Click here to read more about redistricting in Florida after the 2020 census.
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Florida's 27 United States Representatives and 160 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4] Florida was apportioned 28 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, one more than it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Florida after the 2020 census. HIGHLIGHTS
On June 2, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court declined to block Florida's enacted congressional map, which Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law on April 22.[5] This map took effect for Florida's 2022 congressional elections. On March 3, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court approved new
legislative maps drawn by the Florida State Legislature. These maps took effect for Florida's 2022 legislative elections. Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census. See the sections below for further information on the following topics:
BackgroundThis section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions. Federal requirements for congressional redistrictingAccording to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[6][7]
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[9][10][11] The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[11] Federal requirements for state legislative redistrictingThe United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[11] State-based requirementsIn addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.
MethodsIn general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[13]
Gerrymandering In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district. The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[1][14] For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below. Show more The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[15] The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[16][17] Recent court decisionsSee also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United StatesThe Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation. For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below. Show more Gill v. Whitford (2018)See also: Gill v. WhitfordIn Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[18] Cooper v. Harris (2017)See also: Cooper v. HarrisIn Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[19][20][21] Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)See also: Evenwel v. AbbottEvenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[22][23][24][25] Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting CommissionHarris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[27][28] Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting CommissionArizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[29][30][31][32] Race and ethnicitySee also: Majority-minority districtsSection 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."
States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Florida was home to nine congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4] Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4] Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4] State processSee also: State-by-state redistricting proceduresIn Florida, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. Congressional lines are adopted as regular legislation and are subject to gubernatorial veto. State legislative lines are passed via joint resolution and are not subject to gubernatorial veto. State legislative district maps are automatically submitted to the Florida Supreme Court for approval. In the event that the court rejects the lines, the legislature is given a second chance to draft a plan. If the legislature cannot approve a state legislative redistricting plan, the state attorney general must ask the state supreme court to draft a plan. There are no similar procedures in place for congressional districts.[34] The Florida Constitution requires that all districts, whether congressional or state legislative, be contiguous. Also, "where doing so does not conflict with minority rights, [districts] must be compact and utilize existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible." Districts cannot be drawn in such a way as to "favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent."[34][35] How incarcerated persons are counted for redistrictingSee also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistrictingStates differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Florida, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in. District mapsCongressional districtsSee also: United States congressional delegations from FloridaFlorida comprises 27 congressional districts. The map to the right depicts Florida's congressional district lines as drawn following the 2010 United States Census. The table below lists Florida's current House representatives.
State legislative mapsSee also: Florida State Senate and Florida House of RepresentativesFlorida comprises 40 state Senate districts and 120 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.[36] Redistricting by cycleRedistricting after the 2020 censusSee also: Redistricting in Florida after the 2020 censusFlorida was apportioned 28 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[37] Enacted congressional district mapsSee also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 censusOn June 2, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court declined to block Florida's enacted congressional map, which Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law on April 22.[5] This map took effect for Florida's 2022 congressional elections. The Florida First District Court of Appeal had reinstated the congressional district boundaries on May 20, overruling Leon County Circuit Court Judge Layne Smith's temporary hold on the map.[38][39] On May 11, Smith issued an order declaring Florida's enacted congressional map unconstitutional, saying, "The enacted map is unconstitutional under the Fair District amendment. It diminishes African-Americans’ ability to elect the representative of their choice." Smith also said a map drawn by a court-appointed special master should be substituted for the enacted map in the 2022 elections.[40] The plaintiffs in the case filed an emergency appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on May 23, 2022, seeking a hold on the enacted congressional map.[41] DeSantis signed the original congressional map into law on April 22, 2022.[42] The map bill was proposed and approved by the Florida State Legislature during a special session called for the purposes of redistricting. The Florida State Senate voted 24-15 to approve the map on April 20, and the Florida House of Representatives voted 68-34 to approve the map on April 21.[43][44] This was the second congressional map bill approved by the state legislature. DeSantis vetoed the first on March 29. Republican leaders in the legislature said on April 11 that they would wait to receive a map from DeSantis to support.[45] DeSantis submitted a map to the legislature on April 13, which became the enacted map.[46] Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. Florida Congressional Districtsbefore 2020 redistricting cycleClick a district to compare boundaries. Florida Congressional Districtsafter 2020 redistricting cycleClick a district to compare boundaries. ReactionsWhen DeSantis vetoed the initial map bill he wrote in a memo that "Congressional District 5 [Lawson's district] in both the primary and secondary maps enacted by the Legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it assigns voters primarily on the basis of race but is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest."[47] Florida Politics's Jacob Ogles wrote of the enacted map, "The most controversial change DeSantis made in his map, this new CD 4 really stands in as the replacement to the Lawson seat. [...] The Black population in Jacksonville gets cleaved in half by the St. Johns River after DeSantis vetoed a map drawn by the Florida House that created a Duval-only Black seat."[48] State Rep. Tracie Davis (D) said "You hate when we use the word disenfranchisement. You turn your back. You look the other way. But you have to realize that is exactly what this is: Gutting, now-CD 4 … leaves us simply without representation. It simply means that the Black population in Florida that lives north of the I-4 corridor, their voices will be diluted. Their power in this process simply washed away."[49] State Rep. Dotie Joseph (D) criticized the partisan makeup of the map, saying, "They basically stacked the deck 20-8 in favor of Republicans, so this allows this power-hungry GOP to continue to ignore the needs of the people of Florida by cheating."[50] Rep. Randy Fine (R) supported the enacted map, saying "When we guarantee that a group of people gets to select the candidate of their choice, what we’re saying is we are guaranteeing those who aren’t a part of that group gets no say."[51] Rep. Kaylee Tuck (R) said, "[DeSantis] publicly submitted maps, which is something that anybody can do. He’s allowed to do it. Every single member of the public was allowed to do it. And just because it’s different, doesn’t mean it’s bad. Just because it’s different, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s just different. The process was thorough, it was transparent. It was open. It was complete. It was constitutional. And it was good."[49] 2020 presidential resultsThe table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[52] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[53]
