House in Special Session D

Speaker: THE HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER. MEMBERS AND VISITORS IN THE GALLERY PLEASE RISE FOR THE PRAYER. THE PRAYER TODAY WILL BE GIVEN BY SPEAKER PRO TEM DUGGAN. >> Rep. Duggan: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. GOOD MORNING MEMBERS. PLEASE PRAY WITH ME. HEAR O FLORIDA, THE LORD YOUR GOD IS YOUR LORD ALONE. LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. LORD, THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY. FOR EACH OTHER AND FOR THE MANY BLESSINGS YOU HAVE BESTOWED UPON US. PLEASE BE IN OUR MIDST TODAY. GIVE GRACE AND WISDOM TO YOUR SERVANTS AND THE EXERCISE OF OUR DUTIES. GRANT US COURAGE AND FORESIGHT TO PROVIDE THE NEEDS OF ALL OF OUR PEOPLE. MAKE US CHANNELS FOR YOUR PIECE TODAY AND EVERY DAY. FINALLY, LORD, TEACH US TO RELY ON YOUR STRENGTH THAT WE MAY FAITHFULLY SERVE YOU AND HONOR YOUR HOLY NAME AMEN. THANK YOU. >> Speaker: SPEAKER PRO TEM DUGGAN YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE. >> Rep. Duggan: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. MEMBERS, EARLIER THIS MONTH WE LOST A FORMER MEMBER OF THIS HOUSE THE HONORABLE MARK WISEMAN WHO SERVED DISTRICT 90 FROM 2000 TO 2002 AFTER HAVING SERVED AS A CITY COMMISSIONER FOR THE CITY OF PARKLAND. ADDITIONALLY LAST WEEK, COLLIER COUNTY LOST ITS LONGEST SERVING COMMISSIONER IN THE COUNTY'S MODERN HISTORY COMMISSIONER DONNA SEO OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSIONER FOR HER ACCESSIBILITY TO THOSE WHO SHE SERVED. THE MARCO ISLAND COMMUNITY ALSO MOURNED THE LOSS OF A BELOVED LEADER LAST WEEK. COUNCILMAN ERIC BRACKNELL A LONG TIME RESIDENT AND DEDICATED ADVOCATE FOR HIS COMMUNITY. ON THE BEHALF OF REPRESENTATIVE HUNSCHOFSKY AND BENARROCH I ASK FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR THE HONORABLE MARK WISEMAN, COMMISSIONER DONNA LOUIS, AND COUNCILMAN ERIC. >> Speaker: MEMBERS PLEASE JOIN ME IN A MOMENT OF SILENCE. THANK YOU. THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE MACHINE AND MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR PRESENCE. HAVE ALL MEMBERS RECORDED THEIR PRESENCE? LOCK THE MACHINE AND ANNOUNCE THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. >> 109 MEMBERS VOTING A QUORUM IS PRESENT. >> Speaker: PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. THE PLEDGE WILL BE LED BY REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER FROM HIS DESK. >> Rep. Snyder: I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> Speaker: ARE THERE CORRECTIONS TO THE JOURNAL? HEARING NONE SHOW THIS APPROVED. MATTERS ON INTRODUCTION FOR REFERENCE? >> NONE. >> Speaker: MEDICATIONS? >> NONE. >> Speaker: MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE? >> NONE. >> Speaker: REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE? >> ON THE DESK. >> Speaker: READ THE REPORT. >> HONARBLE DANIEL PEREZ SPEAKER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEAR MR. SPEAKER YOUR RULES AND ETHICS COMMITTEE SUBMITS A SPECIAL ORDER FOR WEDNESDAY APRIL 29th, 2026, CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSE BILLS AND SPECIAL ORDER INCLUDING SENATE COMPANION MEASURES ON HOUSE CALENDAR READING OF THE REPORT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GARRISON YOU ARE RECOGNIZED ON THE REPORT. >> Rep. Garrison: THE REPORTS THAT THE SPECIAL ORDER CALENDAR ALLOCATION TIMES FOR QUESTIONS AND DEBATE CONTAINED IN A N THEY MOVE THE ADOPTION OF THE SPECIAL ORDER REPORT FOR TODAY APRIL 29th, 2026. >> Speaker: QUESTIONS? DEBATE? THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED? SHOW THIS SPECIAL ORDER REPORT ADOPTED. OTHER REPORTS? >> NONE. >> Speaker: MOTION FOR SUBCOMMITTEE OR COMMITTEE REFERENCES? MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION? BILLS OR JOINT RESOLUTION ON THIRD READING? >> NONE. >> Speaker: BILLS AND SPECIAL ORDER CALENDAR? >> ON THE DESK. >> Speaker: READ THE FIRST BILL. >> BY REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA HOUSE BILL ONE, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT ESTABLISHING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF THE STATE. BY REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA HOUSE BILL 1D, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT ESTABLISHING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF THE STATE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA YOU MAY EXPLAIN THE BILL. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THIS BILL ESTABLISHES THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF OUR GREAT STATE. >> Speaker: QUESTIONS OF THE SPONSOR? REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU IS WHY IT WAS THE SESSION SCHEDULED TO LAST ONLY A FEW DAYS FOR A PROCESS THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN US MONTHS TO DO? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: I DID NOT SCHEDULE A SPECIAL SESSION I CANNOT ANSWER THAT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: HAS THE HOUSE REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE REPLACED THE STAFF UNDER OATH BEFORE COMMITTEE? >> Speaker: I DON'T THINK REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA HAS INSIGHT INTO DECISIONS OF THE CHAIR IN THE COMMITTEE. PLEASE PROCEED WITH ANOTHER QUESTION. >> Rep. Eskamani: THE NEXT QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH VOTING AGAINST EXTENDING TIME FOR MORE PUBLIC COMMENTARY. I'LL MOVE ONTO THE NEXT QUESTION. DO YOU BELIEVE THE VERY DISTRICTS AMENDMENT APPLIES THE 2026 [INAUDIBLE] YES OR NO IS SUFFICIENT. >> Speaker: I'M SORRY YOU SPOKE SO FAST THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND. >> Rep. Eskamani: DO YOU BELIEVE THE DISTRICTS AMENDMENT APPLIES THE 2026 PLAN AND YOU CAN GIVE US YES OR NO. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: PLEASE CLARIFY THE QUESTION DO YOU BELIEVE THE DISTRICT APPLIES TO ANY MAP BEFORE US? ARE YOU ASKING ME WHETHER THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH THE FAIR DISTRICT ACT? >> Rep. Eskamani: DO THESE MAPS COMPLY WITH THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENTS THAT FLORIDA VOTERS APPROVED? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: I THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THERE MAY BE MULTIPLE QUESTIONS ON THIS FRONT SO I WILL BE VERY VERY CLEAR IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA WE HAVE AN EVOLVING LEGAL LANDSCAPE AND WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT WILL RECEIVE PRECEDENCE. THEY DID THAT IN 2022 THE LEGISLATURE APPROVED A MAP THAT WAS BASED ON A VIABLE LEGAL THEORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT AGREED WITH THAT VIABLE INTERPRETATION BUT THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS LEFT UNANSWERED. I BELIEVE THAT THIS MAP IS BASED ON A STRONG AND VIABLE INTERPRETATION OF BOTH THE FLORIDA AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS AND THAT IS WHY I FILED THE MAP AND I SUPPORTED TODAY. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: AND THIS IS A YES OR NO QUESTION REPRESENTATIVE DID ANY LEGISLATURE DRAW A SINGLE DISTRICT LINE IN THE MAP THAT WE ARE NOW TO VOTE ON? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. AS A BASELINE FOR THOSE WATCHING ON THE FLORIDA CHANNEL I AS THE BILL SPONSORED DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER A QUESTION WITH A YES OR A NO BUT IN THIS CASE I WILL SAY NO. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: THANK YOU MISTER SPEAKER. UNDERSTANDING THIS IS ALSO A YES OR NO QUESTION DID ANY LEGISLATOR COME UP WITH ANY IDEA EXPRESSED IN THE PLAN WE ARE ABOUT TO VOTE ON. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: NO. >> Rep. Rayner: IS IT CORRECT THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE WAS THE SOLE MAP DRAWER? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. I PERSONALLY DO NOT KNOW WHO DREW THE MAP EXCEPT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY THAT WE RECEIVED IN OUR SELECT COMMITTEE AND OUR SELECT COMMITTEE JASON [INAUDIBLE] SAID HE ALONE SOLELY DREW THE MAP. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: MO DREZEL TESTIFIED THAT THIS 2022 PLAN IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DO YOU AGREE YES OR NO WE ARE ENACTING A NEW MAP TO GET AHEAD OF THE COURT RULING THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN ISSUED? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER AND THERE IS NO YES OR NO EASY ANSWER AND AGAIN AN EVOLVING LEGAL LANDSCAPE AND I WANT TO ADD TO IN SAYING THAT THE MIDCYCLE REDISTRICTING GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT END UP IN FRONT OF OUR COURTS. SO THAT WE HAVE GUIDANCE WHEN WE COME BACK IN A FEW YEARS AFTER THE NEXT REAPPORTIONMENT BUT STANDING HERE TODAY I AM NOT A DECIDER AND IT IS NOT MY JOB TO ANSWER LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS OR INTERPRET THE STATE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. THAT IS A JOB FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. OUR JOB IS TO MAKE A DECISION TO USE OUR JUDGMENT IN VOTING FOR A MAP THAT WE BELIEVE IS VIABLE UNDER LEGAL INTERPRETATION. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU. AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE PENDING CASE LOUISIANA VERSUS COLLIER HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT YOU CANNOT SAY ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE BUT I THINK REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA UNDERSTANDS THE THRUST OF THE QUESTIONS I MAY ALLOW HER TO PROCEED TO ANSWER. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: ALL WE KNOW IS THAT AN OPINION HAS YET TO BE ISSUED. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU IF HOLLIS IS IT DECIDED IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S LEGAL THEORY THAT WAS PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE THE 2026 PLAN WOULD NOT BE CONSTITUTIONAL? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL. >> Speaker: LEADER DRISKELL DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES. >> Rep. Driskell: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT JASON PEREZ SAID HE USED PARTISAN DATA TO DRAW THIS MAP, THE 2026 MAP. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. I AM AWARE OF HIS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. >> Rep. Driskell: THANK YOU. IF HE USED PARTISAN DATA AND WE KNOW THE LAW SAYS WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT HOW CAN WE PROCEED NOW WITH THIS MAP? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I CAN NOT SPEAK TO THE INTENT OF THE MAP DRAWER AND I WILL NOT MAKE ANY CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE INTENT OF THE MAP DRAWER. >> Rep. Driskell: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A MAP DRAWN USING PARTISAN DATA COMPLIES WITH THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT PROHIBITION ON DRAWING DISTRICTS WITH THE INTENT TO FAVOR OR DISFAVOR APPLICABLE PARTY? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THE MAP IN FRONT OF US BASED ON THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HAVE HEARD IN THE TO VARIOUS COMMITTEES I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A LIKELIHOOD THAT THE MAP WILL BE UPHELD AGAINST ILLEGAL CHALLENGES. >> Rep. Driskell: THANK YOU. APPROXIMATELY 41 PERCENT OF FLORIDA'S REGISTERED VOTERS OR REPUBLICANS BUT THE 2026 PLAN CREATES 24 OF 28 REPUBLICAN LEANING DISTRICTS. DO YOU BELIEVE THE OUTCOME IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THE PARTISAN PERFORMANCE OF ANY SINGLE DISTRICT WITHIN THIS MAP. >> Speaker: LEADER DRISKELL. >> Rep. Driskell: THANK YOU. THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT REQUIRES CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT TO BE COMPACT AND USE EXISTING POLITICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES WERE FEASIBLE. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE USE OF COMPACT AND IS IN GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES IN DESIGNING THIS MAP? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I DO HAVE OBJECTIVE FACTUAL MATHEMATICAL INFORMATION THAT I AM HAPPY TO SHARE WITH YOU. DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION REGARDING COMPACTNESS OR BOUNDARIES? >> Speaker: LEADER DRISKELL. >> Rep. Driskell: THANK YOU. WITH RESPECT TO DISTRICT 14 PLEASE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I CAN SHARE WITH YOU THAT IN DISTRICT 14 THAT IT INCLUDES ONE COUNTY BUT NOT THE WHOLE COUNTY. THE COUNTY ENDS UP BEING SPLIT. IT INCLUDES TWO CITIES, ONE WHOLE AND ONE SPLIT. >> Rep. Driskell: I APOLOGIZE. I MEANT THE EXISTING CD 14 AND HOW IT CHANGES GOING TO THE NEW ONE? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME BUT REPRESENTATIVE IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC COUNTY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO LOOK AT I COULD TELL YOU HOW IT HAS CHANGED BETWEEN THE CURRENT MAP AND THE PROPOSED MAP. >> Rep. Driskell: HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE ANALYSIS COMPARING TO COMPACTNESS SCORES OF THE 2026 PLANS DISTRICTS COMPARING TO THOSE OF THE 2022 PLAN? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT COMPACTNESS THERE ARE TWO THINGS YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PRIMARY THING IS A VISUAL COMPACTNESS. THAT IS OFTEN IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. YOU MAY THINK ONE DISTRICT LOOKS COMPACT AND ANOTHER MEMBER MAY THINK IT LOOKS NOT AS COMPACT AND THE SECOND WE LOOK AT IT IS VIA MATHEMATICAL SCORE AND DIFFERENT MATHEMATICAL THEORIES THAT WE HAVE UTILIZED. I HAVE LOOKED AT THE AVERAGE STATEWIDE FOR THE POLES AND THE RE OPS SCORE AND THE CURRENT MAP CHANGES VERY SLIGHTLY PROPOSED MAP CHANGES SLIGHTLY FROM THE CURRENT MAP BUT IT IS CONSISTENT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. I WILL JUMP BACK TO THE PROCESS. AM I CORRECT UNDERSTAND WITH REGARD TO THE DRAWING OF THE MAP THAT THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE MADE EVERY POLICY DECISION NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH YOU TO THIS PLAN? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE PROCESS OR WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE MAP DRAWER WAS DRAWING THE MAP ALL I CAN SAY IS I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DRAWING OF THE MAP AND I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANYONE IN THE FLORIDA HOUSE WAS INVOLVED IN THE DRAWING OF THE MAP. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: TO BE CLEAR I AM CORRECT TO UNDERSTAND THE LEGISLATURE IS DEFERRING TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR FLORIDA'S CONGRESSIONAL MAP IS THAT CORRECT? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR STATE CONSTITUTION OR STATE LAW THAT PREVENTS THE GOVERNOR FROM SUBMITTING A PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL MAP. FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AND VOTE WE ARE THE ONES CONSIDERING THE MAP. WE ARE THE ONES VOTING ON THE MAP. WE HAVE NOT DEFERRED OUR DUTIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: DO YOU AGREE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S NON SEVERABILITY ARGUMENT THAT IF ONE PROVISION OF THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT IS UNENFORCEABLE THAT THE ENTIRE AMENDMENT FAILS? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I HAVE SAID THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ARE VIABLE AND THIS MAP WILL LIKELY BE UPHELD UNDER LEGAL REVIEW. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU. FOLLOWING THAT ANSWER ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE NON SEPARABILITY ARGUMENT HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY ANY FLORIDA COURT? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. WELL, UNTIL LAST SUMMER THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAD NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OUR DIMINISHMENT CLAUSE UNDER OUR STATE CONSTITUTION WAS TO DISREGARD THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT. IT WASN'T AN UNANSWERED QUESTION AND THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT JUST ANSWERED IT. THERE ARE MANY UNANSWERED QUESTION IN THIS EVOLVING LEGAL LANDSCAPE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: REPRESENTATIVE, DID YOU SEE THE VERSION OF THE MAP THAT WAS LEAKED TO FOX NEWS THAT HAD PARTY BREAKDOWN? >> Speaker: ARE YOU ASKING IF SHE SAW IT BEFORE THE MAP WAS INTRODUCED OR EVER SAW IT YOU CAN CLARIFY. >> Rep. Eskamani: EVER SAW IT. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: EYES SAW THE MAP POP UP ON NEWS SITES AND ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT I DID NOT STUDY THE MAP. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU FOR THIS RESPONSE. LOOKING AT THE MAP DO YOU BELIEVE THE OUTCOME OF THE MAP THAT WAS LEAKED THAT HAD COLORS ON IT OF RED AND BLUE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. AGAIN I HAVE NOT PERFORMED AND HOW STAFF HAS NOT PERFORMED POLITICAL PERFORMANCE ON ANY OF THE DISTRICTS SO I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE VERACITY OF THE MAP THAT WAS LEAKED TO THE NEWS MEDIA. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH WELCOME. >> Rep. Joseph: DID ANY LEGISLATURE OR DRAW A SINGLE DISTRICT LINE IN THE MAP WE ARE ABOUT TO VOTE ON? >> Speaker: THAT QUESTION WAS ALREADY ASKED ACTUALLY. >> Rep. Joseph: APOLOGIES. I WILL ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION. A MOMENT AGO IN RESPONSE TO SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPACTNESS YOU SAID AND I QUOTE IT CHANGES VERY SLIGHTLY SO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE 2026 PLAN IS LESS COMPACT THAN THE EXISTING MAP MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS WHAT LEGITIMATE REDISTRICTING PRINCIPAL PRINCIPLE JUSTIFIES THE REDUCTION IN COMPACTNESS? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I WANT TO WELCOME BACK REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH TO THE FLOOR. FIRST, I DID NOT SAY THAT THE MAP BEFORE US IS LESS COMPACT THAN THE PREVIOUS MAP. THERE ARE SOME CHANGES AND ONE WAY THAT YOU LOOK AT COMPACT MATHEMATICAL SCORES THOSE ARE NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE COMPACT ISSUE. THE FIRST RULE OF COMPACTNESS IS LOOKING AT IT VISUALLY. I THINK THIS MAP BEFORE US IS JUST AS COMPACT AS THE CURRENT MAP. BUT I WILL TELL YOU UNDER THE MATHEMATICAL SCORES JUST TO PUT IT IN THE RECORD THE COMPLEX HALL SCORE STAYED THE SAME OF .1 BETWEEN THE CURRENT MAP AND THE ONE BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE POLKSY POPPER IN THE CURRENT MAP IS .43. THE ONE BEFORE US TODAY IS .41 AND A FOR THE RE OPS SCORE THE CURRENT MAP IS .47 AND THE MAP BEFORE US TODAY IS .46. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH. >> Rep. Joseph: PLEASE REPEAT THE LAST SCORE FOR ME. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE, THE RE UP SCORE WAS .47 IN THE CURRENT MAP AND IT IS .46 IN THE PROPOSED HOUSE BILL ONE D MAP. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH. >> Rep. Joseph: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. SO THE SLIGHT DECREASES OF COMPACTNESS I WILL REITERATE BASED ON THE DATA YOU JUST SHARED IT DECREASED FROM .43 TO .41 IN THE SECOND CATEGORY AND IN THE THIRD CATEGORY IT DECREASED FROM .47 TO .46. I WILL REITERATE MY QUESTION GIVEN THE DECREASE OF COMPACTNESS BECAUSE THAT IS A CLEAR MATHEMATICAL DECREASE WHAT LEGITIMATE REDISTRICTING PRINCIPAL JUSTIFIES THE REDUCTION OF COMPACTNESS? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: I WILL REITERATE MY ANSWER THAT A DECREASE IN MATHEMATICAL SCORE THAT IS USED AS PART OF THE EVIDENCE OF COMPACTNESS DOES NOT EQUATE TO A DECREASE IN COMPACTNESS. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH. >> Rep. Joseph: THANK YOU. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE 2026 PLAN SPLITS MORE COUNTIES AND MORE MUNICIPALITIES THAN THE EXISTING 2022 PLAN? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. YES. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. REPRESENTATIVE, DO YOU KNOW WAS THIS MAP DRAWN BY HAND OR USING OUTSIDE ALGORITHMS? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE PROCESS THAT WAS USED TO DRAW THE MAP. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: THANK YOU. WERE THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE PLANS INCLUDED? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. WE HAVE SEEN ONE MAP. ONE WAS TRANSMITTED TO US. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE 2026 PLAN WAS DRAWN USING THE SAME 2020 CENSUS DATA AS THE EXISTING MAP? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY THE QUESTION REGARDING DATA USE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU. IN COMMITTEE JASON PER RHETT OR WHOEVER YOU SAY HIS LAST NAME EXCUSE ME STATED THAT THE 2020 CENSUS DATA IS WHAT THEY USED TO CREATE THIS MAP. THAT IS THE CLARIFICATION. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. RAP, WE ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF FLORIDA STATUTE TO USE THE LAST FEDERAL CENSUS DATA TO DRAW ANY REDISTRICTING MAP AND BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMMITTEE IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. PERRETTI DID TO BASE THE MAP AND DRAW IT ON THE 2020 CENSUS DATA. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: ARE YOU AWARE THAT NO FLORIDA COURT HAS HELD THESE AMENDMENTS TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: ARE YOU AWARE THAT NO FLORIDA COURT HAS HELD THE 2022 MAP TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS STILL PENDING COURT CASES REGARDING THE 2022 MAP AND IN THE BLACK VOTERS MATTER CASE AND THAT WAS DECIDED THIS SUMMER I WANT TO NOTE FOR THE BODY THAT THERE HOLDING WAS SPECIFIC TO THE QUESTIONS AND ANALYSIS THAT WERE ASKED IN THE CASE AND THEY LOOKED ONLY AT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT FIVE. THEY DID NOT LOOK AT THE MAP AS A WHOLE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. WERE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNITY LEVEL TOWN HALLS HOSTED ABOUT THIS MAP FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I AM UNAWARE OF ANY. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. I KNOW IT WAS STATED DURING COMMITTEE THAT THE MAP DRAWER DREW THE MAP TWO WEEKS AGO. WHETHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE MAP PRIVATELY OR PUBLICLY BEFORE THE MAPMAKER STARTED WORKING ON IT? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. CAN YOU CLARIFY THE QUESTION? CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN WHO. >> Rep. Eskamani: FOR EXAMPLE, DID THE PRESIDENT CALL ANY PRESIDING OFFICERS OR DID PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS DIRECTLY? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I CAN ONLY SPEAK AS TO ANY CONVERSATION THAT I MIGHT HAVE HAD AND I HAD ZERO CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYBODY BEFORE WE TOOK THE MAP THROUGH THIS PROCESS OVER THE LAST YEAR. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH. >> Rep. Joseph: A MOMENT AGO WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE 2026 PLAN SPLITS MORE COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES THEN THE EXISTING 22 MAP AND YOU SAID YOU WERE AWARE OF IT MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS WHAT LEGITIMATE REDISTRICTING PRINCIPAL JUSTIFIES ADDITIONAL SPLITS GIVEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THREE TO TWO CRITERIA? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THERE IS A COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING AS HOW YOU REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES TO A MAP. WE APPLY THE PRINCIPLES AND EACH ONE OF US WILL END UP DRAWING A DIFFERENT MAP. THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF MAPS THAT CAN BE DRAWN AND BE COMPLIANT WITH TRADITIONAL REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES. JUST BECAUSE THERE WERE CHANGES IN HOW A COUPLE COUNTIES OR CITIES MIGHT BE SPLIT THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE PRINCIPLES WERE NOT FOLLOWED. IT IS A BALANCING ACT. IT IS A PRECISE EXERCISE. REMEMBER EVERY DISTRICT HAS TO HAVE THE MAP MATHEMATICALLY EXACT NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN IT DOWN TO A SINGLE PERSON. IT IS A DIFFICULT EXERCISE. I WILL SHARE WITH THE BODY THAT UNDER THE PROPOSED MAP 382 CITIES ARE CAP WHOLE. 382 CITIES. AND 30 CITIES ARE SPLIT. UNDER THE PROPOSED MAP BEFORE YOU 48 COUNTIES ARE KEPT WHOLE. FORTY EIGHT AND ONLY 19 ARE SPLIT. AND SOME COUNTIES ARE SPLIT LAST UNDER THE PROPOSED MAP AND IN SOME COUNTIES THEY ARE SPLIT MORE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH. >> Rep. Joseph: THANK YOU. WHAT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR EXPLANATION ABOUT HOW THERE CAN BE A MERE RATED AND DIFFERENT VARIATIONS MY QUESTION A SPECIFIC. I WANT TO ASK THIS A DIFFERENT WAY. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE MAP FOR MAKING THE INCREASE OF SPLITS MORE COUNTIES AND CITIES THEN THE MAP THAT IT REPLACES? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: I CANNOT SPEAK TO REGARDING THE THEORY OF WHAT THE MAP DRAWER ARE USED OR EMPLOYED. BUT IF YOU GO BACK AND WATCH THE COMMITTEE MEETING YESTERDAY OR IF YOU WATCH THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE YESTERDAY YOU WILL SEE THE MAP DRAWER WALKED THROUGH HIS THEORY AND HOW HE ADDRESSED EACH DISTRICT AND WHY HE TOOK CERTAIN ACTIONS. I CANNOT SPEAK FOR HIM BUT YOU CAN GO BACK AND WATCH HIS TESTIMONY. >> Rep. Joseph: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. AS THE BILL SPONSOR AND ASKING THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONE PRESENTING THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US TODAY BUT SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP THE DRAFTER OF THE BILL AND HIS TESTIMONY I WILL ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION ABOUT HIS TESTIMONY SPECIFICALLY IT SEEMS THAT JASON PER RHETT TESTIFIED THAT HE USED PARTISAN DATA IN DRAWING EVERY DISTRICT ON THE MAP. DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS A COINCIDENCE THAT THE MAP DRAWN WITH THE PARTISAN DATA ALSO HAPPENS TO BE LESS COMPACT AND SPLITS MORE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES THEN THE MAP IT REPLACES? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I THINK I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT WAYS AS IT WAS BUILT AND OTHER QUESTIONS BUT AGAIN I WILL GO BACK. I CAN NOT SPEAK TOWARD THE MAP DRAWER'S INTENT. I CANNOT SPEAK TO HOW THE MAP DRAWER BALANCED ALL OF THE TRADITIONAL REDISTRICTING CRITERIA BY PUTTING TOGETHER THE MAP THAT IS BEFORE YOU. IT IS A DIFFICULT EXERCISE. AGAIN THERE IS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF MAPS THAT COULD BE DRAWN COMPLIANT WITH REDISTRICTING BY AREA BUT I THINK THE MAP BEFORE US TODAY IS A GOOD MAP AND BASED ON VIABLE LEGAL THEORIES AND LIKELY TO BE UPHELD. >> Speaker: LEADER DRISKELL. >> Rep. Driskell: POINTS AND INFORMATION. THIS IS NOT A QUESTION IF WE COULD STOP THE CLOCK? WHICH IS THAT TYPICALLY IN THIS BODY WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH LEGISLATION AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT THE BILL SPONSOR IS UNABLE TO ANSWER WE MAKE STAFF AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND I THINK WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS MAP WE SHOULD HAVE THE MAP DRAWER HERE OR SOMEONE FROM STAFF WHO CAN GIVE US SOME ANSWERS. THIS IS A GENERATIONAL MAP BEING DRAWN AND IT IS IMPORTANT AND WE SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE PROCESS THAT WE TYPICALLY DO. >> Speaker: YOUR POINT IS NOTED FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. THE FASTEST GROWING COUNTY IN FLORIDA IS ST. JOHNS AND DISTRICT FIVE AND SIX DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL WHY IS THAT? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU SPEAKER AND THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE AND THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR THE QUESTIONS. AGAIN I CANNOT SPEAK AS TO WHY THE MAP DRAWER MADE ANY TYPE OF DECISION AND RUN THE MAP BEFORE US. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU. WHAT DATA DO WE HAVE THAT SHOWS A SHIFT IN POPULATION GROWTH THAT JUSTIFIES A MID DECADE REDISTRICTING. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: I HAVE NOT REVIEWED ANY RECENT POPULATION DATA AGAIN THE MAP BEFORE YOU IS BASED ON THE 2020 CENSUS. IT IS WITH IN OUR PREROGATIVE AND WITH IN OUR DISCRETION TO TAKE UP A MAP REGARDING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AT ANY TIME. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: WHAT PART OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION ALLOWS AND SPECIFICALLY I'M ASKING FOR A SECTION IN THE SITE OR CITATION WHAT PART OF THE FLORIDA ADOPTED FLORIDA CONSTITUTION SINCE 1968 ALLOWS US TO DO MID DECADE REDISTRICTING. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION WITHIN THE STATE CONSTITUTION OR STATE STATUTE FOR DOING MIDCYCLE REDISTRICTING. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: WAS THIS MAP DRAWN BY HAND OR USING OUTSIDE ALGORITHMS I'M SORRY THIS WAS ALREADY ANSWERED. AND HE ALREADY SPOKE TO HOW THERE WERE NO ALTERNATIVE PLANS PROVIDED. BUT I GUESS ULTIMATELY ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHERE ARE THE INCUMBENTS LOCATED ON THE MAP AND WAS THERE ANY DOUBLE BUNKING OR ANYONE DRAWN OUT OF THEIR DISTRICT? PERSONS MULICKA I HAVE ZERO DATA REGARDING RESIDENCES OF INCUMBENTS AND I DID NOT HEAR ANY DISCUSSION IN THE COMMITTEE REGARDING INCUMBENTS. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE CROSS. >> Rep. Cross: REPRESENTATIVE, WHY DID THIS BODY FAILED TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO OFFER INPUT BEFORE THE MAPS ARE PRESENTED? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE CROSS THAT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS VILLAGE YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? >> Rep. Cross: WILL THIS BODY RETAIN AND MAKE PUBLIC ALL RECORDS AND COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO REDISTRICTING INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE? >> Speaker: THESE ARE ALL PUBLIC RECORDS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE BILL. RELATING TO THE MAP. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? >> Rep. Cross: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE, THE GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER SUGGESTS ANY CONSIDERATION OF RACE AND A DRAWING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE 14th AMENDMENT IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S POSITION AS WELL? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I BELIEVE I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION BUT I WILL NOTE THAT THE MAP BEFORE YOU BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD IN COMMITTEE I AGAIN CANNOT SPEAK TO THE INTENT OF THE MAP DRAWER OR WHAT THE MAP DRAWER DID OR DID NOT DO WHEN HE SAID RACE WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL AND DRAW ON THIS MAP AND THAT IT IS A RACE NEUTRAL MAP AND I HAVE SAID BEFORE AND I WILL SAY AGAIN I BELIEVE THAT THIS MAP IS BASED ON VIABLE LEGAL THEORIES AND WILL LIKELY BE UPHELD ON A CHALLENGE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE NIXON. >> Rep. Nixon: THANK YOU. I AND CONFUSED BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE THE ONES WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DRAWING THE MAP AND IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT ANY OF THE ANSWERS YOU DON'T KNOW AND CANNOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE WHY ARE YOU SPONSORING THIS BILL? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE NIXON YOU CANNOT INQUIRE INTO THE MOTIVES OF MEMBERS DURING QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? RECOGNIZED REPRESENTATIVE NIXON. >> Rep. Nixon: GOOD. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE BARTLEMAN. >> Rep. Bartleman: WOULD YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT WAS STATED ON PUBLIC RECORD THAT THIS MAP WAS ON PARTISAN DATA TO FAVOR A PARTY? >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THINK YOU. AGAIN I COULD NOT SPEAK AS TO WHAT THE MAP DRAWER DID OR DID NOT DO OR WHAT THE MAP DRAWER CONSIDERED OR DID NOT CONSIDER OR TO WHAT HIS INTENT WAS OR WAS NOT. >> Rep. Bartleman: THANK YOU. WOULD YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND THE MAP DRAWER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PERSONAL DATA WAS LOOKED AT IN HIS TESTIMONY DID YOU HEAR THAT? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU. I AM NOT GOING TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHETHER OR WHAT THE INTENT OF THE MAP DRAWER WAS OR WAS NOT IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE ASKING IT. >> Rep. Bartleman: THANK YOU. THAT IS NOT MY DETERMINATION. YOU WERE IN THE SAME ROOM I WAS WITH THE TESTIMONY WAS HARD SO HE SAID HE LOOKED AT PARTISAN DATA. YOU ARE VERY FIRM IN YOUR BELIEF THAT HE DID NOT LOOK AT RACIAL DATA BUT YOU ARE UNABLE TO DRAW THAT SAME CONCLUSION WHEN IT COMES TO PARTISAN DATA WHICH HE ABSOLUTELY SAID ON RECORD HE CONSIDERED. WHEN WE DREW MAPS BACK IN 2022 DID WE LOOK AT PARTISAN DATA WHEN WE DREW MAPS LAST TIME. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT WE DID OR DID NOT USE IN 2022. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON. >> Rep. Robinson: I WANT TO GO BACK THAT YOU WERE FIRM ON SAYING HE DID NOT USE RACIAL DATA HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT EVIDENCE OR WHAT IS THERE TO SAY THAT HE DID NOT USE RACIAL DATA? YOU SAID IT BUT HOW DO WE KNOW? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: I DID NOT SAY THAT I KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER HE DID OR DID NOT. I SAID I CANNOT SPEAK AS TO WHAT HE DID OR DID NOT DO BUT HE SAID HE DID NOT USE RACIAL DATA. >> Speaker: TIME FOR QUESTIONS HAS EXPIRED. ARE THERE AMENDMENTS? >> NONE ON THE DESK MISTER SPEAKER. >> Speaker: ROLL OVER FOR A THIRD READING. REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER I MOVE THE RULES BE WAIVED IN HOUSE BILL ONE D A BE READ A THIRD TIME BY TITLE AND PLACED ON FINAL PASSAGE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA MOVES THE BILL BE READ A THIRD TIME AND PLACED ON FINAL PASSAGE. THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED. READ THE BILL A THIRD TIME BY TITLE. >> BY REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA HOUSE BILL ONE D A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF THE STATE. >> Speaker: AMENDMENTS? >> NONE. >> Speaker: WE ARE GOING TO STRUCTURED DEBATE ON HB ONE D. THIS IS LIMITED TO 45 MINUTES PER SIDE IN 15 MINUTE INCREMENTS TOTAL DEBATE TIME NOT TO EXCEED 90 MINUTES. REPRESENTATIVE DALEY. REPRESENTATIVE GANTT YOU ARE RECOGNIZED IN DEBATE. WE WILL START THE DEBATE CLOCK. >> Rep. Gantt: I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Harris: I DO NOT WANT TO TALK MUCH ABOUT THE LEGAL ISSUES BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE WELL VERSED THAN I AM TO TALK ABOUT IT. I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW IT FLIPS COUNTY IS BUT I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THERE WAS NO MEANINGFUL CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED OR SILENCED. AND I AM GOING TO GET EMOTIONAL BECAUSE I THINK OF A COIE IN THE GENERATION THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT AND DIED FOR THE SIMPLE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED AND REPRESENTATION MATTERS AND IT MATTERS MOST FOR THOSE WHO HAVE HAD TO FIGHT THE HARDEST TO HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD AND ALSO WE THINK ABOUT THE VOTERS IN THE STATE PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AND BELIEFS WHO ARE NOW BEING DRAWN INTO DISTRICTS WHERE THEIR VOICES CANNOT BE WE WERE CUT OUT OF THIS PROCESS AS A MEMBER OF THIS HOUSE I WAS CUT OUT OF THIS PROCESS AND THEY WILL BE CUT OUT OF THE PROCESS. WE KNOW FLORIDIANS EXPECT AND DEMAND A FAIR PROCESS FOR REDISTRICTING BECAUSE THEY VOTED ON IT. OUR CONSTITUENTS VOTED ON IT OVERWHELMINGLY. NOTHING IN THE GOVERNOR SUPPOSE A JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS MAP HAS ANY MEANINGFUL ADDRESSING. THE DISTRICTS ON THIS MAP HAVE FEWER GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES AND SPLIT MORE CITIES AND COUNTIES. THERE ARE NO COMPELLING STATE INTEREST THAT JUSTIFIES THROWING OUT THE PREVIOUS MAP WHICH WAS ALSO DEFENDED IN COURT WITH STATE AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS SPENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO CREATE A MAP THAT WILL MOST CERTAINLY. WE ARE SPENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO CREATE A MAP THAT WILL MOST CERTAINLY BE CHALLENGED IN COURT AND THEN ASKING THE SAME TAXPAYERS TO PAY TO DEFEND IT. WE ARE ASKING FLORIDIANS TO HAVE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WEEKEND AND PAY FOR IT. THERE IS A LOT AT STAKE HERE. I WILL MAKE A MORAL ARGUMENT. THIS IS NOT JUST ANOTHER VOTE. THIS IS NOT JUST ANOTHER BILL. THIS IS A MOMENT THAT WILL DEFINE HOW SERIOUSLY WE TAKE THE CONSTITUTION WE ALL COLLECTIVELY SWORE TO UPHOLD. IN THIS YEAR AS THE NATION APPROACHES IS 250th ANNIVERSARY WE SHOULD REMEMBER SOMETHING SIMPLE. HISTORY HAS ITS EYES ON EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO. >> Speaker: MEMBERS TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS TO THE BUBBLE. REPRESENTATIVE GANTT YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> Rep. Gantt: I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE DALEY. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE DALEY. >> Rep. Daley: GOOD MORNING, YOU KNOW ME. I DON'T GET UP ON THE FLOOR VERY OFTEN BUT I AM ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I FIND IT PARTICULARLY OFFENSIVE. I AM RISING IN OPPOSITION TODAY NOT BECAUSE OF WHO THE MAP HELPS OR HURTS POLITICALLY BUT BECAUSE OF HOW WE GOT HERE. I WANT TO GO OVER A COUPLE OF THINGS. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THIS. WE JUST DREW THESE MAPS AND WENT THROUGH AN ENTIRE PROCESS A COUPLE YEARS AGO. I KNOW BECAUSE I SAT THROUGH THEM. WE WENT THROUGH AN ENTIRE ELABORATE PROCESS. WE VOTED TO APPROVE MAPS AND THE GOVERNOR SENT ONE TWEET. I WILL WHATEVER HE SAID TO VETO IT DEAD ON ARRIVAL THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE KOWTOW SAY GOVERNOR PLEASE GIVE US A MAP WE WILL VOTE ON AND WE DID AND THAT IS WHAT WE VOTED FOR AND THAT IS THE MAP THAT WE HAD. THE MAP THAT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE COURT. WAS THE GOVERNOR WRONG THEN OR IS HE WRONG NOW? COMING BACK OF THE 11th HOUR TRYING TO DO THIS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DECADE. THERE HAS BEEN NO NEW CENSUS. THERE HAS BEEN NO COURT ORDER. THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO DO IT AGAIN. IT IS NOT A CORRECTION IT IS A CHOICE. WE ARE NOT RESPONDING TO DATA BUT OPPORTUNITY. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT FAIR DISTRICTS FOR A SECOND. VOTERS SPOKE CLEARLY IN 2010 WITH OVERWHELMING OVER 60 PERCENT SUPPORT IN BOTH AMENDMENTS. THE AMENDMENTS AS YOU KNOW REQUIRE MAPS NOT TO BE DRAWN TO FAVOR OR DISFAVOR OF LOCAL PARTY. THIS MAP FLIES IN THE FACE OF FEAR DISTRICTS AND AT THE FLORIDA VOTERS. FOR REASONS I AM ABOUT TO JUMP INTO. THIS IS A PROCESS BREAKDOWN FOR ME, MEMBERS. CONSTITUTIONALLY WE THE LEGISLATURE DRAW THE MAPS YET ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE KOWTOW TO THE GOVERNOR. THE BILL SPONSOR ADMITTED NOT A SINGLE LEGISLATURE DREW A SINGLE LINE IN THIS MAP. COULD NOT ANSWER HAVE THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE DID NOT DRAW THE MAP BETTER YET BILL SPONSOR ADMITTED SHE DID NOT DRAW THE MAP AND IS AWARE OF THE GOVERNOR'S STAFF USED POLITICAL DATA TO DRAW THIS. IF THAT IS NOT AN ADMISSION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF DISTRICTS I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. LET'S TALK FOR A SECOND ABOUT THE BIGGER PICTURE. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE IT IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE NORMALIZE MID DISTRICT I'M SORRY MID DECADE REDISTRICTING. I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT THE STRENGTH OF OUR SYSTEM HAS NEVER COME FROM WHAT THOSE IN POWER CAN DO BUT FROM WHAT THEY CHOOSE NOT TO DO. I WILL ASK YOU TO VOTE NO TODAY FOR SO MANY MORE REASONS THAN I CAN GO INTO. BE A PATRIOT AND VOTE NO. [APPLAUSE] >> Speaker: LEADER DRISKELL IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Driskell: NOT DEBATE BUT A MOTION PERHAPS. CAN WE PAUSE THE TIME? IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT LOUISIANA V KELLY DECISION JUST ISSUED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT I WOULD MOVE FOR A RECESS OR AT LEAST TWO HOURS WE CAN ALL HAVE TO DIGEST THIS LANDMARK SUPREME COURT DECISION WHICH IS IT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF WHY WE ARE EVEN HERE TODAY AT MID DECADE REDISTRICTING. >> Speaker: MEMBERS, LEADER DRISKELL MOVES FOR A TEMPORARY RECESS OF TWO HOURS TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE CALLAIS DECISION ON THE PENDING LEGISLATION. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION FAILS. REPRESENTATIVE GANTT YOU ARE RECOGNIZED IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Gantt: CAN WE HAVE FIVE SECONDS ADDED BACK ONTO THE CLOCK? >> Speaker: YES. >> Rep. Gantt: I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE HUNSCHOFSKY. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HUNSCHOFSKY. >> Rep. Hunschofsky: THANK YOU. MEMBERS I'M STUNNED THAT THIS MAP IS CONSIDERED SUCH A PRIORITY BY THE GOVERNOR AND LEADERSHIP THAT WE HAVE BEEN SUMMONED HERE ON THE TAXPAYER DIME TO PASS A MAP WHICH VIOLATES ARTICLE THREE SECTION 20 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION WHICH PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM DRAWING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS THAT INTENTIONALLY FAVOR OR DISFAVOR A POLITICAL PARTY OR INCUMBENT. IN FACT THIS SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE FLORIDA FAIR DISTRICT, WHICH WAS PASSED BY WHO? THE FLORIDA VOTERS IN 2010 WITH 62.93 PERCENT YET HERE WE ARE WITH THE MAP DRAWN ACCORDING TO THE MAP THE DRAWER IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS HEARD IN ONE HOUSE COMMITTEE FOR THREE HOURS AND NOW LIMITED TO 30 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS AND 45 MINUTES OF DEBATE ON EITHER SIDE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR. THIS MAP FLIES DIRECTLY AGAINST THE FACE OF THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA WHO SAID THEY WANTED FAIR DISTRICTS. AND THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DISCUSSION. THEY WERE NOT INVITED TO THE TABLE. NOT IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. MEMBERS, DEMOCRACY DOES NOT DIE IN DARKNESS. IT HAPPENS IN DAYLIGHT. IN FRONT OF ALL OF US. WHEN THE POWERFUL OUR SO CAUGHT UP IN THEIR UNCHALLENGED POWER THAT THEY DECIDE THAT THE POWER THEY HOLD OR COULD HOLD IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PEOPLE THEY SWORE TO SERVE. IT ALSO DIES WHEN THOSE WHO SEEK POWER ARE COMPLICIT AND ALONG FOR THE RIDE. MEMBERS, THIS IS MESSED UP. OUR PRIORITIES IN THIS GOVERNMENT ARE UPSIDE DOWN. WHEN WE'RE PUTTING INDIVIDUAL POWER AHEAD OF THE PEOPLE WE SERVE THE CONSTITUTION AND SEPARATION OF POWERS AND A DIFFERENT POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES SO THAT NO ONE GROUP AND NO ONE PERSON CAN ABUSE THEIR POWER TO DAY YOU ALL HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE DO YOU SIDE WITH THE PEOPLE OR FLORIDA OR UNACCOUNTABLE POWER THANK YOU. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. TO MAKE IT PLAIN I WILL PUT ON MY TEACHERS HAD. WHEN WE TALKING ABOUT SEVERABILITY THIS IS A LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT ALLOWS THE COURT TO REMOVE AN INVALID OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL PART OF A LAW OR CONTRACT WHILE KEEPING THE REST OF IT INTACT. THINK ABOUT IT LIKE THROWING THE ENTIRE STATUTE OUT ONLY ONE SECTION IS CARVED OUT. THAT IS THE CURRENT PRINCIPLE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. ABSOLUTELY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA ARE IN OPPOSITION WHICH IS NOW THE GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA WITH THIS MAP, THEIR POSITION IS THAT THE SEVERABILITY PRESUMPTION AND THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE ONE PART IS NOT APPLICABLE. THAT IS COMPLETELY IN CONTRADICTION AND COMPLETELY NOT BASED ON ANY LEGAL PRECEDENT AND SINCE WHEN DO WE FILE OR PASS LEGISLATION SO WE CAN SAY WE KNOW IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IT IS NOT BASED ON CASE LAW BUT WE WILL DO IT ANYWAY SO WE CAN TAKE IT TO COURT? THAT IS ON THE ROLE THE LEGISLATURE. BY THE ROLE IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ABDICATE OUR ROLE IN THIS PARTICULAR REDISTRICTING. IT IS OUR ROLE TO INVITE THE GOVERNOR TO DISSIPATE WITH US NOT TO TAKE OVER THE ENTIRE PROCESS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT SEVERABILITY IN THIS LEGAL PRINCIPLE THERE IS A SEMINOLE CASE AND FLORIDA LAW RAY VERSUS MOORE FILM AND IT STATES THAT SEVERABILITY IS A JUDICIAL DOCTRINE RECOGNIZING OBLIGATION OF THE JUDICIARY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO STRIKE ONLY THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PORTION. SO THE GOVERNOR'S POSITION IS THAT THE ENTIRE AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE ONE PART IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IN ORDER TO RETAIN AND KEEP POWER. THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS AND THAT IS NOT HOW WE AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY SHOULD BE FUNCTIONING. I WILL ALSO SAY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT ARTICLE THREE SECTION 20 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION STATES NO PLAN OR INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT SHALL BE DRAWN WITH THE INTENT TO FAVOR OR DISFAVOR A POLITICAL PARTY OR AN INCUMBENT. THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL WAS VERY ADAMANT AND VERY 100 PERCENT POSITIVE THAT PARTISAN I'M SORRY, RACIAL GROUNDS WERE NOT USED BUT PARTISAN OR PARTISAN DATA WAS USED AS ADMITTED BY THE SOLE MAP DRAWER. FLORIDIANS OF ALL POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS CAME TOGETHER IN 2010 AND PASSED THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT WITH A 63 PERCENT VOTE. SOME OF YOU ALL DID NOT GET 63 PERCENT OF THE VOTE IN YOUR DISTRICT BUT FLORIDIANS VOTED 60 AMENDMENT AND A LARGE PART TO PROTECT VOICES FROM PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING. WE ARE NOT DOING MID DECADE REDISTRICTING WE ARE DOING PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING THAT IS WHAT THIS IS AND I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. SO THIS IS HOW LIBERTY DIES WITH A THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE. I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE HERE TO VOTE ON A MAP THAT WAS FIRST LEAKED TO FOX NEWS AS THE BILL SPONSOR COULD NOT ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS ON BECAUSE IT'S NOT OUR PRODUCT COMING STRAIGHT FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE WHO HAS MADE VERY PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND TWEETS REGARDING PARTISANSHIP AND I QUOTE FROM ONLINE TO DESANTIS SPEAKING TO HAL FLORIDA CAN ADD UP TO FIVE REPUBLICAN SEATS. WE GOT TO FOUR. WE GOT TO FOUR. MEMBERS THIS IS NOT HOW THE PROCESS SHOULD WORK. THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC TOWN HALLS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND IT SHOULD HAPPEN EVERY TEN YEARS NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A DECADE. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED AND WE SHOULD EACH BE CONCERNED BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE WITH YOUR HAIR ON FIRE IF THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM THAT IS BASED UPON VOTER INPUT. IT IS FOUNDED ON CIVIC PARTICIPATION. VOTERS APPROVED THESE TWO DISTRICT AMENDMENTS AND KNOWING THAT THIS PROCESS WAS ALREADY CORRUPT AND CORROSIVE. MANY OF US WORKED HERE DURING THE FIRST BATTLE ON THOSE AMENDMENTS BUT MAPS HAD TO BE REDRAWN AND REISSUED FROM 2012 TO 2016. ARE FLORIDA CENTER WAS DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THAT AND THE CURRENT MAPS ARE STILL BEING LITIGATED. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS PROCESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POPULATION ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS STILL USING THE SAME CONSENSUS DATA THAT WE USED AND NO CLEAR ADJUSTMENTS ARE BEING MADE FOR THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CREDIBLE. WE SHOULD NOT BE DEBATING BILLS THAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND AND HAVE NO BACKGROUND TO DO AND NO CONTEXT TO THAT IS LITERALLY BORN OUT OF PARTISANSHIP. IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR LEGAL INTERPRETATION. IT IS DISAPPOINTING THAT WE ARE IN A POLITICAL CLIMATE THAT IS SO POLARIZING THAT FOLKS HAVE TO CHEAT TO WIN. WE ARE WATCHING THE TRENDS NATIONALLY IF WE TRULY BELIEVE IN A MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS AND COMPETITION AND BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A MERITOCRACY THEN WE SHOULD ALLOW VOTERS TO CHOOSE THEIR POLITICIANS NOT POLITICIANS CHOOSE THEIR VOTERS. I ASK YOU MEMBERS TO STAND WITH US AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION. STAND WITH US AND WITH THE VOTERS AS I AM REMINDED THAT EACH ONE OF US WHEN WE GOT SWORN IN WHICH WE JUST SAW YESTERDAY WE TAKE AN OATH WITH A JUDGE BEFORE US TO RESPECT THE STATE AND U.S. CONSTITUTION. IF YOU VOTE YES ON THESE MAPS YOU ARE BREAKING YOUR OATH TO THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA AND TO OUR FOUNDATION AS A COUNTRY AND AS A STATE. PLEASE VOTE DOWN. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: THE TIME FOR DEBATE IN THIS BLOCK HAS EXPIRED LEADER SIROIS YOU ARE RECOGNIZED IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Sirois: WE YEILD BACK OUR TIME IN THIS BLOCK. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT YOU ARE RECOGNIZED IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Gantt: I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE TANT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE TANT YOU ARE RECOGNIZED IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Tant: I KNOW A LOT OF THIS IS FALLING ON DEAF EARS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT LISTENING BUT MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS IN NORTH FLORIDA FEEL AND HAVE FELT SINCE THE LAST CENSUS THAT WAS DONE DURING COVID THAT DOORS ARE NOT KNOCKED ON AND SO THERE WAS NO ACCURATE COUNT EVEN THEN. GIVEN THE FACT THAT OUR OWN HOUSE STAFF HAS ADMITTED THAT FLORIDA'S CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROVED FAIR DISTRICT ACT PASSED BY FLORIDIANS IN 2010 WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS BILL IT IGNORES FEDERAL VOTING ACTS FROM 1965 AND THAT HE HAS STATED THAT IT DOES IN FACT FACTOR IN PARTISAN DATA GIVEN THE FACT THAT OUR GOVERNOR HAD STATED THAT FLORIDA HAS UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH AND MANY OF US TO BOAST ABOUT THE 900 PEOPLE MOVE INTO THE STATE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A LEGITIMATE CENSUS COUNT I AM CONFIDENT THAT FLORIDIANS VOICES ARE BEING DILUTED, COMMUNITIES ARE BEING SPLIT, CONSTITUENTS IGNORED, AND THE VOICES ARE DISENFRANCHISED. THE VERY PROCESS THIS BILL WENT THROUGH TO GET ON THE FLOOR TODAY IS THE ADDITION OF HOW MY CONSTITUENTS AND YOURS WILL BE TREATED WITH DELIBERATE DISREGARD, DELIBERATE DISRESPECT FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR AND DELIBERATE DISDAIN FOR REGISTERED PARTIES VOTERS OF ALL PARTIES IS A HARD NOTE TODAY AND YOU SHOULD VOTE THAT WAY ALONG WITH ME. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE WOODSON. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE WOODSON. >> Rep. Woodson: THANK YOU AS A REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS ELECTED TO BE A VOICE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ENTRUSTED ME TO DO THIS WILL VOICE A SIMPLE QUESTION ONE THAT I BELIEVE EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BODY AND EVERY FLORIDIAN WATCHING OUGHT TO BE ASKING WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS? WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS IN A PROCESS THAT GIVES US 24 HOURS TO REVIEW MAPS THAT WILL SHIFT OUR DEMOCRACY FOR YEARS TO COME? WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS AND WATCHING LEGISLATION THAT IMPACTS MILLIONS WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS WHEN THE VOICES OF OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE TREATED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT INSTEAD OF THE FOUNDATION. WE ALL NOW BECAUSE THE PEOPLE TOLD US CLEARLY IN 2010 THROUGH THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT THAT DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE DRAWN TO FAVOR OR DISFAVOR A POLITICAL PARTY. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE WOODSON PLEASE STAND BY. MEMBERS, PLEASE HOLD IT DOWN. REPRESENTATIVE WOODSON HAS THE FLOOR. >> Rep. Woodson: THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT WAS NOT A SUGGESTION THAT WAS A WILL OF THE VOTERS. I AM ASKING AGAIN WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS? WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS WHEN WE ENGAGE IN AN MID DECADE REDISTRICTING PROCESS THAT THE PEOPLE DID NOT ASK FOR. WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS WITH THE PROCESS ITSELF IS FLAWED, RUST, AND LACKING TRANSPARENCY. WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS FOR A WORKING MOTHER, THE SENIOR AND BROWARD COUNTY, THE STUDENT IN COLLEGE PARK THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF BEING HERE IN HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WE DO TODAY BECAUSE MAKE NO MISTAKE THIS IS NOT THEORETICAL AND IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT LINES ON A MAP IT IS ABOUT THE VERY ESSENCE OF FAIRNESS RURAL PEOPLE AND RURAL COMMUNITIES AND FAIRNESS SHOULD NOT BE PARTISAN. FAIRNESS IS A PRINCIPAL. MEMBERS, I'M ASKING TODAY WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS IN IGNORING THEM. WE SHOULD PAUSE AND TAKE THE TIME TO GET IT RIGHT. AND FOR ONE I REFUSE TO DO THAT. SO TODAY I WILL BE VOTING NO NOT OUT OF PARTISANSHIP BUT OUT OF PRINCIPLE BECAUSE UNTIL WE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS WE HAVE NO BUSINESS VOTING ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE YOUNG. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE YOUNG. >> Rep. Young: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. MEMBERS, I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT HAS CHANGED? WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE 2022? THE POLITICAL CLIMATE THAT NOW REQUIRES US TO REDRAW LINES NOT BECAUSE OF COMMUNITIES MOVING BUT POWER SHIFTING AND THE PORTAL CLIMATE THAT NOW SINCE FAIRNESS IS OPTIONAL WANT IT BECOMES INCONVENIENT AND POLITICAL CLIMATE THAT ALLOWS WASHINGTON'S INTEREST TO REACH DOWN INTO THE STATE AND SHAPE A IS AT THE POLITICAL CLIMATE THAT ASKS US TO DILUTING THE VOTING POWER OF BLACK LATINO VOTERS OR THE POLITICAL POWER THAT SAYS VOTING THAT'S WINNING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT OUR VIEWS BECAUSE IF THIS HAS NOT CHANGED OF THE QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE HERE. WE ARE LIVING IN PERILOUS TIMES. PERILOUS TIMES AND GOVERNMENT BEGINS TO CHOOSE WHO IT WANTS TO REPRESENT INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO CHOOSE WHO REPRESENT US. PERILOUS TIMES OF THOSE WHO PRESENT THEMSELVES AND LEADERS QUOTE POLITICAL INTENT AND CHEAP CLOTH LANGUAGE OF PROCESS AND NECESSITY PERILOUS TIMES WILL WE NORMALIZE OUTCOMES THAT WE WOULD HAVE ONE CHALLENGE WITHOUT HESITATION. AT THE STANDARD BECOMES THAT MAPS CAN BE WITHDRAWN WHEN EVER THE POLITICAL WINS OF CHANGE THERE IS NO STABILITY AND REPRESENTATION IF THE PRESIDENT BECOMES THE OUTSIDE INFLUENCE CAN SHAPE OUR DISTRICTS THAN THERE IS NO INDEPENDENCE IN THIS BODY. IF THE EXPECTATION BECOMES THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARD RAILS CAN BE STRETCHED WHEN CONVENIENT AND THE GUARD RAILS WILL NOT BE THERE WHEN WE NEED THEM. THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN WARNING IT IS AN INSTITUTIONAL WARNING. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER NOT JUST THE OUTCOME OR VOTE BUT THE STANDARD IT SETS. IS THIS HOW WE WANT FLORIDA TO GOVERN ITSELF? IS THIS THE PROCESS WE WANT TO DEFEND WHEN THE ROLLS ARE REVERSED? IS THIS THE MESSAGE WE WANT TO SENT TO VOTERS WHO TRUSTED US TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION THAT THEY APPROVED? THIS IS NOT JUST THE DISAGREEMENT OVER POLICY BUT A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE ARE WILLING TO UPHOLD THE RULES WHEN THEY ARE INCONVENIENT OR WHEN THEY BENEFIT US. WHAT HAS CHANGED? I KNOW. I'M GLAD HAVE ASKED. THOSE IN LEADERSHIP HAVE BEGUN TO YIELD THEIR AUTHORITY NOT JUST HERE IN FLORIDA BUT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. A DECISIONS LIKE THIS TO BE DRIVEN FROM THE TOP DOWN INSTEAD OF THE GROUND UP. GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE NOT CONTROLLED BY ELITES AND CLINGING TO STRINGS OF POWER THEY FEEL SLIPPING AWAY. THAT IS NOT HOW THE INSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO FUNCTION AND THAT IS NOT HOW DEMOCRACY IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. FOR THE SAKE OF THIS BODY AND FOR THE SAKE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FOR THE SAKE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SENT US HERE ASK THAT WE VOTED THIS BILL DOWN. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE NIXON. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE NIXON. >> Rep. Nixon: THIS IS DÉJÀ VU Y’ALL. DÉJÀ VU. THE SAME EXACT THING HAPPENED IN 22 THAT WAS WHEN YOU ALL UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AND ILLEGALLY JUST GAVE AWAY OUR POWER. LAST TIME I CHECKED WE WERE THE ONES WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DRAWING THE MAPS AND YET AND STILL YOU ALL CONTINUE TO HOLD THE WATER OF THE GOVERNOR WHO IS A LAME DUCK JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HIS NEXT JOB WILL BE. AND SO, IN 2022 WE WERE RIGHT HERE DIMINISHING REPRESENTATION INSTEAD OF OUR ONE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF PASSING A BUDGET THAT WE ARE HERE AGAIN THE BUDGET IS NOT PASSED. WHY ARE WE SO PRESSED ON PREMATURE REAPPOINTMENT INSTEAD OF PASSING AN ALREADY DELAYED BUDGET? MY MOM SAID EVERYTHING THAT IS FREE IS NOT GOOD AND HERE IN THE FREE STATE OF FLORIDA WE HAVE A GOVERNOR WHO WANTS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS OUR ONLY JOB TO DO THIS AND I AM SO REALLY CONFUSED WHY WE FEEL IT IS OKAY TO CONTINUE TO CHEAT SO WE CAN WIN? YOU ALL WANT TO CHEAT SO YOU CAN WIN. AND I KNOW MANY FOLKS ARE TALKING TRASH ABOUT WHAT VIRGINIA DID BUT VIRGINIA TOOK THEIR VOTE TO THE VOTERS. BACK IN 2010 OUR VOTERS SAID WE DID NOT WANT TO GERRYMANDER PARTISANSHIP. WE DID NOT WANT TO ALLOW PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING AND YOU ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE QUORUM WHICH YOU ALL VIOLATE. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE. IT IS WRONG. IT IS WRONG. IT IS DEAD WRONG. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PENDULUM SWINGING COME NOVEMBER. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH. >> Rep. Joseph: THANK YOU. LISTEN Y'ALL I WILL TALK TO FLORIDIANS BLACK, WHITE, PURPLE, RED, BLUE, WHATEVER, THE GOVERNOR IS PLAYING IN YOUR FACE. THAT'S WHAT THE KIDS SAY. HE TELLS US AND IS GIVING US SHIFTING EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. ONE IS TO ADDRESS THE UNDERCOUNT AND POPULATION THERE IS NO NEW CENSUS DATA. NOTHING HAS BEEN ADDRESSED TO CHANGE OR ADDRESS THE POPULATION SHIFT BECAUSE WE ARE USING THE SAME EXACT INFORMATION. HE TALKS ABOUT ADDRESSING COURT RULINGS AND WE JUST GOT ONE OF THE COURT RULINGS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND YOU JUST HEARD OUR COLLEAGUES VOTED DOWN OUR MEETING THE DEMOCRATS REQUEST TO PAUSE THIS PROCESS TO ADDRESS THE COURT RULING SO THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE COURT RULING. MAY THEY ARE INTERESTED IN ANOTHER COURT RULING THE BLACK VOTERS MATTER ROLLING. THAT ONE FOUND THAT THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS PROCESS WE TOOK AWAY A BLACK SEAT IN THE STATE. THE COURT FOUND THAT THAT WAS DONE INAPPROPRIATELY BUT COULD NOT CORRECT IT BECAUSE THIS ADMINISTRATION DID NOT GIVE THEM THE ACCURATE DATA TO RESTORE THE BLACK SEAT. SO THEY ARE NOT ADDRESSING LITIGATION. WHAT ELSE DID HE TELLS HE WANTED TO DO? FOLLOW THE LAW. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS. UNLIKE OTHER STATES WHERE PEOPLE CAN VOTE BY REFERENDUM WE HAVE A DIFFERENT PROCESS OF ORDER AND THE CONSTITUTIONALLY IT CANNOT BE PARTISAN. SPECIFICALLY THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT FOUND IN ARTICLE THREE SECTION 20 OF OUR STATE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THERE CAN BE NO PROPORTIONATE PLAN FOR INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS BEING DRAWN WITH THE INTENT TO FAVOR OR DISFAVOR A POLITICAL PARTY OR INCUMBENT. AND YOU HEARD OF THE BILL SPONSOR AND THE PERSON WHO DREW THE MAPS TESTIFIED TO THE PARTNERSHIP AND WE KNOW THE MAPS CAME OUT FIRST TO FOX NEWS BEFORE ANYONE IN THIS CHAMBER OR THE OTHER CHAMBER GOT IT. SO WHAT ARE THEY DOING? RIGGING ELECTIONS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY FAIR BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL LOSE. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW. THERE IS NOTHING ROUTINE ABOUT MIDCYCLE REDISTRICTING. IT IS ILLEGAL. FULL STOP. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE LOPEZ. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE LOPEZ YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> Rep. Lopez: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. MORE THAN 55 PERCENT OF VOTERS DON'T WANT REDISTRICTING INCLUDING INDEPENDENTS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS I WILL SPEAK TO MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE IN THE LANGUAGE WE ALL SHARE. TAXPAYERS AND THE CONSTITUTION. THE PROCLAMATION THAT BROUGHT IS HERE EXPRESSED THE APPROPRIATE FORMS FOR LEGAL CHALLENGES. WE ARE BEING ASKED TO PASS A MAP AND RESPOND AND DEFEND IT IN THE SAME BREATH WITH TAXPAYER MONEY WHATEVER YOU THINK ABOUT THE POLITICS OF REDISTRICTING THAT IS NOT LIMITED GOVERNMENT, IT IS NOT PHYSICAL RESTRAINT, IT IS ASKING A FAMILY WITH A FIXED INCOME SQUEEZER PROPERTY INSURANCE TO UNDERWRITE A LEGAL FIGHT THEY DID NOT ASK FOR. THERE IS NO [INAUDIBLE] THIS SOLVES ONLY A BILL THE TAXPAYER WILL PAY FOR IN COURT FOR YEARS. WHEN 60 PERCENT OF VOTERS WRITE A RULE INTO THE CONSTITUTION AND 55 PERCENT TELL US TODAY THEY DO THE CONSERVATIVE ANSWER ON THE PROGRESS ANSWER THE SAME ANSWER RESPECT THE VOTERS. TO THE CONSTITUENTS IN OUR DISTRICT WHO SHOWED UP REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT INDEPENDENT I HEAR YOU. TODAY I VOTE NO ON THIS A BILL AND I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO DO THE SAME. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE SKIDMORE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE SKIDMORE. >> Rep. Skidmore: THANK YOU. MEMBERS, WE HEARD FROM THE DEMOCRATS IN THE CHAMBER ABOUT ALL THE REASONS WHY WE SHOULD NOT BE ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS. AND I REALLY LOVE QUOTES. I LIKE TO LOOK BACK IN HISTORY. IN 1887 LORD ACTON SAID IN A LETTER TO ANGLICAN MISSION BISHOP POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MORE EVIDENT THEN TODAY IN THIS CHAMBER. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS ABSENT WHEN CORRUPTION IS PRESENT? COURAGE. COURAGE. THERE IS NO COURAGE IN THIS ROOM. THERE IS NO COURAGE TO SAY NO TO A DICTATOR. THERE IS NO COURAGE TO SAY NO TO IT HAS BEEN. THERE IS NO COURAGE IN THIS CHAMBER TO DO THE RIGHT THING. THERE ARE MEMBERS IN THIS CHAMBER WHO KNOW IN THEIR HEARTS THAT THEY TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THEY ARE GOING TO VIOLATE THAT OATH TODAY. YOU HAVE TO LOOK YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR EVERY DAY. I AM GLAD I DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT YOU EVERY DAY BECAUSE I AM SO DISAPPOINTED IN YOUR LACK OF COURAGE AND YOUR LACK OF CONVICTION TO DO THE RIGHT THING. TO DO WHAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO, WHICH IS TO REPRESENT YOUR CONSTITUENCY WHO DO NOT WANT THIS MAP. WHO ASKED YOU NOT TO DO IT. WHO TOLD US EMPHATICALLY IN 2010 NOT TO DO THIS THING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO TODAY. AND I SAY YOU BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT DOING IT. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE COURAGE OF THEIR CONVICTION AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO PROVE TO FLORIDIANS THAT WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY AND WE WILL REMAIN THERE AND YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH YOUR DECISION. [APPLAUSE]. >> Speaker: WE WILL PAUSE FOR RECOGNITION. REPRESENTATIVE BLANCO YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR A RECOGNITION. >> Rep. Blanco: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. TODAY WE HAVE FROM MIAMI A GROUP OF FOLKS WHO CAME UP TO TALK ABOUT CUBA AND THE FREEDOM OF CUBA AND THE DEMOCRACY OF CUBA. IN THE EAST GALLERY WE HAVE ORLANDO GOOD HERE GUTIERREZ AND JOSÉ DANIELLE PERERA WHO WAS A POLITICAL PRISONER FOR OVER 12 YEARS. GENTLEMEN, MEMBERS, THANK YOU. WE RECOGNIZE THESE LEADERS WHO HAVE COME TOGETHER TO PROVIDE A PATHWAY TO DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM FOR THE CUBAN PEOPLE. WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA HOUSE. [APPLAUSE]. >> Speaker: WELCOME. REPRESENTATIVE SALZMAN FOR RECOGNITION. >> Rep. Salzman: THANK YOU. MEMBERS I HAD TWO QUICK THINGS, ONE IN THE WEST GALLERY MY CONSTITUENT AND DEAR FRIEND MATT SHARP IS HERE. WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA HOUSE MATT. PLEASE GIVE HIM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE. HE ACTUALLY HELPED ME IN MY VERY FIRST ELECTION. HE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE I SPOKE TO IN 2019 ENCOURAGING ME TO BE HERE TODAY. A DEAR FRIEND. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ALSO A FRIEND OF MEG'S I WILL NOT STEAL YOUR THUNDER WITH YOUR DEAR DAUGHTER AND SECONDLY MEMBERS I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT PENSACOLA IN THE AMERICAN IDOL. WE HAVE A TOP FIVE CONTENDER LILA RICHARDSON. SHE WAS TOP SEVEN. SHE MADE IT A TOP FIVE ON MONDAY. NEXT MONDAY AT WE ARE HOPING SHE MAKES AT THE TOP THREE BUT I WANTED TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO OUR VERY OWN PENSACOLA FLORIDIAN TYLA RICHARDSON FOR BEING AN AMERICAN IDOL TOP FIVE. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]. >> Speaker: LEADER SIROIS IN DEBATE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Gantt: I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE DRISKELL. >> Rep. Driskell: MEMBERS MY GRANDMOTHER USED TO SAY CHILD JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO A THING DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD. AND I WOULD LOVE IT IF WE WOULD STOP DANCING AROUND WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE TODAY. THIS BILL IS NOT REDISTRICTING REFORM IT IS A PARTISAN MAP DRAWN IN SECRET ON FROM WASHINGTON AND SHOPPED THROUGH THIS CHAMBER A CLOCK DESIGNED TO GIVE THE PUBLIC OUT OF THE ROOM AND FOR ANY ONE OF US WHO VOTES WE OWE OUR CONSTITUENTS THE COURTESY OF SAYING THIS OUT LOUD. EARLIER THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT TOLD US THEY BELIEVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAIR DISTRICT AMENDMENT IS NOT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST SUFFICIENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF RACE TO PASS UNDER THE 14th AMENDMENT. JUST YESTERDAY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE STAFF TOLD US THE SAME THING ABOUT THE VRA RACE CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED IN REDISTRICTING SO THEY DID NOT CONSIDER RACE IN ANY WAY BECAUSE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT CANNOT BE A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST BUT JUST MOMENTS AGO JUSTICE TOLEDO IN THE CALLAIR CASE SAID IT IS WRONG WITH TOLEDO WRITING MAJORITY SAID COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION TWO IS PROPERLY CONSTRUED CAN PROVIDE SUCH A REASON. IT IS ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CHAMBER WOULD NOT TAKE A RECESS TO GO AND READ. I ENCOURAGE YOU GO AND READ IT. >> Speaker: MEMBERS PLEASE HOLD IT D