The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney Genenral: Apportionment & Redistricting Docket Number: SC05-1754 | SC05-1895 | SC05-1755 | SC05-1894


MARSHAL: ALL RISE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE.THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDAIS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA , DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTIONAND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE T HESE UNITED STATES , THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDAAND THIS HONORABLE COURT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THEFLORIDA SUPREME COURT.PLEASE BE SEATED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING , LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. THE FI RST C ASE ON THIS DOCKET, I AM NOT GOING TO IS SAY THE WHOLE TITLE, BUT IT IS THE ADVISORY OPINION AND IN REFERENCE TO INDEPENDENT PARTISAN COMMISSION TO AORTION . THAT WILL BE ENOUGH. PARTIES ARE R E ADY , AND MR . HUBENER , YOU WANT TO ANNOUNCE?

GOOD MORNING. LOUIS HUB ENER W ITH THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE. THIS MATTER IS HER E ON THE REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION ON THIS REAORTIONMENT PROPOSAL . M ARK HERRON WILL A R GUE IN FAVOR OF THE AM ENDMENT , AND BARE RICHARD AND DUDLEY GOODLETTE, WILL ARGUE IN OOSITION. THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU . M R. HER ONE , AND AS -- MR. HERON , MAKE YOUR AEARANCE .

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT , MY NAME IS MA RK HERRON AND TO M Y LEFT IS MARK HELFERT , AND WE HAVE AS KED FOR 5 MINUTES REBU TTAL TIME.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IN THIS CASE WITH THE TIME , THERE MAY BE TH REE DIFFERENT AREAS TO ADDRESS, NOT ON LY THE S INGLE SUBJECT AND THE BALLOT AND TITLE , B UT THE FORM THAT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT , SO IF YOU COULD FIRST START WITH S INGLE SUBJECT.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. THE PURPOSE , OVERRIDING AND CONTROLLING PURPOSE OF IN INITIATIVE PROPOSAL IS TO ESTABLISH A NONPARTISAN PROCESS FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTSTHAT ARE ALLOCATED TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA BY CON GRESS. ALL PROVIS IONS OF THE AMENDMENT ARE NATURALLY AND LOGICALLY CONNECTED TO THAT ONE SI NGLE PUR POSE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS , S INCE YOU KNOW WHAT THE ISSU ES ARE THAT HAVE BEEN RA ISED , THEIRCONCERNS ON SINGLE SUBJ ECT.

THE OONENTS IN ITIALLY RAISED THE PROPOSED, THE I SSUE THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THE PROP OSAL L OG ROLLS IN THE SE NSE THAT IT CONN ECTS STATE LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTINGIN ONE PROPOSAL , AND THEY WOULD SAY THAT THAT I S LOG ROLLING. THE TEST IN O RDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE I S IMPERMISSIBLE LOG RO LLING , THIS COURT HAS ANNOUNCED IN SEVERAL CASES, IS THAT THIS COURT MUST EXAMINE THEAMENDMENT AND DETERMINEWHETHER IT MAY BE VIEWED LOGICALLY A S HA VING ONE NATURAL RE LATION AND CONNECTION AS COM PONENT PARTS OR ASPECTS OF SANK HE WILL DOMINANT PLAN OR SCHEME.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THE F ACT THAT IT IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THAT THE LEGISLATIVE REAORTIONMENT OCCURS IN THE CONGRESS IONAL REAORTIONMENT , DOESN'TTHAT IN IT SELF , C REATE TWO DISPARATE SITUATIONS ?

NO , YOUR HO NOR , IT DOES NOT , AND THE REASON WHY , ISTHAT THE NATURAL PURPOSE IS TO ELIMINATE THE POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP OUT OF THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS. THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROCEDURES THAT CURRENTLY UNDE RGO TO DAY, DOES NOT MAKE THIS A SINGLE SUBJECT ISSUE.

BUT ISN'T THERE A REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING AND LEGISL ATIVE REDISTRICTING ? IN ONE, THE PO WER OF THE COURT OR ANYBODY , ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT , TO CH ANGE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING F ROM BEING THE PREROGATIVE OF THE LEGISLATURE , BY REA SON OF THE PROVISION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SAYS IT IS TO BE DONE BY THE LEGISLATURE.

WELL , I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR SINGLE SUBJECT DETERMINATION BEFORE THIS COURT. IF THERE IS A ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO UN ITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THAT IS A ISSUE TO BE ADDR ESSED OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THIS COURT'S RE SLEW OF THE SINGLE SUBJECT - - REVIEW OF THESINGLE SUBJECT ARE A, AND YOUHAVE SA ID THAT IN NUME ROUS C ASES.

