Florida Times-Union: Ron DeSantis, critics fight over asking Florida Supreme Court to weigh in on redistricting

TALLAHASSEE — Critics of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ request for the state Supreme Court to issue a quick opinion about potentially revamping a sprawling North Florida congressional district argue that the “ill-conceived attempt to hijack” the redistricting process is improper and outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, DeSantis and supporters of his request said in briefs that they are simply seeking “needed judicial guidance” as part of the once-a-decade redistricting process.

The issue centers on what is now Congressional District 5, which stretches about 200 miles from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee and was designed to help elect a minority candidate. It is held by Al Lawson, a Black Democrat.

DeSantis last week asked the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion about dramatically changing the design of the district to make it more compact and only in Northeast Florida. The House and Senate will ultimately have to agree on a congressional map, which then would go to DeSantis, who has veto power. …

The groups Common Cause Florida, Fair Districts Now and All On The Line Florida and South Florida Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick submitted briefs opposed to DeSantis’ request.

Henry Coxe III, an attorney for Common Cause Florida and Fair Districts Now, contended the Florida Constitution does not provide the governor with the right to ask the court to advise him whether he should veto a hypothetical congressional redistricting bill.

“Any other result would implicate the constitutional principle of separation of powers by entangling the (Supreme) Court in the legislative drafting process,” Coxe wrote. …

Coxe wrote that DeSantis’ request goes beyond part of the Constitution that allows him to seek opinions on executive powers and duties.

“This request seeks an advisory opinion purportedly to inform his possible, hypothetical, exercise of his legislative veto power on a bill that has not yet been drafted, much less passed by both houses of the Legislature or presented to the governor for signing,” Coxe wrote.

“In this context, it is well-settled that the governor’s query about his veto power asks about a legislative function not susceptible to an advisory opinion. Such a request for guidance from this court before a bill is passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor is improper.”