#florida supreme court | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 days

Text

Abortion politics is threatening to roil Florida Republicans’ chances in competitive state Legislature races amid widespread voter backlash.

The Florida Supreme Court upheld a 15-week limit on abortion earlier this month, paving the way for a six-week ban passed by the state Legislature last year to soon go into effect.

Now, a handful of vulnerable Republican state lawmakers who supported the six-week restrictions could be imperiled in November as anger over the ban grows.

“Given how unpopular this new policy is and the fact that there’s a constitutional amendment question regarding abortion on the ballot, I do think that there’s some risk for down-ballot Republicans,” former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) told The Hill.

Florida has become a focal point in the battle over abortion access as a number of states have seen abortion access curtailed following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The state Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the contested 15-week abortion restriction could proceed, arguing that a privacy clause within the state Constitution does not pertain to abortion.

The state Legislature last year passed a six-week limit on the medical procedure, though it was not enforced as the litigation around the 15-week ban wound its way through the courts.

The six-week ban will officially become enacted May 1, rapidly changing the landscape of abortion access in the Sunshine State. At the same time, abortion-rights advocates eked out a win this month when the Florida Supreme Court said a ballot measure seeking to enshrine abortion protections into the state Constitution could go before voters this fall.

Among the members who voted for the six-week ban who live in swing districts are GOP state Reps. Rachel Saunders Plakon in Seminole County; Susan Plasencia, who represents parts of Orange and Seminole counties; David Smith in Seminole County; and Carolina Amesty, who represents portions of Orange and Osceola counties. Not all of them currently have declared Democratic challengers.

Nonetheless, Democrats are confident some of these GOP state legislators will be vulnerable for voting on the six-week ban. If that’s the case, it would show how abortion politics is roiling redder states at a more local level.

“I do think for all these Republicans that voted essentially with [Gov. Ron] DeSantis in an attempt to boost his ambitions for the White House — they haven’t only endangered women and abortion seekers, but they’ve also endangered their political careers, and it will be made very clear on the campaign trail how out of touch they are, even with their own base,” said state Rep. Anna Eskamani (D), who previously worked at Planned Parenthood.

Yet some experts like Michael Binder, faculty director of the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Laboratory, are skeptical that vulnerable GOP state lawmakers could be in further trouble over their vote on the six-week abortion ban alone.

Binder noted “there is a ballot measure that is out there that expands and enshrines abortion rights into the state constitution, and that is certainly something where you could see some folks maybe voting for a Republican but also voting ‘yes.’”

“It could also maybe motivate a few more people to come out that might otherwise not come out,” he added. “Not a lot, but a few.”

Some Republicans also say they are skeptical, noting factors like candidate quality and other top issues among voters.

“Overall, having the six-week abortion ban, reproductive rights amendment on the ballot is a net plus in terms of Democratic voter turnout,” said Justin Sayfie, a Florida-based Republican strategist. “But the challenge for the Democratic Party in Florida in these state House and state Senate races is putting up viable candidates.”

Florida Democrats say they are up for that challenge, announcing a recruitment effort earlier this month to bring in candidates for every state and federal legislative office.

But Republicans say the issue also stems from the two candidates who will be at the top of the ballot in Florida this cycle: President Biden and former Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.), a Senate candidate.

“They’ve got two weak candidates [on the statewide ballot]. They need something else to energize their voters,” Sayfie said.

Biden and Mucarsel-Powell have both zeroed in on abortion as a key campaign issue in the state. Earlier this week, the president made a campaign stop in Tampa, taking the opportunity to slam Florida’s six-week abortion ban, which is slated to go into effect next week. Meanwhile, Vice President Harris is slated to deliver remarks in Jacksonville the day the ban takes effect.

“It’s not so much that we have to make it an issue, that people have already made this an issue,” said Florida state House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell (D). “Voters have shown us that this is the formula to connect with them, to be able to have the credibility to ask for their vote, you have to be able to say that you authentically say that you care about the issues that they care about.”

Polling shows the issue is certainly on voters’ minds.

An Emerson College polling survey released earlier this month found that 42% of Florida voters said they plan to vote in November in favor of the amendment to enshrine abortion rights into the state’s constitution, while 32% said they were not sure. 25% said they would vote against the measure.

A separate USA Today/Ipsos poll from earlier this month found that 57% of voters said they would vote to expand abortion access through the ballot measure.

Still, Republicans say other issues will be at play in November, particularly for swing voters.

“That’s the danger for Democrats, they talk so much about abortion and reproductive rights that voters think, ‘Gosh, they don’t care about these other issues that I care about,’” Sayfie said.

6 notes · View notes

ausetkmt · 2 years

Text

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was incensed. Late last year, the state’s Republican legislature had drawn congressional maps that largely kept districts intact, leaving the GOP with only a modest electoral advantage.

