Lawmakers will not have to testify about last year’s redistricting process as part of a legal challenge to the congressional maps the Legislature approved, a divided three-judge panel ruled Wednesday, reports Brandon Larrabee of the News Service of Florida.
In a 2-1 opinion, the 1st District Court of Appeal struck down an order from Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis that would have required lawmakers to testify about “objective” facts about the redistricting process, though not their thoughts during the debate over maps. The ruling also limits what kinds of documents the Legislature will have to turn over.
Groups challenging the plan under the state’s anti-gerrymandering “Fair Districts” standards had argued that they needed the information to try to build their case that lawmakers improperly injected politics into the crafting of the 27 congressional districts.
But the court said that allowing the groups to take lawmakers’ depositions or peruse certain redistricting documents would violate the privilege that largely protects legislators from being forced to explain their actions in court. And the majority pointed out that thousands of files have been turned over so far in the case.
“We are confident that respondents will be able to make their case that the plan was drawn with improper intent — if, indeed, that was what happened — with the evidence in the legislative record and their experts’ analysis of the plan and its underlying demographic data,” wrote Judge T. Kent Wetherell, who was joined in the majority by Judge Scott Makar.
The ruling reiterates the court’s decision on legislative privilege in an unrelated case last year that was part of a long-running tax fight between counties and online travel companies.
In his dissent Wednesday, Chief Judge Robert Benton wrote that it was too early for the court to get involved in the issue, given that the court doesn’t know what questions the groups challenging the map might ask. He said the legislative privilege wasn’t like protections for medical information or trade secrets, where revealing the information could damage someone even if the evidence was never used in court.
“Partisan political shenanigans are not ‘state secrets,’ ” Benton wrote.
Groups challenging the maps “will pursue our available appellate options as warranted,” attorney Adam Schachter said in an email.
“We continue to believe that the public has a right to know what occurred in the backrooms where these maps were created,” Schachter said.
