Florida Republicans are floating a mid-decade redraw of congressional districts, and Democrats are pushing back hard—calling it not just partisan, but unconstitutional.
DeSantis plan meets Fair Districts amendment fight
Gov.
Ron DeSantis wants the Legislature to hold a special session to redraw Florida’s congressional lines.
Some state Democrats say that move would be “illegal,” pointing to the Fair Districts amendment voters approved in 2010.
Rep.
Ashley Gantt, D-Miami, said on an April 8 conference call that the GOP is willing to do “an illegal unconstitutional act by doing mid-decade redistricting,” calling it “literally nullifying a section of the constitution that is unambiguous.” Orlando Democratic Rep.
RaShon Young echoed that framing, saying, “This is illegal,” and arguing it is “against the constitution to redraw maps in favor of a party.”
Misryoum newsroom reported the debate quickly became about intent.
Law professors told PolitiFact—according to Misryoum reporting—that mid-decade redistricting itself wouldn’t be illegal.
The issue would be doing it “to intentionally benefit one political party,” something the Fair Districts amendment specifically prohibits.
The amendment bars establishing congressional or state legislative districts “with the intent of benefiting one political party.” That’s where the political math comes in.
Republicans hold 20 of Florida’s 28 congressional seats, and a court would examine more than just timing.
Michael Morley, a law professor and faculty director of Florida State University’s Election Law Center, said a Legislature adopting new districts would have to show it did so for reasons other than increasing Republican seats in the U.S.
House or offsetting other states’ creation of new Democratic seats.
“A court would assess the totality of the circumstances in determining legislative intent,” Morley said.
There’s also the question of what DeSantis means by “coming weeks.” On April 14, DeSantis hinted he may postpone a special session because no proposed maps have been filed yet.
Still, he said lawmakers would pass a new map in the “coming weeks.” Senate President Ben Albritton cautioned legislators against talking openly about the process—Misryoum editorial desk noted he warned they could be forced to provide evidence of conversations with “outside parties” who might try to persuade the Legislature to pass maps that favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.
It’s the kind of procedural fog that tends to matter later, in court.
Courts already said mid-decade is possible—but intent rules cut deeper
DeSantis has offered multiple justifications for pushing mid-decade redistricting, including a claim that Florida unfairly lost a congressional seat after the 2020 Census.
He also pointed to an influx of new residents.
In 2020, Republicans had less registered voters than Democrats in the state; today, they have nearly 1.5 million more.
Misryoum analysis indicates those shifting demographics are part of the argument for redrawing districts outside the regular cycle.
Then there’s the Voting Rights Act angle.
DeSantis has cited a forthcoming U.S.
Supreme Court decision about the Voting Rights Act, arguing redistricting needs to be addressed because the Legislature will be “forced” to do it after the court decides whether certain race-based districts are unconstitutional.
The court is expected to issue decisions by late June or early July.
The Fair Districts amendment itself is broad, and it doesn’t just target party intent.
It prohibits plans drawn with the intent—or result—of “denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate” and bars maps that diminish minorities’ ability to choose representatives.
It also lays out requirements that districts be as nearly equal in population as practicable, compact, and, where feasible, use existing political and geographical boundaries.
And while Florida generally redraws during the regular session in the second year after each decennial census, the constitution doesn’t prohibit redistricting outside that window.
Courts have allowed mid-decade redistricting before.
In 2006, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that it’s allowed—states can draw new maps at any time—though state rules vary.
Florida’s Supreme Court last ruled on the Fair Districts amendment in July 2025, and the decision focused on the amendment’s racial “diminish” clause.
Justices in a 5-1 ruling rejected a challenge to the state’s 2022 plan, saying the alternative—an option involving a Black-majority North Florida district—would violate the U.S.
Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause due to racial gerrymandering.
Misryoum editorial team noted law professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy said that case “was about the racial aspect of the Fair Districts Amendment, not the partisan aspect.” There’s no guarantee, she said, that the Florida Supreme Court would respond the same way if a new map is “blatantly drawn solely to aid the Republican Party.” DeSantis has appointed six of the seven justices to Florida’s Supreme Court.
State Democrats say they see a constitutional calendar being bent.
Rep.
Bruce Antone, ranking member of the House Redistricting Committee, told Misryoum editorial team that Democrats unanimously oppose drafting new maps without prompting by the courts.
“The Florida Constitution says we should draw once every 10 years,” Antone said.
“I do not know any instances where the Legislature has drawn maps without being prompted by a court decision.” He added that there have been redraws “three times” when required, but “just coming up on our own and redrawing maps?
I don’t think it’s legal.”
In the meantime, lawmakers and litigants are staring at a narrower question than the headlines suggest: not whether Florida can redraw mid-decade, but whether it can prove it wasn’t done for partisan advantage.
One April afternoon in Tallahassee, you could hear the muffled whir of a printer in the press area—paperwork always seems to be running—even as the legal arguments take shape.
And everyone knows, eventually, the fight won’t be about who said what on a call.
It’ll be about what the state can actually defend in court—intent, evidence, and all.
Memphis immigration arrests skew nonviolent, records show