DeSantis threw out the legislature’s work and redrew Florida’s congressional districts, making them far more favorable to Republicans. The plan was so aggressive that the Republican-controlled legislature balked and fought DeSantis for months. The governor overruled lawmakers and pushed his map through.

DeSantis' office has publicly stressed that partisan considerations played no role and that partisan operatives were not involved in the new map.

A ProPublica examination of how that map was drawn — and who helped decide its new boundaries — reveals a much different origin story. The new details show that the governor’s office appears to have misled the public and the state legislature and may also have violated Florida law.

DeSantis aides worked behind the scenes with an attorney who serves as the national GOP’s top redistricting lawyer and other consultants tied to the national party apparatus, according to records and interviews.

Florida’s constitution was amended in 2010 to prohibit partisan-driven redistricting, a landmark effort in the growing movement to end gerrymandering as an inescapable feature of American politics.

Barbara Pariente, a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court who retired in 2019, told ProPublica that DeSantis’ collaboration with people connected to the national GOP would constitute “significant evidence of a violation of the constitutional amendment.”

“If that evidence was offered in a trial, the fact that DeSantis was getting input from someone working with the Republican Party and who’s also working in other states — that would be very powerful,” said Pariente, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Democrat Lawton Chiles.

A meeting invite obtained by ProPublica shows that on Jan. 5, top DeSantis aides had a “Florida Redistricting Kick-off Call” with out-of-state operatives. Those outsiders had also been working with states across the country to help the Republican Party create a favorable election map. In the days after the call, the key GOP law firm working for DeSantis logged dozens of hours on the effort, invoices show. The firm has since billed the state more than $450,000 for its work on redistricting.

A week and a half after the call, DeSantis unveiled his new map. No Florida governor had ever pushed their own district lines before. His plan wiped away half of the state’s Black-dominated congressional districts, dramatically curtailing Black voting power in America’s largest swing state.

One of the districts, held by Democrat Al Lawson, had been created by the Florida Supreme Court just seven years before. Stretching along a swath of north Florida once dominated by tobacco and cotton plantations, it had drawn together Black communities largely populated by the descendants of sharecroppers and slaves. DeSantis shattered it, breaking the district into four pieces. He then tucked each fragment away in a majority-white, heavily Republican district.

DeSantis Broke Up Black-Dominated District and Put Its Pieces Into 4 Majority-White Districts Credit: Source: Redistricting Data Hub, IPUMS NHGIS

DeSantis’ strong-arming of his Republican allies was covered extensively by the Florida press. But until now, little has emerged about how the governor crafted his bold move and who his office worked with. To reconstruct DeSantis’ groundbreaking undertaking, ProPublica interviewed dozens of consultants, legislators and political operatives and reviewed thousands of pages of documents obtained through public records requests and from the nonpartisan watchdog group American Oversight.

DeSantis’ office did not respond to detailed questions for this story.

“Florida’s Governor fought for a legal map — unlike the gerrymandered plan the Governor rightly vetoed,” Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, whose top lawyer was hired by DeSantis’ office, said in an email to ProPublica. “If Governor DeSantis retained some of the best redistricting lawyers and experts in the country to advise him then that speaks to the good judgment of the Governor, not some alleged partisan motive.”

In four years as governor, DeSantis has championed an array of controversial policies and repeatedly used his power to punish his political opponents. A presumptive candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, he has often made moves that seemed tailored to attract headlines, such as his recent stunt sending migrants to Martha’s Vineyard. But it’s the governor’s less flashy commandeering of the redistricting process that may ultimately have the most long-lasting consequences.

Analysts predict that DeSantis’ map will give the GOP four more members of Congress from Florida, the largest gain by either party in any state. If the forecasts hold, Republicans will win 20 of Florida’s 28 seats in the upcoming midterms — meaning that Republicans would control more than 70% of the House delegation in a state where Trump won just over half of the vote.

The reverberations of DeSantis’ effort could go beyond Florida in another way. His erasure of Lawson’s seat broke long-held norms and invited racial discrimination lawsuits, experts said. Six political scientists and law professors who study voting rights told ProPublica it’s the first instance they’re aware of where a state so thoroughly dismantled a Black-dominated district. If the governor prevails against suits challenging his map, he will have forged a path for Republicans all over the country to take aim at Black-held districts.

Al Lawson’s district, now wiped away by DeSantis, had been created in response to an earlier episode of surreptitious gerrymandering in Florida.

Twelve years ago, Florida became one of the first states to outlaw partisan gerrymandering. Through a ballot initiative that passed with 63% of the vote, Florida citizens enshrined the so-called Fair Districts amendment in the state constitution. The amendment prohibited drawing maps with “the intent to favor or disfavor a political party.” It also created new protections for minority communities, in a state that’s 17% Black, forming a backstop as the U.S. Supreme Court chipped away at the federal Voting Rights Act.

Josiah Walls was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida in 1870

Thanks to distorted maps, Florida did not elect a second Black representative to Congress until 1992. That year, a federal court created three plurality-Black districts in Florida — and then three Black politicians won seats in the U.S. House.

After the Fair Districts amendment became law in 2010, state legislators promised to conduct what one called “the most transparent, open, and interactive redistricting process in America.” Policymakers went on tour across the state, hosting public hearings where their constituents could learn about the legislature’s decision-making and voice their concerns.

The hearings also served a more nefarious purpose, a judge would later rule. They were instrumental in what state circuit judge Terry Lewis described as “a conspiracy to influence and manipulate the Legislature into a violation of its constitutional duty.”

For months, a team of state-level Republican operatives worked in secret to craft maps that favored the GOP, coordinating with both statehouse leadership and the Republican National Committee. Then they recruited civilians to attend the hearings and submit the maps as their own.

An email detailed the advice the operatives gave their recruits. “Do NOT identify oneself orally or in writing,” it read, “as a part of the Republican party. It is more than OK to represent oneself as just a citizen.”

It took years of litigation for the details of the scheme to come to light. But in 2015, the Florida Supreme Court responded with force. In a series of rulings that ultimately rejected the Republicans’ efforts, the court laid out the stringent new requirements under Fair Districts, making clear that partisan “practices that have been acceptable in the past” were now illegal in the state of Florida.

After ruling that the legislature’s process was unconstitutional, the court threw out the Republicans’ congressional district lines and imposed a map of their own. That is how Lawson’s district came to be.

The amendment took on even greater significance in 2019, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on redistricting.

The court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause barred federal court challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said it was not an issue for the federal judiciary to decide, but emphasized the ruling did not “condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void.”

In fact, the issue was being actively addressed at the state level, Roberts wrote. He cited Florida’s amendment and one of Pariente’s opinions. Responding to liberal justices who wanted to reject Rucho’s map as an unconstitutional gerrymander, Roberts wrote they could not because “there is no ‘Fair Districts Amendment’ to the Federal Constitution.”

In 2021, state legislative leaders were more careful.

The senate instructed its members to “insulate themselves from partisan-funded organizations” and others who might harbor partisan motivations, reminding legislators that a court could see conversations with outsiders as evidence of unconstitutional intent. The legislature imposed stringent transparency requirements, like publishing emails that it received from constituents. And they ordered their staff to base their decisions exclusively on the criteria “adopted by the citizens of Florida.”

The Senate leadership “explained to us at the beginning of the session that because of what happened last cycle, everything had to go through the process,” Sen. Joe Gruters, who is also chairman of the Florida Republican Party, told ProPublica.

In November, the state senate proposed maps that largely stuck to the status quo. Analysts predicted they would give Republicans 16 seats in Congress and Democrats 12.

DeSantis wasn’t satisfied. “The governor’s office was very pissed off about the map. They thought it was weak,” said a well-connected Florida Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so he could be candid. “They thought it was ridiculous to not even try to make it as advantageous as possible.”

In early January, DeSantis’ deputy chief of staff, Alex Kelly, was quietly assigned to oversee a small team that would devise an alternative proposal, according to Kelly’s later testimony.

State employees often spend years preparing for the redistricting process — time that DeSantis did not have. As Kelly and his colleagues set to work, they brought in critical help from the D.C. suburbs: Jason Torchinsky, a Republican election attorney and one of the leading GOP strategists for redistricting nationwide.

On Jan. 5, Kelly and two other top DeSantis aides had the redistricting “kick-off call,” according to the meeting invite, which was provided to ProPublica by American Oversight. The invitation included Torchinsky and another guest from out of state: Thomas Bryan, a redistricting specialist.

In an interview with ProPublica, Bryan explained the connection between the national Republican Party and his work with DeSantis. “There’s a core group of attorneys that works with the party and then they work with specific states,” he said. “It’s not a coincidence that I worked on Texas, Florida, Virginia, Kansas, Michigan, Alabama.”

A top partner at a conservative law firm, Torchinsky has represented the RNC, the Republican Party of Florida and many of America’s most influential right-wing groups, such as the Koch network’s Americans for Prosperity.

He also occupies a central role in the Republican Party’s efforts to swing Congress in its favor in 2022. Torchinsky is the general counsel and senior advisor to the National Republican Redistricting Trust, the entity the Republican National Committee helped set up to manage the party’s redistricting operations.