THAT GO ES TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE M ETHOD OF THE REDISTRICTING , BUT HOW CA N IT BE THE SAME SUBJECT?

WELL , A GAIN , IT IS THE SAME SUBJECT, BECAUSE IT IS LOGICALLY AND NAT URALLY COLLECTED THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED THESE PETITIONS, WANT TO T AKE PARTISANSHIP OUT OF THE PROCESS. THEY WANT A COMMISSION TO DO IT, AS OOSED TO THE LEGISLATURE , AND THE GOVERNOR, AND , AGAIN, IF WE WANT TO GET TO THAT ISSUE, TOO , THAT IS IN THIS PROCESS , THE GO VERNOR ACTS AS A PARTISAN ACTOR IN THIS PROCESS AS WELL , AND I BELIEVE THAT IS CONCEDED BY THE OO NENTS , IN THIS INSTANCE SAYING WE ARE INTERFERING .

CHIEF JUSTICE: HOW FAR COULD YOU GO? COULD YOU SET UP A NONSPARTSAN COMMISSION ANDSAY THAT ALL OF THE OTHEROFFICES THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONTROLLED THROUGH THIS NONPARTISAN COMM ISSION ? IN OTHER WORDS AT WHAT POINT OR BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS REDISTRICTING THAT THAT MAKES IT NARROWER?

WE ARE TALKING A BOUT THE FUNCTION TO DO LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING TO ESTABLISH THE DISTRICTS OF THE PE OPLE , AS WE SAID , AND THAT IS TO ESTABLISH THE SINGLE FUNCTION THAT THIS AMENDMENT DEALS WITH. W E ARE NOT DE ALING WITH DEALING WITH THIS COMMISSION SETTING UP SC HOOL BOARD DISTRICTS AND COUNT Y COMMISSION DISTRICTS OR CITY DIS TRICTS. WE ARE TALKING AB OUT THEFUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS THAT THE LEGISLATURE CURRENTLYOPERATES IN THAT REAL M.

CHIEF JUSTICE: NO W, HOWABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE STANDARDS?THAT IS THAT AL THOUGH IT HAS BEEN THE PRAC TICE TO HAVE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS , IT IS NOT ENSH RINED IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND SO THAT NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE NOT ONLY THE ME THOD IS BEING CHANGED BUT STANDARDSARE BEING ENSHRINED INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

WELL , STA NDARDS ARE CURRENTLY ENSH RINED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROV ISION THAT IS THERE NOW. THERE ARE STAN DARDS IN THERE THAT TALK ABOUT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE NO MORE THAN 30 OR NO LESS THAN 30 AND N O MORE THAN 40 STATE SENATE DISTRICTS.

WHY DO YOU NEED THAT IN THE SNAEMENT.

PARDON ME?

WHY DO YOU N EED THAT IN THE AMENDM ENT? IT IS IN THERE NOW?

WE HAVE INCORPORATED THAT AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, T RY IN G TO DISTINGUISH THAT FROM THE ADDITION OR REFERENCE FROM THE SINGLE M E MBER DISTRICT STANDARD , ALREADY PART OF THIS AMENDM ENT AND NOT CHALLENGED BY THE OONENTS. WHAT THEY ARE CHALLENGING IS I GUESS THE ADD ITION OR HIGHLIGHTING OF THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT PROPOSED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THAT NOT A CHAN GE?

IT IS A CHANGE TARNTION IS HIGHLIGHTED BUT IT IS NOT A SINGLE SUBJECT PROBLEM , BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE CAN CONCEDE OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE, AND I DON'T THINK THE COURTCOULD SAY THAT STANDARDSWOULD BE AN INAROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR INCLUSION IN THIS AMENDMENT, BEC AUSE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SCOPE ANDTHE ME ANS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AN AME NDMENT , IN A PROPOSED INI TIATIVE PROPOSAL , AND THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WELL , EXCEPT THAT ONE IS A MECHANISM, AND THE OTHER IS LIMITING HOW THE PROCEDURE IS BEING CARR IED OUT. AND WE HAVE SO MA NY CA SES WHERE YOU CAN'T , THE TAX ANDTHE FEE , YOU KNOW , SO THAT WHEN WE GO TO A CITIZENS PROPOSAL, THE SINGLE SUBJECT IS SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE PRETTY SERIOUSLY ABOUT NO