Mark Lane: Was Daytona’s redistricting illegal? ACLU has a case
A lawsuit challenging Daytona Beach’s district map could shake up that city’s commission makeup.
The suit, filed Jan. 16 in Circuit Court by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida on behalf of five city residents, says the city’s commission districts were tailored for incumbents, something that runs afoul of a new anti-gerrymandering law.
The litigants are asking for new district lines and special elections for commissioners under a new map. A big ask.
Until last year, it was common for those drawing local district lines to accommodate current officeholders. To keep sitting officeholders in their familiar district and avoid forcing any two incumbents to compete in a new district.
The state constitution doesn’t extend the same courtesy in legislative and congressional district mapping. “No apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent,” declares the Fair Districts Amendment approved by voters in 2010. Not that it isn’t done. It just can’t be done openly.
More: ACLU sues Daytona Beach, saying redistricting was driven by protecting incumbents
Cities, counties and school districts, however, have been free to adjust their boundaries to benefit officeholders. At least, they were until last year when a new anti-gerrymandering law (HB 411) went into effect.
In language similar to the earlier constitutional amendment, the new law says, “Districts may not be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a candidate . . . or an incumbent member of the governing body based on the candidate’s or incumbent’s residential address.”
Any districting plan enacted after July 1, 2023, that was drawn to accommodate incumbents is void under the new law. Daytona Beach enacted its plan on July 5, 2023. So close.
This was a little-noticed but major change in state law. One that opened local redistricting efforts to new legal challenges.
The state ACLU said this is its first court challenge to a local districting plan under the new law. I don’t expect it will be the last.
And to be sure, Daytona Beach’s six commission district lines have gotten screwy, chopping up communities with clear common interests and identities. The beachside is divided among three districts, and Bethune-Cookman University straddles two districts as does Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
And while it’s at it, the suit also charges that commission approval of the new map violated the Sunshine Law. That’s because the map passed by the Commission last July was a tweaked version of the map that appeared in the public notice residents saw in the newspaper. At the time it was voted on, city staff said the changes didn’t affect enough people to require a new legal notice. The suit, however, maintains that changes to the map affected about 7,000 residents and should have triggered new notice.
On paper, a plain-language reading of the new law suggests that the five Daytona Beach residents bringing the suit have a strong case. Keeping the incumbents’ home addresses in their respective districts was an openly discussed goal when drawing the new district boundaries. Something that was standard practice in past local redistricting efforts but became illegal the week the Commission approved the new maps.
The court could very well order new elections. New elections that could change the lineup in City Hall. Stay tuned.
Mark Lane is a News-Journal columnist. His email is mlanewrites@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: Mark Lane: Was Daytona’s redistricting illegal? ACLU has a case