The NRRT boasts millions of dollars in funding and a roster of prominent advisors that includes Mike Pompeo and Karl Rove. Earlier this year, Kincaid, the trust’s executive director, summarized its objective bluntly: “Take vulnerable incumbents off the board, go on offense and create an opportunity to take and hold the House for the decade.”

In a statement to ProPublica, Kincaid said that the trust is one of Torchinsky’s many clients and that the lawyer’s work in Florida was separate: “When I would ask Jason what was happening in Florida, he would tell me his conversations were privileged.” Kincaid added that he personally did not speak with anyone in the DeSantis administration “during this redistricting cycle.”

Torchinsky held repeated meetings with DeSantis’ team as the group crafted maps and navigated the ensuing political battles, according to documents obtained by ProPublica. And he brought in other operatives who’d worked around the country in priority states for the national GOP.

A week after the kickoff meeting, Torchinsky scheduled a Zoom call between Kelly, Bryan and a second consultant, Adam Foltz.

Foltz and Bryan arrived in Florida just as they were becoming go-to mapmakers for the GOP. They appeared together in multiple states where the NRRT was directly involved last year, generating controversy in their wake.

In Texas, Foltz, Bryan and the NRRT’s leader, Kincaid, all worked behind the scenes helping draw maps, court records show. After they finished, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas, contending that the map violated the Voting Rights Act and illegally diluted Black and Latino votes. The case is still pending.

In a statement, Kincaid said Foltz and Bryan are not partisan operatives and “the Virginia Supreme Court erred” in rejecting them. He also downplayed his own relationship to the consultants, saying they are not “employees or retained consultants” for his group.

“Adam and Tom are two of the best political demographers in the country,” Kincaid wrote. “It would only make sense that states looking for redistricting experts would retain them.”

Until last year, Foltz had spent his entire career working in Wisconsin politics, on state GOP campaigns and for Republican state legislators, according to court records. He was introduced to redistricting a decade ago when he spent months helping craft maps that became notoriously effective Republican gerrymanders. When he testified under oath that partisanship played no role in the Wisconsin process, a three-judge panel dismissed his claim as “almost laughable.”

Bryan was also a new figure on the national stage. Before 2020, he was a “bit player” in the redistricting industry, he said, running a small consulting company based in Virginia. He’d drawn maps for school districts and for local elections, but never for Congress, and he held a second job in consumer analytics at a large tobacco conglomerate.

“In 2020, my phone started going off the hook, with states either asking to retain me as an expert or to actually draw the lines,” Bryan told ProPublica. “I get phone calls from random places, and I’m on the phone with a governor.” While he mostly worked with Republicans, he was also retained by Illinois Democrats this cycle, according to court records.

According to Kelly’s subsequent testimony, Foltz drew the map himself.

“I was completely blindsided,” said Rep. Geraldine Thompson, a Democrat on the House redistricting committee. “That is the purview of the legislature.”

Foltz declined an interview when reached by phone and did not respond to subsequent requests for comment. Kelly and Torchinsky, who went on to defend DeSantis in a lawsuit against the redistricting, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

The House redistricting subcommittee later brought Kelly in to answer questions about DeSantis’ proposals. Before the deputy chief of staff testified, the Democrats’ ranking member moved to place him under oath. Republican legislators blocked the committee from swearing Kelly in.

In his opening statement, Kelly took pains to emphasize that the governor’s office colored within the lines of the Florida constitution.

“I can confirm that I've had no discussions with any political consultant,” he testified. “No partisan operative. No political party official.”

This appears to have been misleading. By the time he testified, Kelly had been personally invited to at least five calls to discuss redistricting with Torchinsky, Bryan or Foltz, records show.

Kelly mentioned Foltz only briefly in his testimony. Torchinsky and Bryan’s names didn’t come up.

DeSantis holds as much sway in Tallahassee as any governor in recent memory. But even after he publicly weighed in with a map of his own, Republicans in the legislature didn’t bow down. The state Senate refused to even consider the governor’s version. In late January, they passed their original plan.

DeSantis’ aides argued that Lawson’s district was an “unconstitutional gerrymander,” extending recent precedent that limits states’ ability to deliberately protect Black voting power.

Florida Republicans were skeptical. House Speaker Chris Sprowls told reporters that DeSantis was relying on a “novel legal argument” that lawmakers were unlikely to adopt.

On Feb. 11, DeSantis ratcheted up the pressure. He held a press conference reiterating his opposition to Lawson’s district. He vowed to veto any map that left it intact. But he still needed to win over Republican policymakers. Again, DeSantis’ top aides turned to Torchinsky.

In February, Torchinsky helped DeSantis’ staff pick out an expert witness to sell the governor’s vision to the legislature, according to emails provided to ProPublica by American Oversight. Once the group chose an expert, Torchinsky had a call with him in advance of his appearance.

With a deadline to prepare for the November midterms looming, the legislature moved toward compromise. In early March, it passed a new bill that was much closer to DeSantis’ version — but still kept a Democrat-leaning district with a large Black population in North Florida.

The governor’s attempts at persuasion were over.

On Mar. 28, Foltz and Kelly had another call, along with a partner at Torchinsky’s law firm. The next day, DeSantis vetoed the compromise plan.

Democrats were outraged; many Republicans were shocked. “A veto of a bill as significant as that was definitely surprising,” Gruters, the state senator and chair of the Florida GOP, told ProPublica.

Kelly soon submitted a slightly modified version of Foltz’s map to the legislature. This time, the legislature took DeSantis’ proposal and ran with it.

On Apr. 20, Rep. Thomas Leek, the Republican chair of the House redistricting committee, formally presented DeSantis’ plan before the general assembly. When his colleagues asked him who the governor’s staff consulted while drawing the map, Leek told them that he didn’t know.

The legislature had required everyone submitting a map to file a disclosure form listing the “name of every person(s), group(s), or organization(s) you collaborated with.” Kelly left the form blank.

The legislature voted on party lines and passed DeSantis’ proposal the next day. Anticipating litigation, they also allocated $1 million to defend the map in court.

Before DeSantis even signed the bill into law, a coalition of advocacy groups filed a lawsuit challenging the map in state court.

They soon scored a major victory. Circuit Court Judge J. Layne Smith, a DeSantis appointee, imposed a temporary injunction that would keep Lawson’s district intact through the midterm elections.

“This case is one of fundamental public importance, involving fundamental constitutional rights,” Smith wrote. His ruling cited the lengthy history of Black voter suppression in North Florida and across the state.

That victory was short-lived. Torchinsky’s firm quickly filed an appeal on DeSantis’ behalf. Then, in a unanimous decision in late May, the appellate court allowed DeSantis’ map to move ahead.

The higher court’s opinion was authored by Adam Tanenbaum, a familiar face in Tallahassee. Until DeSantis appointed him to the court in 2019, Tanenbaum was the Florida House’s general counsel, and before that he was general counsel to the Florida Department of State — both of which were parties to the case.

The very day Tanenbaum issued the opinion, he completed an application to fill a vacancy on the Florida Supreme Court, records show. In Florida, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor, in this case DeSantis.

Tanenbaum was not chosen for the position. He didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The broader case is still pending and is expected to eventually be decided by the state supreme court. Every justice on Florida’s supreme court was appointed by Republicans. The majority of them were chosen by DeSantis.

The deeply conservative body has already demonstrated its willingness to overturn precedent that’s only a few years old. DeSantis’ senior aides have indicated they hope it will do so here.

During his public testimony, Kelly was asked how Lawson’s district could be unconstitutional when it was recently created by Florida’s highest court.

Kelly responded tersely: “The court got it wrong.”

#florida #florida Black Voters #Florida disinfranchised Black Voters #desantis #gop lies #gerimandering #republicans are liars #florida supreme court #Al Lawson #Black life in florida #BlackVotes Matter #Black Voters Matter #Black Voting Matters

9 notes · View notes

hypefreshblogs · 23 days

Text

Florida's marijuana laws could change in November!

Sunshine State Says "Maybe to Mary Jane"? Florida votes on legal weed this November. Is a recreational future on the horizon? Find out!

#marijuana #Florida #misdemeanor #Florida Supreme Court

0 notes

cannabisbusinessexecutive · 7 months

Text

Florida recreational marijuana initiative goes to state Supreme Court. Here's what to know

With more than a million valid signatures, a recreational marijuana legalization initiative seems poised to pop up on Florida’s 2024 ballot, but it has one last hurdle to clear — a legal challenge from state Attorney General Ashley Moody. Moody filed the challenge against the measure asking the Florida Supreme Court to invalidate it on the grounds that voters wouldn’t be able to discern the…

View On WordPress

#florida marijuana #Florida Supreme Court #Legal Marijuana #recreational marijuana

0 notes

ronnienews · 1 year

Link

#florida supreme court #ron desantis #covid-19 vaccine #pfizer #moderna

0 notes

kp777 · 2 years

Link

#florida #ron desantis #florida supreme court #renatha francis

0 notes

shinobicyrus · 2 months

Text

This week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel "goes on expensive fishing trips with republican megadonors" Alito decided to use an official Supreme Court order to once again rail against same-sex marriage and the entire concept of safeguarding queer rights.

It was all in response to a case the Supreme Court declined to hear involving the dismissal of 3 potential jurors who claimed that they had been unfairly passed over (yes they're complaining about not being selected for jury duty) due to their religious beliefs. The case involved a woman who was suing her employer for sexual discrimination and retaliation after she started dating the ex-girlfriend of a male coworker. The 3 potential jurors that had not been selected had stated a belief to the court that homosexuality is a sin.