Enacted state legislative district mapsSee also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 censusOn March 3, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court approved new legislative maps drawn by the Florida State Legislature. These maps took effect for Florida's 2022 legislative elections. The maps were passed by the legislature as a joint resolution. The Florida State Senate voted 34-3 to approve the bill on January 20, and the Florida House of Representatives voted 77-39 to approve the bill on February 2.[54] Since the maps were passed as a joint resolution, they did not require the signature of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to become law. After the legislature approved the maps, they submitted them to Attorney General Ashley B. Moody (R), who then petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to review the maps on February 9.[55][56] State Senate mapBelow is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. Florida State Senate Districtsuntil November 7, 2022Click a district to compare boundaries. Florida State Senate Districtsstarting November 8, 2022Click a district to compare boundaries. State House mapBelow is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. Florida State House Districtsuntil November 7, 2022Click a district to compare boundaries. Florida State House Districtsstarting November 8, 2022Click a district to compare boundaries. ReactionsFollowing the legislative approval of the maps, Senate President Wilton Simpson (R) said, "Thank you to this body for the professionalism we brought to the process this year with redistricting. We can and should be very proud of the work we’ve done here today and we’ll see if the courts are equally as proud." State Rep. Geraldine Thompson (D) criticized the House map, saying "While we won’t show retrogression in terms of fewer minority seats, at the same time, unfortunately we won’t show progression — progress in terms of the participation of minority populations in this chamber."[57] Redistricting after the 2010 censusSee also: Redistricting in Florida after the 2010 censusCongressional redistricting, 2010Following the 2010 United States Census, Florida gained two congressional seats. In November 2010, voters approved two separate constitutional amendments establishing that congressional and state legislative districts must meet the following criteria (Amendment 6 applied to congressional districts; Amendment 5 applied to legislative districts):[58][59]
On February 9, 2012, the Republican-controlled state legislature approved new congressional lines. On February 16, 2012, the plan was signed into law. Legal challengesSee also: Florida Congressional District Boundaries, Amendment 6 (2010)
State legislative redistricting, 2010On February 9, 2012, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan via joint resolution. The Florida Supreme Court approved the state House map, but rejected the state Senate map. The legislature revised the state Senate map on March 27, 2012, and it was approved by the state supreme court. Legal challengesOn September 5, 2012, the League of Women Voters of Florida filed suit challenging the state Senate district map "on state constitutional grounds, including violations of state prohibitions on partisan gerrymandering, and requirements of compactness and adherence to political boundaries." The state filed a series of motions to dismiss in 2012 and 2013, but these were ultimately denied. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 15, 2015.[60][73] In autumn 2015, the Florida State Senate requested that the trial court appoint a redistricting expert to draw new state Senate district maps. On November 13, 2015, circuit court judge George Reynolds rejected this request, saying, "It appears to me that we just don't have enough time left to engage in any process, other than the one we are currently on. I do that with some reluctance because I could use all the help that I can get in making this decision." Reynolds ordered that the trial, scheduled to begin on December 14, 2015, go on as scheduled. In addition, Reynolds ordered that proposed district maps be submitted to the court by November 18, 2015.[74][75] On December 21, 2015, Reynolds approved a new state Senate district map. The adopted remedial map was proposed by "a coalition of voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters of Florida." The remedial map can be accessed here.[76][77] State legislation and ballot measuresRedistricting legislationThe following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Florida state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan. Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently. Redistricting ballot measuresSee also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Florida ballot measuresBallotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Florida.
Political impacts of redistrictingCompetitivenessThere are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[78] In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[79] In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[80] In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[81] State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycleSee also: Margin of victory in state legislative electionsIn 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article. There were 14 competitive elections for the Florida House of Representatives in 2012, compared to four in 2010. There were 10 mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to two in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of 18 competitive elections. Recent newsThe link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Florida. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles. See also
External links
Footnotes
What is the most likely explanation for the shape of this district?What is the most likely explanation for a congressional district to change shape? The district was drawn to the advantage of the party in control of the state legislature.
Which of the following is an accurate comparison of the House of Representatives and the Senate?Which of the following is an accurate comparison of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate? House of Representatives - The Constitution's framers intended it to reflect the will of the people. Senate - The Constitution's framers designed it to represent the interests of the states.
Which of the following constitutional provisions limits the power of the national government?The Supremacy Clause is a guarantee that no laws will interfere with the goals of the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause is found in Article VI, Section 2, where the Constitution specifies which powers the federal government has and which powers the federal government does not have.
Which of the following scenarios depicts the concept of an iron triangle quizlet?Which of the following best illustrates the concept of iron triangles? The long-term relationships between agencies, congressional committees, and interest groups in specific policy areas.
|
Which of the following is a consequence of the way the district is drawn on the map?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 membukakan Inc.
