Lawyer v. Department of Justice

1997-06-25

Headline: Court upholds approval of a negotiated redrawing of a Florida legislative district, rejects an objecting voter’s bid to force a full trial, and lets the state's settlement plan take effect for Tampa-area voters.

Holding: The Court affirms that the State validly agreed to a settlement redrawing District 21, the objecting voter cannot block that settlement, and the remedial Plan 386 is constitutional.

Real World Impact:

Lets states implement settlement redistricting plans without a prior court declaration of unconstitutionality.
Prevents a single objecting voter from blocking an approved settlement plan.
Affirms courts may evaluate and approve remedial maps proposed by state officials.

Topics: redistricting, voting rights, race in districting, state authority over districts

Summary

Background

A group of Hillsborough County residents challenged Florida Senate District 21 after the State adopted a 1990 redistricting plan. The Justice Department objected to the State plan under federal voting law, and the Florida Supreme Court and legislature took steps that produced Plan 330. Plaintiffs sued, a three-judge District Court convened, and most parties entered a settlement proposing a new map called Plan 386; one plaintiff (appellant Lawyer) objected.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the District Court could approve the settlement map without first declaring the old plan unconstitutional and despite the appellant's objection. The Supreme Court held that Florida, through its attorney general and legislative representatives, validly made the state’s redistricting choice by agreeing to the settlement. The Court said a single objecting voter cannot block other parties’ settlement, and it found no clear error in the District Court’s conclusion that Plan 386 was not dominated by race and met traditional districting principles.

Real world impact

The decision lets a state and its lawyers resolve a disputed district by settlement rather than requiring a separate judicial finding of liability first. Tampa Bay area voters are directly affected because District 21’s boundaries and racial composition were changed. The ruling also confirms that courts may approve settlements that change electoral maps when there is a substantial evidentiary and legal basis for the claim.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia dissented, arguing the court intruded on state sovereignty and should have required a judicial finding of unconstitutionality and a chance for the legislature to redraw districts. Chief Judge Tjoflat concurred below but would have required a finding against Plan 330.