Rather than commenting on the obvious bias three potential jurors had against a party in the case, Alito instead spent five pages ranting about the sheer injustice that had been done to them. The case, he said, fully exemplified the "danger" that he'd predicted back in 2015, when the Supreme Court had legalized same sex marriage nationwide (in a slim 5-4 vote, I will remind):

"Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homo-sexual conduct will be labeled as bigots and treated as such by the government."

Again this was a case in which a court ultimately decided that maybe people who believed that homosexuals were sinful shouldn't sit on a case in which one of the parties was one such "sinner." That sounds pretty fair to me; they didn't call them bigots, or evil, or throw them in jail. The court just decided that maybe they weren't a good fit for that particular case. For that particular plaintiff.

But no, a Supreme Court Justice, someone who is supposed to be a scholar of law, turned it in his mind into a government assault against "people of good will."

Never forget how narrow that marriage equality decision had been. Never forget Alito and Thomas are still salty about it 9 years later and have stated in public multiple times they want to revisit this decision. Just like Roe, just like Miranda Rights, just like the Voting Rights Act - they will gut civil rights and established precedent on the altar of their Originalism and make us beholden to the tenets of their personal Gods.

And they're doing it in public too, so they can signal to everyone who thinks like them to keep trying, you have friends here. You have a sure chance of victory.

At the very least, the lesbian with mad game won her case.

#Samuel Alito is still an Originalist Piece of Shit #Supreme Court #US Supreme Court #Homophobia #Religious Liberty #is just just draping your beliefs with a cloak of righteousness #where are court cases against cities that make it illegal to feed the hungry and homeless?#where are the court cases against Texas or Florida about the dignity of refugees?#why does ''Religious Liberty'' always mean ''My right to treat people like Less Because God Says So''#and nothing about values Jesus actually talked about?#all they want the law to do is protect themselves and THEIR interests - and bind everyone else #Christian Nationalism #Originalism

218 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 8 months

Text

A circuit judge in Leon County, which includes the capital of Florida, has struck down Ron DeSantis's gerrymandered US House map for Florida.

A judge in Florida has ruled in favor of voting rights groups that filed a lawsuit against a congressional redistricting map approved by Ron DeSantis in 2022. Voting rights groups had criticized the map for diluting political power in Black communities. In the ruling, Leon county circuit judge J Lee Marsh sent the map back to the Florida legislature to be redrawn in a way that complies with the state’s constitution. “Under the stipulated facts (in the lawsuit), plaintiffs have shown that the enacted plan results in the diminishment of Black voters’ ability to elect their candidate of choice in violation of the Florida constitution,” Marsh wrote in the ruling. The ruling is expected to be appealed by the state, likely putting the case before the Florida supreme court.

DeSantis had rejected a somewhat gerrymandered map his rubber stamp legislature had drawn and insisted that it pass his super-gerrymandered alternative instead. That's the map Judge Marsh threw out.

I don't know how independent the Florida Supreme Court is these days, but that looks like the next stop for this case.

The lawsuit focused on a north Florida congressional district previously represented by the Democrat Al Lawson, who is Black. Lawson’s district was carved up into districts represented by white Republicans. DeSantis vetoed a map that initially preserved Lawson’s district in 2022, submitting his own map and calling a special legislative session demanding state legislators accept it. Judge Marsh rejected claims from Florida Republicans that the state’s provision against weakening or eliminating minority-dominant districts violated the US constitution. “This is a significant victory in the fight for fair representation for Black Floridians,” said Olivia Mendoza, director of litigation and policy for the National Redistricting Foundation, an affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, in a statement. “As a result, the current discriminatory map should be replaced with a map that restores the fifth congressional district in a manner that gives Black voters the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.” In 2022, the Florida Legislative Black Caucus labeled the DeSantis-approved congressional map as voter suppression. The map resulted in Florida Republicans picking up four congressional seats in the state, increasing Republican representatives from 16 to 20 out of 28 seats and helping Republicans seal a slim majority in the House in 2022.

Of course DeSantis will complain that permitting fair representation is "woke" and may try to get Judge Marsh fired in retaliation for the ruling.

For fair representation nationally, consider supporting the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Home - National Democratic Redistricting Committee

#florida #gerrymandering #ron desantis #us house of representatives #florida legislature #leon county #j lee marsh #florida supreme court #unconstitutional desantis map #al lawson #african americans #national democratic redistricting committee #fair representation #election 2024

5 notes · View notes

rapeculturerealities · 29 days

Text

Florida Supreme Court Allows 6-Week Abortion Ban, but Voters Will Weigh In - The New York Times

The Florida Supreme Court overturned decades of legal precedent on Monday in ruling that the State Constitution’s privacy protections do not extend to abortion, effectively allowing Florida to ban the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

But in a separate decision released at the same time, the justices allowed Florida voters to decide this fall whether to expand abortion access. The court ruled unanimously that a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right to abortion “before viability,” usually around 24 weeks, could go on the November ballot.

