Here’s the problem with this. It’s in a federal court, this federal judge will make a ruling, but the judge will not be ruling on any federal issue. the judge will base their decision on state law. I know many will say “so what”, but the proper thing for this judge to do if they are not going to rule on any federal issue, is to tell the plaintiff they’re in the wrong venue and they need to file in state court. there is no need for this judge to rule on this issue if its not a federal issue.
No it’s the right court. It’s a Desantis appointed Judge in the 2nd circuit court of Florida.
3 Likes
Probably quickly be overturned.
It’s funny - the caption of your link says “federal judge” - and yet, when you click the link it says “Florida judge” in the same place.
Further research confirms that Judge Layne Smith is not a Federal court judge, but a Judge of Florida’s 2nd Circuit.
@Ben_Natuf, did you get suckered? It sure seems so.
3 Likes
The following two sections are from Article III (Legislature) of the Florida Constitution, adopted by the voters of the State of Florida in 2010, overwhelmingly I might add.
SECTION 20. Standards for establishing congressional district boundaries.—In establishing congressional district boundaries:
(a) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.
(b) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection 1(a) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.
(c) The order in which the standards within subsections 1(a) and (b) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.
History.—Proposed by Initiative Petition filed with the Secretary of State September 28, 2007; adopted 2010.
1Note.—The subsections of section 20, as it appeared in Amendment No. 6, proposed by Initiative Petition filed with the Secretary of State September 28, 2007, and adopted in 2010, were designated (1)-(3); the editors redesignated them as (a)-(c) to conform to the format of the State Constitution.
SECTION 21. Standards for establishing legislative district boundaries.—In establishing legislative district boundaries:
(a) No apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.
(b) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection 1(a) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.
(c) The order in which the standards within subsections 1(a) and (b) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.
History.—Proposed by Initiative Petition filed with the Secretary of State September 28, 2007; adopted 2010.
1Note.—The subsections of section 21, as it appeared in Amendment No. 5, proposed by Initiative Petition filed with the Secretary of State September 28, 2007, and adopted in 2010, were designated (1)-(3); the editors redesignated them as (a)-(c) to conform to the format of the State Constitution.
The PEOPLE of Florida spoke LOUDLY and CLEARLY in 2010. The PEOPLE of the State of Florida gave a DIRECT ORDER to the Governor and Legislature to behave as described in the quoted sections.
The Judge’s (a DESANTIS APPOINTEE I might add) decision is absolutely 100% in line with the command given by the People of Florida as outlined in the above sections.
If the Judge’s decision is overturned on appeal, it will be an act of Judicial activism on par with Roe v Wade and similar liberal activist decisions.
The People of Florida spoke loudly in 2010. It is the duty of the Governor, Legislature and Judiciary to obey the two sections of the Constitution added by the People.
The Judge indicates he will likely choose the original Legislative plan, adopted by the Legislature, but vetoed by DeSantis, which is an appropriate remedy. It both defers to the Legislature and the original plan is in accordance with the two quoted sections of the Florida Constitution.
2 Likes
The problem with this is you didn’t read or you didn’t understand your source.
It gave you a couple of big clues in the title and the first paragraph…
Who told you this was a federal judge? You didn’t come up with that on your own.
1 Like
And to be fair that just sounds like an excuse for someone who didn’t bother to read the article themselves.
A bona fide regurgibleeter. 
2 Likes
I’m curious, how will this judge (federal or otherwise) rule in favor of plaintiffs claim the redistricting “disperses” black voters? Are any white, brown or pink voters “dispersed”? Are there only black voters within this district?
lol… jokes on me. you’re right. i swear this story said federal judge when i posted it.
apparently the story was corrected. yeah, jokes on me.
you should actually research the issue, the complaint here is that the district in question isn’t gerrymandered enough. they want all the black votes put into the same district to guarantee a black representative.
this case is ultimately a loser.
1 Like
Looks like FOX was the victim of auto-correct … Florida Judge came out Federal Judge. 
I see the web site has corrected that now.
(a) No apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.
It has long been permissible and indeed REQUIRED under the Voting Rights Act to draw minority majority districts, even if a reasonable amount of gerrymandering is required to do so.
Eliminating two minority majority districts is simply not going to fly, either under the Fair Districts Amendments or the Voting Rights Act.
The State Legislature got it right with their original proposal which DeSantis vetoed.
And the map creates a 20 to 8 Republican advantage which is about as blatant a violation of the Fair Districts Amendments as it is possible to get.
If the original State Legislative plan is imposed by the Judge, Republicans will still have a distinct advantage in number of seats.
This DeSantis Judge is displaying judicial independence and respect for the rule of law. He is upholding the voter passed Fair Districts Amendments and by extension the Voting Rights Act.
The Fair Districts Amendments clearly require the result which the Judge reached.
this plan will fly.
Fox was the victim of auto-correct. Not this thread.
That’s exactly what I said.
This is the map approved by the Florida State Judge. Outside of restoring the black district in northern Florida, it does not make a whole lot of changes.
The only Districts affected are 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. District 5 is restored to black majority. Ironically, that will make 2, 3, 4 & 6 even more Republican. Republicans lose exactly ONE seat as a result of this court order, District 5.
This map will likely be used ONLY for 2022, as this case will proceed to trial on the merits and the final issuing of a broader remedy, but not in time for 2022.
I can’t say Republicans really have anything to complain about with this map. It still leaves them with the vast majority of the marbles.
whats wrong with this map is a judge is not the body authorized to set congressional districts. the complaint here is that district 5 was not gerrymandered enough to protect one party and one race. this is a loser.
