In 2010, Floridians voted to approve the Florida Fair Districts Amendments to prevent gerrymandering and to ensure that legislative and congressional districts are drawn fairly, without favoring any elected official or party.

Under the U.S. Constitution, these districts are drawn every 10 years, after the completion of a U.S. Census. This constitutional mandate dictates how the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives must be divided among the states. This is called reapportionment. Redistricting follows, as states redraw district boundaries so representation is balanced within the state. Determining which neighborhoods are included in each mapped boundary impacts how communities are represented in the U.S. and local government and determines how resources are distributed. After the 2020 Census count, Florida gained a seat, moving from 27 to 28 districts, which triggered a new map.

Now, Gov. Ron DeSantis is advocating for mid-cycle redistricting, and the Florida House has created a select committee to address the issue. Critics are calling the move “unprecedented” in Florida and warn that it undermines the state constitution’s ban on partisan maps. They say that redistricting mid-decade without new census data ignores voters and undermines the Florida Constitution, setting a path of continuous political map drawing by whichever party is in power. This could erode confidence in elections, create instability and make it harder for voters to have consistent representation.

We spoke with Frank Alcock, professor of political science and environmental studies at New College of Florida, to learn more about what it is and why it matters. 

What is the legal foundation for redistricting?

"Our Constitution, Article I, Section 4, grants [redistricting] authority largely to state legislatures, broadly defined. That same elections clause also says Congress can set some boundaries, so states have to work within those rules. There’s also 'one person, one vote,' which has shaped our efforts. Congress requires a census, typically used once a decade for redistricting, and the objective is to make sure districts are balanced amid population changes. States may pick up or lose a congressional seat depending on the count. Cases from the early 1960s drive that standard—no district can be more than 10 percent larger than another. In 1964, in Georgia, one district had three times the population of another, and a U.S. Supreme Court struck it down.

"Although this once-a-decade cycle is the norm, nothing prohibits mid-decade redistricting. When it does occur, it’s typically not about balancing population but about partisan advantage through gerrymandering [the practice of dividing an area into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections].

"The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides some protection against racial gerrymandering, but its language leaves latitude for judicial interpretation and legislative discretion. It did not prevent the cracking of Florida’s former Fifth Congressional District [a mostly Black district in north Florida] or the elimination of a minority-majority district.

"On partisan gerrymandering, there are no federal legal protections. For decades, norms discouraged it, leading to a wave of state reforms, but those norms are collapsing, especially after Texas pushed mid-decade redistricting [this summer]. 

"Florida is one of the states where voters tried to hold the line. In 2010, 63 percent of the electorate approved the Fair Districts Amendments to the state constitution, explicitly prohibiting maps drawn for partisan advantage. Yet, enforcement is uncertain. "

What makes gerrymandering such a complex issue?

"The objective is to balance the population. But gerrymandering happens. The two types that overlap a lot are racial and partisan gerrymandering. There’s also incumbent gerrymandering, a quiet deal that allows finagling. With racial gerrymandering, the [federal] Voting Rights Act of 1965 constrains the ability of a state to dilute the power of a racial group, and a number of [states] got in trouble. That overlaps with partisan gerrymandering. But partisan gerrymandering doesn’t have explicit federal restrictions. States are guided by “best practices,” like contiguity, compactness, preserving communities of interest and following boundaries like lakes or counties. These are standards, not laws. What you see every 10 years is that whoever controls the state legislature tries to draw the lines for their team at the expense of the other, working within their own state guidelines."

When did mid-decade redistricting start?

"In 2003, Texas was the first state to redraw in mid-decade, and it was allowed. [Texas's mid-decade redistricting plan was enacted by the state legislature, and its legality was ultimately upheld by the U.S. federal courts.] There’s no prohibition against it. Normally, it happens after the census, but Texas proved you could do it anytime."

Hasn’t there been a push for fairness?

"Yes, there was a norm around fair elections that gained momentum in the early 2000s—a code of conduct to keep things fair. The momentum behind the norm led to the creation of redistricting commissions that were nonpartisan or bipartisan in some states as well as redistricting standards that were codified in state statutes and state constitutions. In Florida, in 2010, voters approved fair district amendments to the state constitution that provided fairness standards for the legislature to follow. These standards have been subjected to numerous lawsuits and judicial reviews that have tempered their impact.

So what’s happening now?

"In June, President Trump publicly said, 'Why don’t you find some seats in Texas?' knowing midterms would be close. The Texas governor acted, the legislature fell in line, Democrats fled to break quorum, but the maps went through anyway. There was no denying it was purely partisan. Technically, there’s no law against it. Texas decided it, and California’s commission pushed its own envelope under the banner of fairness. Now it’s a free-for-all. No one is even claiming to be fair. The gloves are off."

What about Florida’s recent maps?

"A year ago, Florida approved a map that eliminated a north Florida seat [District 5] designed to preserve minority representation. That kind of district is called a 'minority-majority' district. It stood. With a supermajority in the legislature, Republicans don’t even need to maneuver anymore. At the federal level, they might still try to grab a couple more seats."

What’s the rationale for mid-decade redistricting?

"States say the Constitution gives them the authority to do it whenever they want."

What’s the rationale against it?

"It collapses the norm of fair elections. It dilutes representation. Ten years ago, there was a strong public pushback against gerrymandering for political gain. That momentum has evaporated."

Where does this leave us?

"Across the country, the norm of fairness has collapsed. The movement of the 2000s to push back against partisan maps has evaporated. What happened in Texas shows the new reality: hyper-partisan redistricting, openly justified as a team strategy. Florida is part of that trend. Whether the courts step in or not, the gloves are off."