#Florida #supreme court #Abortion #Reproductive rights

14 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

While addressing a gathering of law enforcement officers on Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said he hopes to change state law to make it easier to execute convicted criminals.

Calling it "one of the things we have to address," DeSantis said that a "supermajority" of jurors ought to be sufficient to sentence someone to death.

"If just one juror vetoes it, then you end up not getting the sentence," DeSantis said during remarks delivered at the Florida Sheriffs Association Conference. "Maybe eight out of 12 have to agree, or something, but we can't be in a situation where one person can just derail this."

youtube

DeSantis was expressing his frustration with the decision of a jury in November to sentence Nikolas Cruz, who killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, to life in prison rather than handing down the death penalty. Despite the governor's description of the jury, FloridaPolitics.com notes that there were three jurors, not just one, who refused to impose the death penalty.

Prior to 2016, Florida allowed juries to impose the death penalty with as little as a 7-to-5 majority. That changed after the state Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that "the jury's recommended sentence of death must be unanimous" in order to comport with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. In a separate case decided at the same time, the state's high court invalidated a newly passed law that would have allowed the death penalty if 10 of the 12 jurors recommended it.

A year later, the state legislature and then–Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, approved a new law requiring unanimous juries in death penalty decisions.

While DeSantis' remarks on Monday were somewhat vague, it would appear the Governor is preparing to revisit the territory staked out by that overturned 2016 law that would have allowed supermajority juries to recommend the death penalty.

He may face a more welcoming legal environment now, as the Florida Supreme Court in 2020 overturned its own ruling in that 2016 death penalty case. So while the state law requiring unanimous juries in death penalty decisions remains in force, the state's high court has signaled that convicts can once again be sentenced to death by non-unanimous juries.

Returning to a situation in which non-unanimous juries can impose the death penalty would make Florida a serious outlier in terms of capital punishment policy. Of the 30 states where the death penalty remains on the books, only Alabama allows a judge to impose the sentence with less than a majority of the jury agreeing—there, at least 10 jurors must vote for the death penalty, a higher threshold than what DeSantis suggested he'd like to see in Florida. The state would also be an outlier when compared with the standard required for federal death penalty cases, which must have a unanimous recommendation from the jury.

There's no doubt that the outcome of the Parkland shooter's trial elicited strong emotional responses from those closely affected by it. "There are certain crimes where any punishment other than [the death penalty] just doesn't fit the crime," DeSantis said Monday. "So I was very disappointed to see that."

But strong emotions are not the best guides for policy making—and that's especially true in situations where the stakes are quite literally life and death. As Reason's CJ Ciaramella noted in 2020, Florida has had more exonerations of death row inmates than any other state in the country: roughly one for every three executions carried out. That ought to inspire more humility, not aggressiveness, in deciding when the state should be allowed to kill.

Perhaps DeSantis has a more rational argument for changing Florida's death penalty laws to make it easier for the state to kill convicted criminals, but the case he outlined on Monday seems more based on vengeance than on justice.

#us politics #news #reason #2023 #Florida #gov. ron desantis #capital punishment #death sentence #Florida Sheriffs Association Conference #YouTube #videos #Forbes #FloridaPolitics.com #8th amendment #florida supreme court #conservatives #republicans #gop #death penalty

10 notes · View notes

gwydionmisha · 5 months

Text

#Ron DeSantis #Florida #Drag Ban #Supreme Court #1st Amandment #News

21 notes · View notes

dontmean2bepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

After debate citing indoctrination and Nazis, Miami-Dade School Board rejects LGBTQ month

After listening to more than three hours of angry debate, with one side likening the measure to student indoctrination and the other talking about how Nazis ostracized gays and lesbians with a pink triangle, the Miami-Dade School Board voted late Wednesday evening to slap down a measure recognizing October as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer History Month and teaching 12th graders about two landmark Supreme Court cases impacting the LGBTQ communities.

The vote was 8-1 with board member Lucia Baez Geller, who proffered the item, the only one voting for the measure.

The vote brought out droves of parents, teachers and students — along with a contingent of Proud Boys, who got in a loud argument with a person hoisting a trans flag outside the School Board headquarters at 1450 NE Second Ave. in downtown Miami. Throughout Wednesday, about 35 to 45 people stood in line in the afternoon sun outside the building, waiting to enter to make their comments known.

