In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 2-B, 89 So. 3d 872

Florida Supreme Court reviews the Legislature’s revised Senate apportionment plan in SJR 2-B after invalidating the prior plan in 2012,
Court mandated redrawing eight invalid districts, Lakeland boundary consideration, and incumbent-neutral renumbering,
Legislature reconvened in 2012 and adopted SJR 2-B; Attorney General petitioned for validity review,
The Court conducts facial constitutional review under article III, sections 16 and 21, with challengers allowed to submit alternative plans,
The central question is whether the revised plan complies with the Fair Districts Amendment standards and minority voting protections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the revised Senate plan constitutionally valid under the Florida Constitution?	Opponents contend the plan violates tier-one and tier-two standards.	Legislature/redrawn plan adheres to standards and fixes prior deficiencies.	Yes, the revised plan is constitutionally valid.
Do res judicata or fairness principles bar new challenges to unchanged districts?	Challengers may raise new grounds challenging unchanged districts.	Res judicata applies; only issues arising from corrected plan may be addressed.	Res judicata does not bar review here; however, challenges that could have been raised earlier are not entertained.
Should District 8 (Daytona Beach area) be invalidated for non-compactness and community-dilution concerns?	District 8 splits Daytona Beach and dilutes black voting power, indicating intent.	On record, District 8 is not facially invalid; population-equality justified changes.	No facial invalidity found by majority; dissent would find invalid.
Are time, process, and the intent standard workable for Florida’s redistricting framework?	The thirty-day limit and process hinder meaningful analysis of intent.	Constitutional framework must operate within the time limits.	Concurring opinion criticizes time/process constraints and suggests reform; majority holds plan valid.

In re Apportionment Law — March 2012, 83 So.3d 597 (Fla.2012) (central articulation of Fair Districts standards and scope of review)
Juliano, 801 So.2d 101 (Fla.2001) (res judicata concepts in administrative posture)
In re Senate Joint Resolution 2G, Special Apportionment Session 1992, 597 So.2d 276 (Fla.1992) (authority on legislature vs. judicial role in apportionment)
In re Apportionment Law — March 2012 (1982), 414 So.2d 1040 (Fla.1982) (framework for facial review of apportionment plans)