Florida Supreme Court rules lawmakers must testify in redistricting case

[mfcorey1]

TALLAHASSEE -- The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that legislators and their staffs must testify in a case that accuses Republicans of redrawing political boundaries for partisan advantage in violation of the state Constitution.

The 5-2 decision means that the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and others can force Republican senators and key staff members to testify under oath about their motives in drawing districts. The plaintiffs claim emails show that the GOP plotted with party officials and political consultants for partisan advantage in the 2012 remapping of Senate and congressional districts.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Charles Canady, joined by Chief Justice Ricky Polston, called the majority’s conclusions “unprecedented” and said the ruling “grievously violates the constitutional separation of powers.”

“For the first time in the recorded history of our Republic, a court has ruled that state legislators are required to submit to interrogation in a civil case concerning their legislative activities,” Canady wrote.

The 2012 reapportionment was the first in Florida that had to comply with two voter-approved “fair districts” amendments to the state Constitution that prohibit partisan gerrymandering.

When the groups issued subpoenas on former Senate Majority Leader Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, and two staffers, the Legislature sought an order to block their testimony as well as access to draft copies of maps.

The Supreme Court majority concluded that the Constitution gives legislators a privilege from testifying, but it “is not absolute and may yield to a compelling, competing interest.” In addition, the justices noted, the fair districts amendments specifically outlaw improper legislative “intent,” which opened the door for lawmakers and staffs to be forced to testify about their intent.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/12/13/3816922/florida-supreme-court-rules-lawmakers.html#storylink=cpy

[Gothmog]

1. This will help in Texas case

The legislative privilege issue is an important issue in the Texas case

[ArcticFox]

3. doubt it

Texas isn't bound by Florida's Supreme Court.

[Gothmog]

4. There is little case law on legislative privilege

Greg Abbott has been trying to expand the privilege in the redistricting case and the DOJ and the other plaintiffs have been fighting this attempt. There is very little case law in this area and this case will hurt Abbott's theory.

Right now the court is requiring the legislator to assert the privilege but then answer the question for the court to review at a later date. Abbott is pushing for the legislator to be able to refuse to answer until the court rules on the privilege issue. The court adopted the current procedure in part due to time constraints in the prior litigation and so Abbott's claim could have some merit. This decision backs up the DOJ position the the concept of legislative privilege is a weak privilege.

[sigmasix]

2. hopefully truth will out weigh right wing lies

[Gothmog]

5. Texas has to turn over documents in voter id case

Greg Abbott has been fighting the release of e-mails and documents from GOP members of the legislature on grounds of legislative privilege. The Court has denied such motion and has ordered Greg to produce the e-mails and documents. http://txredistricting.org/post/81529185554/court-rules-on-discovery-issues-in-texas-voter-id-case

After a hearing yesterday in the Texas voter ID case, Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos gave Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott seven days to turn over, under seal, emails and other legislative documents that the AG’s office had collected from legislators in 2012 in connection with earlier litigation to try to obtain preclearance of the law under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The attorney general’s office had contended in the case before Judge Ramos in Corpus Christi that the documents were exempt from discovery on the basis of legislative privilege or, alternatively, could only be sought by a separate subpoena to each legislator.