Corinne Brown v. Secretary of State of the State of Florida
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775
11th Cir.2012Background
- Florida voters used initiative to amend the Florida Constitution to Article III, § 20, setting standards for congressional redistricting.
- Amendment Six passed at the November 2, 2010 general election with about 62% of votes.
- Brown and Diaz-Balart challenged Amendment Six as unconstitutional under the Elections Clause and sought injunctions.
- The district court granted final summary judgment for the Florida Secretary of State and intervenors.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews de novo and agrees there are no material facts in dispute.
- Amendment Six imposes six standards (population equality, contiguity, compactness, respect for boundaries, minority protection, and no bias toward incumbents/parties) and does not bar the legislature; court cites Voting Rights Act context and traditional districting factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does initiative-enacted Amendment Six violate the Elections Clause? | Brown argues it bypasses the Legislature. | Amendment Six follows state lawmaking process. | No violation; within state lawmaking scope. |
| Do six standards exceed the Elections Clause power? | Standards dictate outcomes beyond regulatory power. | Standards fall within traditional districting factors. | No excess; within Elections Clause power. |
| Do minority/incumbency provisions violate constitutional limits? | Provisions improperly dictate electoral outcomes. | Provisions align with existing federal/state constraints. | No violation; provisions lawful and non-dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (Supreme Court 1916) (referendum as part of legislative process under Elections Clause)
- Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (Supreme Court 1932) (Legislature includes process; veto and referendum permissible)
- Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (Supreme Court 1920) (governor's veto in state lawmaking context; legislative process relevance)
- U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (Supreme Court 1995) (cannot dictate electoral outcomes; candidate handicapping concerns)
- Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (Supreme Court 2001) (ballot-labeling restrictions; prohibits dictating outcomes)
- Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1983) (legitimate objectives in districting; permissible considerations)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1964) (one person, one vote standard in population equality)