Lori Berman blasts Gov. DeSantis’ redistricting push as ‘clearly illegal,’ citing 2010 amendment

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ just-announced confirmation that he will pursue mid-decade redistricting through a Special Session drew a swift rebuke from Senate Democratic Leader Lori Berman, who argued such a move would violate the Florida Constitution.

Berman, a Boca Raton lawyer, pointed to the Fair Districts Amendment, which 63% of voters approved in 2010 to ban partisan or discriminatory gerrymandering. The amendment requires fair, compact, voter-respecting legislative districts. That’s the antithesis of what DeSantis and other GOP policymakers are proposing, Berman said.

“No matter what pretext the Governor offers for mid-decade redistricting — and he has offered nearly half a dozen in an attempt to find one that sticks — what he wants the Legislature to do is clearly illegal,” Berman said in a statement Tuesday, shortly after DeSantis said he’ll reconvene lawmakers on the matter in April.

“Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment strictly prohibits any maps from being drawn for partisan reasons, and regardless of any bluster from the Governor’s office, the only reason we’re having this unprecedented conversation about drawing new maps is because Donald Trump demanded it.”

Trump’s administration began calling for redistricting in mid-2025 to give Republicans a better chance to flip Democrat-held seats by the 2026 Midterms. Efforts to follow through on the President’s demands are now playing out in one form or another across 15 states, including Missouri, Ohio and Texas, while Democrat-led states like California and New York are weighing retaliatory or defensive redistricting moves.

Florida already has a 20-8 Republican advantage in its congressional delegation through maps the Governor’s Office drew based on 2020 Census data, which DeSantis called “flawed” in October. That same month, he said his proposed “political gerrymandering” is “likely” to survive court challenges, since the U.S. Constitution “says nothing” about it.

But the Florida Constitution does. The Fair Districts Amendment, added to Section 20, Article III, states: “No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.”

DeSantis said Florida is awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a case concerning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which has been used to draw majority-minority congressional districts almost exclusively led by Democrats.

The Court’s 2019 ruling on Rucho v. Common Cause provided that while partisan gerrymandering may be “incompatible with democratic principles,” there is no clear, manageable legal standard for federal courts to determine when partisan line-drawing goes too far.

However, the court did leave the door open for challenges under state constitutions and state courts, noting that states are free to adopt anti-gerrymandering rules — such as Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment — and enforce them independently of federal courts.

A majority of Florida’s electorate opposes mid-decade redistricting, according to polling Common Cause commissioned late last year, which found 55% of voters are against political parties changing district boundaries mid-decade. That included 62% of Democrats, 60% of third- and no-party voters, and a plurality (45%) of Republicans.

“An overwhelming majority of Floridians voted in favor of the Fair Districts Amendment and their voices must be respected,” Berman said. “The redistricting process is meant to serve the people, not the politicians.”

The Florida Democratic Party and League of Women Voters of Florida expressed similar disdain for the redistricting push, calling it “a desperate attempt to rig the system” and “an affront to Florida voters,” respectively.