Seth C. McKee University of South Florida

1. THE 2012 REDISTRICTING IN FLORIDA:
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE…
Seth C. McKee
University of South Florida

2. Redistricting Reform in 2010
• In 2010, Florida voters passed Amendments 5
and 6 (≈ 63% voted in favor of each)
• These amendments to the Florida Constitution
provided a set of restrictions on line drawers
• Amendment 5 applies to state legislative
districts
• Amendment 6 applies to U.S. House districts

3. Amendments 5 and 6 Language
• …plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an
incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be
drawn to deny racial or language minorities the
equal opportunity to participate in the political
process and elect representatives of their choice.
Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise
required, districts must be compact, as equal in
population as feasible, and where feasible must
make use of existing city, county and
geographical boundaries.

4. Brief History of Reform
• As early as 2005 there were efforts to place
redistricting initiatives before the voters
• A simple oversight denied them a place on the
ballot (exceeded 75-word limit)
• Reform effort moved away from initiative for
an independent commission and instead
moved in favor of restricting line drawers’
options

5. Truly a Valence Issue
• The passage of Amendments 5 and 6 is interesting because
1. Republican leaders controlling the legislature
vehemently opposed reform, framing it as a Democratic
scheme
2. Fair Districts Florida, the leading group pushing reform
was primarily a Democratic group backed by Democratic
allies
3. Nonetheless, the fight was successfully framed as a
valence issue: “gerrymandering is BAD, let’s stop this.”
4. The Florida media presented the fight as a valence issue;
REFORM IS GOOD. Print media showed bipartisan
support.
5. Eagleton and Smith (2013) – Hardly any evidence of an
identifiable opposition within the mass public

6. Adherence to 5 and 6 in 2012?
• 1) To the naked eye it is difficult to determine
if districts look any prettier than they did prior
to passage of 5 and 6
• 2) It is easy to interpret 5 and 6 as instituting
“Voting Rights Act” language covering the
entire state for state legislative and U.S. House
contests (5 counties are under the VRA)
• 3) Clearly districts are still drawn to favor an
incumbent or political party (neutrality hasn’t
been established)

7. Minority Representation
Office Category After 2010 After 2012
Democrat Republican Total Democrat Republican Total
U.S. House
Blacks 3 1 4 3 0 3
Hispanics 0 3 3 1 2 3
State Senate
Blacks 6 0 6 6 0 6
Hispanics 0 3 3 1 3 4
State House
Blacks 18 0 18 21 0 21
Hispanics 3 9 12 4 9 13
Total 30 16 46 36 14 50

8. Brief Review of Redistricting: Before
and After Amendments 5 and 6
• U.S. House 2000/2002 and 2010/2012
Before
• 2000: 8 D, 15 R
• 2002: 7 D, 18 R (1 D incumbent defeated)
After
• 2010: 6 D, 19 R
• 2012: 10 D, 17 R (2 R incumbents defeated)

9. Brief Review of Redistricting: Before
and After Amendments 5 and 6
• State Senate 2000/2002 and 2010/2012
Before
• 2000: 15 D, 25 R
• 2002: 14 D, 26 R (1 D incumbent defeated)
After
• 2010: 12 D, 28 R
• 2012: 14 D, 26 R (1 R incumbent defeated)

10. Brief Review of Redistricting: Before
and After Amendments 5 and 6
• State House 2000/2002 and 2010/2012
Before
• 2000: 43 D, 77 R
• 2002: 39 D, 81 R (2 D incumbents defeated)
After
• 2010: 39 D, 81 R
• 2012: 46 D, 74 R (4 R incumbents defeated)

11. U.S. House Redrawn Constituents
2002, 2012
Redrawn VAP Median Mean Std Dev Min Max
2002 Redistricting
All Incumbents 33% 29 15 1 54
Democrats (7) 34% 31 15 11 53
Republicans (14) 31% 29 16 1 54
2012 Redistricting
All Incumbents 30% 32 19 4 77
Democrats (6) 22% 24 7 15 35
Republicans (16) 37% 35 22 4 77

12. State Senate Redrawn Constituents
2002, 2012
Redrawn VAP Median Mean Std Dev Min Max
2002 Redistricting
All Incumbents 24% 26 16 2 63
Democrats (9) 25% 26 15 2 44
Republicans (18) 19% 25 16 7 63
2012 Redistricting
All Incumbents 34% 40 20 11 88
Democrats (8) 36% 36 13 19 54
Republicans (16) 34% 42 23 11 88

13. State House Redrawn Constituents
2002, 2012
Redrawn VAP Median Mean Std Dev Min Max
2002 Redistricting
All Incumbents 31% 33 18 2 83
Democrats (35) 39% 41 18 12 83
Republicans (57) 25% 28 16 2 74
2012 Redistricting
All Incumbents 42% 44 21 0 100
Democrats (20) 42% 45 20 14 85
Republicans (60) 42% 44 22 0 100

14. Redrawn VAP for Defeated Incumbents 2002, 2012
Incumbent and Party Office Redrawn VAP
2002 Redistricting
Karen Thurman (D) U.S. House 53%
Richard Mitchell (D) State Senate 42%
Perry C. McGriff, Jr. (D) State House 60%
Sara Romeo (D) State House 39%
2012 Redistricting
David Rivera (R) U.S. House 33%
Allen B. West (R) U.S. House 77%
Ellyn Bogdanoff (R) State Senate 51% (Dueling Incumbent)
Chris Dorworth (R) State House 61%
Shawn Harrison (R) State House 38%
Peter Nehr (R) State House 42%

15. Concluding Thoughts
• Amendments 5 and 6 seem to have increased
competition by weakening the incumbency advantage
• Increasing the percent redrawn voting age population
redounded to the benefit of Democrats
• Legislators have moved in the direction of compliance
but clearly still take incumbency and party into account
when drawing lines
• Demography is catching up with Republicans and this
probably helps explain the Democratic gains in
conjunction with Amendments 5 and 6
• Perhaps passing 5 and 6 helps explain why in July, 2011
Republicans enacted HB 1355 into law (a very
restrictive voting bill)