his own map intended to increase Republican Congressional representation from 16 to 20 seats. The map was subsequently signed into law, breaking up a majority-black district in the state. The map was immediately challenged in two separate lawsuits. In Common Cause Florida v. Byrd, voting rights advocates argued that the new map violated the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution by discriminating against voters based on their race, but in 2024, a three-judge panel unanimously rejected those claims.

Plaintiffs in another case, Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute v. Byrd, pursued a different tactic, arguing that the new maps violated the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment. (See our previous coverage here.) The Fair Districts Amendment was passed by voters in 2010 and provided standards for establishing congressional and state legislative district boundaries. Those standards prohibit districts from being drawn with partisan intent or with the intent or result of infringing on the representational rights of racial or language minorities. While in 2015, a more liberal Supreme Court had ruled that “partisan gerrymandering will not be tolerated,” plaintiffs in this case faced a more conservative court and agreed to drop their claims of partisan gerrymandering in exchange for certain other stipulations in the court case. In July 2025, at the same time as President Trump was rallying states for redistricting, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the Fair Districts Amendment did not require drawing a majority black district even though the new map had dismantled a previous such district. The Court held that to require such a district would amount to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Louisiana v. Callais

In calling for a special session in 2026 to approve Congressional maps that will go even farther than their 2022 predecessors, Governor DeSantis is relying on the Supreme Court confirming the legality of such maps in its decision in Louisiana v. Callais. The Court in Louisiana v. Callais faces similar questions of law and constitutionality as those in Common Cause Florida and Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the new maps constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, while defenders contend the maps were drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act by ensuring adequate minority representation. The case was initially argued in March of 2025; however, the Court ordered the case to be reargued this term in order to more explicitly address whether the creation of the primarily minority district in order to rectify a Voting Rights Act violation violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause or 15th Amendment’s prohibition.

In looking to Louisiana v. Callais, Governor DeSantis is counting on the Supreme Court to uphold the legality of maps like Florida’s 2022 congressional plan. However, he may not receive the confirmation he is hoping for in time for his April special session deadline. While the case was reargued in front of the Supreme Court on October 15, the Supreme Court has still not issued a decision. Additionally, state Republicans have indicated that the new map could increase Republican representation by up to five seats, likely targeting seats in central and south Florida. Therefore, even if the Court were to reach the Governor’s desired ruling, the state’s Fair Districts Amendment prohibition against partisan gerrymandering could still be used to challenge any new maps.

Political Landscape Changes and Future Redistricting Outlook

Governor DeSantis is relying both on a favorable Supreme Court decision and on the stability of recent voting patterns. However, like in Texas, there may be some early indications that voting outcomes in Florida may be less predictable than recent results suggest. In a special election on March 24, state Democrats flipped a state House seat in Palm Beach County where the prior Republican occupant had previously won by 19 percentage points in 2024, and President Trump won by 20 points in the 2024 Presidential election. The district, which includes the President’s Mar-a-Lago estate, was won by Democrat Emily Gregory by 2.4 percentage points, representing a swing of more than 21 percentage points toward Democrats. With a Supreme Court decision still pending and a shifting political landscape, the success of the Governor’s redistricting plans may not be known until election day.

Track Elections and Other Political Activity

Federal and state elections and redistricting can have significant policy and regulatory implications for businesses and organizations. If your organization would like to further track federal and state elections, please contact us.