A person waving a transgender flag stands in front of a group of Proud Boys outside a contentious Miami-Dade School Board meeting discussing whether to recognize October as LGBTQ+ History Month in schools on Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2022, at the board’s headquarters in downtown Miami. Sommer Brugal [email protected]

“There is an election year and the anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric is a tool used by some to spread misinformation,” said board member Lucia Baez Geller. “This is just plain disinformation.”

Baez Geller’s proposal called for recognizing October as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) History Month and teaching 12th graders about two Supreme Court landmark decisions — Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (recognizing same-sex marriage) and Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020 (finding an employer can’t fire someone for being gay or transgender).

The school district recognizes many months throughout the school year to teach students about history, whether it be about Hispanic heritage, Black history or women’s history. October is National LGBT History Month.

A woman looks up at Maxx Fenning while he speaks in support of the Miami-Dade School Board designating October as LGBTQ+ History Month. Fenning, president and founder of PRISM FL, a nonprofit organization that provides sexual health information to LGBTQ+ youth, wore a pink triangle as he likened opposition to the measure to how Nazis ostracized gay people, making them wear a pink triangle badge to reflect their sexual orientation. Alie Skowronski [email protected]

Ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, Baez Geller said the measure “is mostly to recognize the dignity and the respect for each other.” On Wednesday, she noted that 12th graders could opt out of learning about the two Supreme Court cases.

Alex Serrano, director of the Miami-Dade chapter of County Citizens Defending Freedom, speaks against recognizing LGBTQ History Month in October in Miami-Dade Public Schools at the School Board meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2022. The group fought the School Board over a sex-education textbook that the board first banned, then reinstated in a second vote. Serrano has no children in Miami-Dade Public Schools. He sends his children to Centner Academy, a Miami private school with a controversial anti-COVID-19 vaccination agenda. Alie Skowronski [email protected]

Last year, the Board voted 7-1 to recognize October as (LGBTQ) month, but last year’s measure did not include the provision to add the two Supreme Court cases to the 12th grade coursework.

Around 9:45 p.m. Wednesday, nearly six hours after the discussion first began — with a nearly one-hour break to hear about the district’s $7 billion budget in between — the Board finally voted. Those still in the audience cheered and clapped while others sat stoically after the 8-1 vote defeating the measure.

Before the vote, many who spoke in favor of the adoption, including numerous human rights organizations, argued a recognition would create a safe and reaffirming environment for students in the district. Many cited discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community and how many students struggle with mental health issues.

Maxx Fenning, president and founder of PRISM FL, a nonprofit organization that provides sexual health information to LGBTQ+ youth, likened those who wanted to block the measure to how Nazis ostracized gay people, making them wear a pink badge to reflect their sexual orientation.

“LGBTQ history is American history,’’ he said, noting if he were alive when the Nazis were in power, he would have been forced to wear the pink triangle badge that he wore on his shirt as he spoke.

Another man, who was a product of Miami-Dade Public Schools, urged the board members to pass the measure, noting he did not want students to feel the isolation that he did when he was a gay student in school decades ago.

“I can tell you as a gay child, I felt completely alone,’’ he said.

Those who opposed the measure said it went against their religious beliefs and that the board was abiding in the indoctrination and sexual abuse of children. Some, however, falsely claimed that the measure would adopt new curriculum for students to learn about LGBTQ+ issues. They said it was a gateway to speaking with students about LGBTQ+ topics without parental consent.

Max Tover, a pastor and parent in the district, led those outside in a prayer, asking that the board members reject the motion. In speaking to the Herald, he said passing the measure is “a Trojan Horse.” His friend, who wouldn’t provide his name, said talking about the law equates to child abuse.

During the public comment period, parent after parent who opposed the measure used the term “indoctrination” when speaking against the measure, saying it was parents’ right to decide whether to teach their children about gay and lesbian rights, not teachers in public schools.

Baez Geller countered that the measure did not indoctrinate students nor did it take away parental choice, as many who opposed the measure cited the recently passed “Parental Rights in Education” law, which prohibits instruction related to gender identity or sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade. Those opposed to the law say it could potentially restrict such instruction for older kids and have called it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

Baez Geller reiterated that parents could opt out of the 12th-grade lessons on the Supreme Court cases, but noted that students already learn about other Supreme Court cases that have become the law of the land, and these two cases are no different, she said.

Shortly before the vote, Andrea S. Pita Mendez, the board’s student adviser, spoke in favor of the item, despite feeling scared to share how she felt and what she believed in after listening to the multiple hours of public comment. Nevertheless, she said, she was elected by her peers to represent the student body, which she said supported the item.

Moreover, she said, she disagreed with board member Lubby Navarro’s comments claiming parents were the district’s clients. Instead, she argued, students were the district’s clients.

130 notes · View notes