U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, a Democrat from Jacksonville, filed a lawsuit challenging the fair districting amendments. (Photo courtesy of Corrine Brown.)
By Ralph De La Cruz
Florida Center for Investigative Reporting
The desire to appear to give voters a voice is strong in the political milieu. The willingness to actually extend power to those voters is often not.
Which is why states allow ballot initiatives by voters — which are then contested by politicians.
It happened with the Class Size Reduction Amendment, which was first approved by 63 percent of voters in 2002. The amendment mandated that core classes from kindergarten through the third grade be limited to 18 students per class. From the fourth through eighth grade, the limit would be 22, and then 25 for high school classes.
Last year, legislators pushed for another constitutional amendment loosening those standards. But they couldn’t pull together the required 60 percent.
So, instead, the legislature tightened the definition of a “core” class, thus reducing the number of classes covered by the amendment.
And when the state cut the education budget by almost 10 percent, districts were left holding the class-size-reduction bag. The result has been that, as districts try to deal with a dwindling state revenue stream at precisely the time that they have to be in compliance with class sizes, there have been unintended consequences. For example, some districts are having to cut back on the number of openings for magnet programs, whose classes are not considered “core.”
Now there’s a similar rift between voters and politicians on the issue of redistricting.
The year after every U.S. Census, politicians have the chance to draw their own districts. And, as can be imagined when you have a group of people making decisions about their self-interests, it’s never pretty. That’s why we have districts that look like they belong on a Rorschach Inkblot test.
So last year, with that same 63 percent majority that had approved the class-size reduction almost 10 years ago, Florida’s well-intentioned voters approved the Fair Districts Amendments. There were two — Amendment 5 and Amendment 6.
Together, they required that, “Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.”
And right away, the confrontation between citizens’ good intentions and politicians’ interests materialized. Although the opposition was led, as it usually is, by the majority party — in Florida, Republicans — the instinct for self-preservation is bipartisan. U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, a Democrat from Jacksonville, and U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican from Miami, filed a lawsuit challenging the amendments.
But on Sept. 9, a federal judge ruled in favor of the 63 percent of voters.
While the lawsuit was proceeding, some legislative leaders held 26 public meetings throughout the state this summer to find out what the citizens think. But the meetings didn’t offer any proposed districts, no possible maps. That led to accusations that they were all show and no substance.
The game will surely continue.
Florida’s Congressional District 3, represented by Corrine Brown, does not adhere to existing city or county borders: