Florida’s New Congressional Map One Step Closer After Circuit Court Ruling

The Florida circuit court recently issued a ruling that moves the state closer to using its newly drawn congressional map for the 2026 midterms, setting up a higher-stakes legal showdown while the election calendar looms. The decision addresses competing claims about partisan intent and equal protection, and it follows the Supreme Court’s recent guidance in Louisiana v. Callais. Plaintiffs and state officials are preparing next steps as qualifying and primary deadlines approach. The outcomes could reshape how many seats Republicans hold from the Sunshine State in the next Congress.

In late April, Florida’s Legislature adopted a new congressional map at Gov. Ron DeSantis’ urging after the Supreme Court’s action in Louisiana v. Callais changed the legal landscape for redistricting. Republicans currently hold 20 of Florida’s 28 congressional seats, and court observers say the new map could add as many as four seats for Republicans if it remains in place for the 2026 elections. That potential swing made the map an immediate target for lawsuits that question whether the lines cross the state’s ban on partisan redistricting.

On Wednesday, a circuit court judge declined to block the newly adopted map while litigation continues, a ruling that increases the likelihood the map will stand for the upcoming election cycle. The judge’s order noted practical concerns about election logistics given that candidate qualifying is scheduled for the second week of June and the primary is set for Aug. 18. Those timing pressures factored into the court’s willingness to let the map remain in place while the case moves forward.

A Florida judge refused Tuesday to block a recently adopted congressional map that could net Republicans four extra seats in Congress from the Sunshine State.

The decision by Circuit Judge Joshua Hawkes, appointed to the bench by Gov. Ron DeSantis, doesn’t end the legal battle. But it greatly increases the likelihood that the map will be in place for the 2026 midterms while the underlying challenge continues.

[…]

The judge contended one reason to keep the new map — which was passed late last month by the GOP-controlled Legislature — was to avoid confusion ahead of the upcoming elections. Qualifying for congressional and state elections takes place the second week of June, and the primary will be held on Aug. 18.

Judge Joshua Hawkes, whose appointment came from the governor, framed his ruling around both legal merits and practical consequences. He weighed the plaintiffs’ allegations that the 2026 map violated Florida’s anti-partisan-redistricting provision against the state’s contention that the prior 2022 map had constitutional defects tied to race. The judge concluded that allowing the new map to take effect posed fewer immediate harms than disrupting the election process on the eve of qualifying and the primary.

Further, the 2022 map was declared unconstitutional when the Governor and Legislature replaced it with the 2026 map challenged in this litigation. The political branch’s position was in anticipation of a changing legal landscape with the Supreme Court’s pending ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. Plaintiffs’ evidence focuses on challenging the constitutionality of the 2026 map, but does not sufficiently challenge the political branches’ finding that CD-20 in the 2022 map was drawn with impermissible racial intent.

The judge also acknowledged the particular concerns around the state’s 20th Congressional District, pointing to findings that the 2022 version of CD-20 had been drawn with impermissible racial intent. That history informed the court’s assessment, since the Legislature had said it moved to redraw maps in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s decision. With that context, the court found the state’s explanation for adopting the 2026 map carried weight in the balance of harms analysis.

Another passage of the opinion underscores the tough choice judges face when redistricting disputes intersect with tight election schedules and shifting constitutional rules. As the opinion put it, “the potential partisan intent in the 2026 map is the lesser of the two evils.” That line captures a pragmatic judicial judgment about timing and competing legal harms rather than a definitive resolution on partisan intent itself.

Noting that he had to weigh both the plaintiffs’ argument that the new map violated Florida’s ban on partisan redistricting and the state’s argument that its previous map violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, Judge Hawkes sided with the state, writing that “the potential partisan intent in the 2026 map is the lesser of the two evils.”

Gov. DeSantis and Florida’s Attorney General, James Uthmeier, publicly welcomed the ruling as a validation of the state’s approach and a win for election stability. The plaintiffs, including civic groups such as Common Cause and Equal Ground Education Fund, say they will continue the fight and are prepared to press appeals, potentially up to the Florida Supreme Court if necessary.

With a fast-moving calendar, both sides now face strategic choices about where to press their claims and how quickly to seek relief from higher courts. The next legal steps could decide whether the 2026 map is used for candidate qualifying and the August primary or whether an alternative configuration will be ordered before ballots are finalized. Either way, the dispute will remain a central story in the lead-up to the midterms and a test of how courts handle redistricting disputes under evolving constitutional precedents.