|
The Attorney General today issued a brief to the
Supreme Court suggesting, with no legal basis, that the Supreme
Court should declare the recently enacted joint-resolution
creating House and Senate electoral districts to be invalid.
In a total about-face to the argument General Butterworth made
in 1992, he is now suggesting to the Supreme Court that it
should invalidate the Legislature's plan because of lack of
rigid standards.
"It is unfortunate that the Attorney
General has chosen to depart from his own precedents and the
duties imposed on him by the Constitution in order to file a
partisan brief that neither accurately states the facts and the
law nor correctly characterizes the role of the Supreme
Court," said Speaker Tom Feeney.
|
"Not only
is this position legally and factually incorrect, but it is contrary
to the argument that he made to the Supreme Court ten years ago.
In 1992, a Legislature controlled by Democrats explicitly rejected
adopting standards. Despite the lack of standards, Mr. Butterworth's
brief to the Supreme Court at that time forcefully urged adoption
of the Democrat's plan," said Representative Johnnie Byrd, Chairman
of the Procedural and Redistricting Council.
"The Attorney
General's argument on lack of standards is factually and legally incorrect.
We met with the Attorney General's staff Friday and explained the
standards used by the Legislature, which included compliance with
United States' Constitutional Principles, the Voting Rights Act, Federal
statutory principles as well as State constitutional standards and
principles. Those standards were clearly explained in committee
and floor debates and are part of the record," said Miguel De
Grandy, counsel for the House of Representatives on Reapportionment.
"The Attorney
General's approach is unprecedented. Without even citing the
volumes of case law that clearly establish a presumption of validity
of the Legislative Plan, he in effect asked the Supreme Court to supplant
its judgment for that of the Legislature," said Speaker Feeney.
The Attorney
General states that: "the designed purpose of this court's role
in the reapportionment process is to preclude, to the extent possible,
future successful challenges to the reapportionments, particularly
in the Federal Courts".
"That is
certainly not what he stated to the court in 1992, nor is that language
found anywhere in the Constitution of State of Florida," said
De Grandy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can contact the Speaker
via email or
Capitol Office:
Room 420 The Capitol, 402 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
Phone (850)488-1450
|
District Office:
P.O. Box 622109
Oviedo, FL
32762-2109
(407)977-6500
SUNCOM: 392-6500
|
|
