‘Staggering’ evidence of partisanship: Florida court hears arguments for blocking GOP gerrymander

Florida Republicans’ new gerrymandered congressional map violates a voter-approved state ban on partisan gerrymandering, voting advocates argued* Friday, asking a court to block the state from using the map in the 2026 elections.

While GOP state officials are defending the new gerrymander, their arguments also raise another concerning question: Will partisan gerrymandering — which Florida voters rejected in 2010 — remain unconstitutional in the state? 

Earlier this month, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a new congressional map designed to help Republicans gain up to four more seats in Congress. Rammed through the legislature, the measure was part of President Donald Trump’s push for GOP-led states to redraw their maps mid-decade to help Republicans maintain control of Congress during the 2026 midterm elections.

DeSantis has suggested the new map eliminates race-based redistricting in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which gutted the Voting Rights Act. At least, that’s what state attorneys focused on at Friday’s hearing. 

But DeSantis and his allies have sought to distract from what their opponents are actually arguing before the court: that the map represents a stark violation of the state ban on partisan gerrymanders.

The Florida Constitution clearly states that “[n]o apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”

In court filings, the plaintiffs argued that DeSantis had made the map’s partisan intent obvious.

In April, DeSantis “released the map exclusively to Fox News before transmitting it to a single Florida lawmaker,” the complaint states. “The map arrived from the Governor’s Office color-coded in red and blue, with 24 districts shaded red and four shaded blue. It was not a redistricting proposal dressed up in the language of neutral principles. It was a partisan declaration, and it was presented as one.”

The map was also drawn by a DeSantis staffer with no input from lawmakers or voters, and the legislature passed it without making any changes.

The question then becomes: Was the map drawn with partisan intent and, more importantly, is partisan gerrymandering still unlawful under the state’s constitution? That will depend on a DeSantis appointed judge, Joshua Hawkes of Florida’s Second Circuit Court, who held the temporary injunction hearing in three consolidated challenges to the map Friday. 

During the hearing, Hawkes signaled his skepticism towards the plaintiffs’ arguments and seemed to defend the intent of mapmaker Jason Poreda, a senior analyst in DeSantis’ administration who previously admitted to relying on partisan data while drawing the new district lines. 

Christina Ford, an attorney with the Elias Law Group representing a group of plaintiffs, argued that Poreda’s comments in a legislative hearing presented clear proof that the legislature had partisan intent, a violation of the state ban on gerrymandering.

“On partisan intent: The evidence here is staggering, and defendants barely attempt to rebut it,” Ford said. 

She noted that Poreda had admitted he did not draw the map in compliance with the Fair Districts Amendment, the voter-approved measure that established the state gerrymandering ban.

But the judge pushed back on Ford’s point. He said Poreda only admitted to ignoring the part of the provision banning redistricting that diminishes the ability of minorities to elect the candidate of their choice, not the section that prohibits partisan gerrymanders. 

That provision models the protections against vote dilution enshrined in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the exact provision that the Supreme Court significantly weakened in its Callais ruling. 

At the same time, Hawkes also seemed frustrated with the state’s arguments that Poreda’s comments on the purpose and intent for drawing the map did not represent the intent of the legislature when they voted in favor of the gerrymander.

Attorneys for the state also took aim at the Fair Districts Amendment in its entirety: In light of Callais, they said, the whole amendment is unconstitutional and should be struck down. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs countered that this was not relevant to the case. 

If it so chose, they said, the court could sever the amendment — striking down the provision on vote diminishment, while upholding the prohibition on partisan gerrymanders and blocking the new gerrymander for the midterms.

Hawkes is expected to rule quickly in the case.

*The Elias Law Group (ELG) is representing plaintiffs in the case. ELG Firm Chair Marc Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket.