Florida’s congressional map before and after the DeSantis redraw tells a stark story: the 2026 plan that Governor Ron DeSantis signed on May 4, 2026 rewrote 21 of the state’s 28 U.S. House districts and is projected to produce 24 Republican-leaning seats and just four Democratic-leaning ones, up from roughly a 20-8 Republican advantage under the 2022 lines.1In May 2026, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a new congressional map that reshaped 21 of Florida’s 28 U.S. House districts… While the 2022 map gave Republicans roughly 20 of Florida’s then-28 seats, the 2026 version is projected to produce 24 Republican-leaning districts and just four Democratic-leaning ones. DeSantis personally designed the plan and transmitted it to the legislature, which approved it on a mostly party-line vote.
The 2022 Baseline
The map replaced in 2026 was itself a DeSantis product. After the 2020 census, the Florida Legislature initially passed a plan that preserved Congressional District 5, a North Florida Black-opportunity seat connecting Jacksonville and Tallahassee that was represented by Democrat Al Lawson. DeSantis vetoed that plan and insisted on his own version, which dismantled CD-5 and divided its Black voters among white-majority districts.2DeSantis vetoed that plan and insisted on his own version, which dismantled CD-5 and divided its Black voters into white-majority districts. The legislature complied. Republican representation rose from 16 to 20 seats, Lawson lost his seat, and Jacksonville was split between two safely Republican districts.
Civil rights groups challenged that map under the Fair Districts Amendments to the Florida Constitution, but in July 2025 the Florida Supreme Court upheld it in a 5-1 decision, with Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz writing that the old CD-5 was itself an “illegal race-based gerrymander” under federal law.3In July 2025, the Florida Supreme Court upheld DeSantis’s 2022 map in a 5-1 decision, ruling that federal equal protection law held “superior” status over the Fair Districts Amendment’s minority-protection provisions. Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, writing for the majority, argued that the old CD-5 was itself an “illegal race-based gerrymander” under federal law. That ruling cleared the ground for a second redraw.
What the New Map Does, District by District
Districts 1 through 7 were left untouched. The remaining 21 districts were substantially redrawn, and the sharpest changes targeted Democratic-held seats in Central and South Florida.4Districts 1 through 7 remained unchanged from the prior map. The remaining 21 districts were substantially redrawn, with the most dramatic shifts targeting seats held by Democrats.
District 9 (Darren Soto)
Previously anchored in Osceola County with parts of Orange and Polk, the new District 9 stretches into rural Indian River, Okeechobee, Highlands, and Glades counties. The partisan lean swung roughly 22 points, from a seat Kamala Harris carried by more than 3 percent in 2024 to one Donald Trump would have won by 18 percent.5District 9 (Darren Soto): Previously anchored in Osceola County with parts of Orange and Polk counties, the district now stretches into rural Indian River, Okeechobee, Highlands, and Glades counties. The partisan lean swung roughly 22 points — from a seat Kamala Harris carried by more than 3 percent in 2024 to one Donald Trump would have won by 18 percent.
District 14 (Kathy Castor)
Once centered on Tampa, District 14 was shifted south and east into rural Hillsborough County and now reaches into Hardee and DeSoto counties. Tampa itself was split among three districts. The seat went from one Harris won by 7.6 percent to one Trump would have carried by 10.5 percent.6District 14 (Kathy Castor): Once centered on Tampa, the district was shifted south and east into rural Hillsborough County, with new territory in Hardee and DeSoto counties. Tampa itself was split among three districts. The seat went from one Harris won by 7.6 percent to one Trump would have carried by 10.5 percent.
District 22 (Lois Frankel)
District 22 flipped from a seat Harris won by 5.5 percent to one Trump would have won by 10.5 percent. The redraw placed two incumbent Democratic representatives on the outer edge of a noncompact Republican district.7District 22 (Lois Frankel): Flipped from a district Harris won by 5.5 percent to one Trump would have won by 10.5 percent. The redraw placed two incumbent Democratic representatives on the outer edge of a noncompact Republican district.
District 25 (Debbie Wasserman Schultz)
Previously drawn in parts of southern Broward and Miami-Dade counties, the seat now runs along the Atlantic Coast from Palm Beach County to Miami Beach. The new boundaries no longer contain the incumbent’s residence.8District 25 (Debbie Wasserman Schultz): Previously in parts of southern Broward and Miami-Dade counties, the seat now stretches along the Atlantic Coast from Palm Beach County to Miami Beach. The new boundaries no longer contain the incumbent’s residence.
Districts 20 and 24
District 20, a historically Black majority district created in 1992, was redrawn into a “plurality Black” district at roughly 48 percent Black population. DeSantis’s office specifically identified it as racial gerrymandering that needed restructuring. District 24 was shifted north to incorporate more of Broward County, including parts of Hollywood, and extended south into Miami-Dade, becoming the only remaining Black majority congressional district in Florida.9District 20: A historically Black majority district created in 1992, it was redrawn to become a “plurality Black” district at roughly 48 percent Black population. DeSantis’s office specifically identified it as an example of “racial gerrymandering” that needed to be restructured. District 24: Shifted north to incorporate more of Broward County, including parts of Hollywood, and extended south into Miami-Dade. It became the only remaining Black majority congressional district in Florida.
The Regional Pattern
In South Florida, the net result was a reduction from five reliably Democratic seats to three, achieved by packing Black and Democratic voters into Districts 20 and 24 while distributing the rest across Republican-leaning territory. In Central Florida, Democratic voters were concentrated into District 10, held by Maxwell Frost, while being siphoned out of District 9. District 10 itself saw only minor changes not expected to threaten the incumbent.10The net effect in South Florida was a reduction from five reliably Democratic seats to three, achieved by packing Black and Democratic voters into Districts 20 and 24 while distributing the remainder across Republican-leaning territory. In Central Florida, Democratic voters were concentrated into District 10 while being siphoned out of District 9. District 10, held by Maxwell Frost, saw only minor changes not expected to threaten the incumbent.
How Much the Partisan Balance Shifted
The nonpartisan Center for Politics changed its ratings on several Florida seats as soon as the map was signed. District 14 moved from Safe Democratic to Leans Republican. District 9 went from Likely Democratic to Likely Republican. The new District 22 moved from Safe Democratic to Leans Republican, and the new District 25 moved from Safe Democratic to Toss-up.11The nonpartisan Center for Politics shifted its ratings on several Florida seats immediately after the map was signed. District 14 moved from Safe Democratic to Leans Republican. District 9 went from Likely Democratic to Likely Republican. The new District 22 moved from Safe Democratic to Leans Republican, and the new District 25 moved from Safe Democratic to Toss-up.
Statistical measures of the map’s partisan tilt are extreme. The complaint filed by the Equal Ground Education Fund described a 21 percent pro-Republican efficiency gap, which the plaintiffs called the largest ever recorded among states with 15 or more congressional districts. Michigan State University’s Partisan Advantage Tracker calculated a Republican advantage of roughly 3.5 to 5.1 seats across four fairness models, projecting the map would yield approximately 18.6 Republican seats and 9.4 Democratic seats out of 28. The Cook Political Report described the map as targeting four Democratic seats, though analyst David Wasserman cautioned that “not all are guaranteed GOP pickups in 2026.”12The complaint filed by the Equal Ground Education Fund described a 21 percent pro-Republican efficiency gap — which the plaintiffs called the largest ever recorded among states with 15 or more congressional districts. Michigan State University’s Partisan Advantage Tracker calculated a Republican advantage of roughly 3.5 to 5.1 seats across four different fairness models, projecting the map would yield approximately 18.6 Republican seats and 9.4 Democratic seats out of 28 total. The Cook Political Report described the map as targeting four Democratic seats, though analyst David Wasserman cautioned that “not all are guaranteed GOP pickups in 2026.”
Why DeSantis Redrew the Map Mid-Decade
DeSantis called a special legislative session in January 2026, citing “malapportionment” and the need to comply with an anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling. On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that the Voting Rights Act did not require the additional majority-minority district.13On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that the Voting Rights Act did not require the additional majority-minority district.
DeSantis’s office transmitted its proposed map, designated EOGPCRP2026 and filed as Senate Bill 8D, to the legislature on April 27, 2026. General Counsel David Axelman’s transmittal letter stated the plan omitted consideration of the Fair Districts Amendments’ race-based requirements, which the governor’s office argued were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of Callais. The map also pointed to population growth around Tampa, Orlando, and north of Palm Beach County as additional justification.14The map was explicitly designed to be “race-neutral.” General Counsel David Axelman’s transmittal letter stated the plan omitted consideration of the Fair Districts Amendments’ race-based requirements, which the governor’s office argued were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of Callais. The map targeted population growth around Tampa, Orlando, and north of Palm Beach County as additional justification for the redraw. The GOP-controlled legislature passed the plan on April 29, 2026. Four Republican senators and one Republican House member joined every Democrat in opposition. DeSantis signed the bill, designated HB 1D, on May 4.15The GOP-controlled legislature approved the map on April 29, 2026, in a mostly party-line vote. Five Republicans broke ranks — four in the Senate and one in the House — joining all Democrats in opposition. DeSantis signed the bill, designated HB 1D, into law on May 4, 2026
The Legal Challenge and the 2026 Election
Three lawsuits were filed and consolidated: Equal Ground Education Fund v. Byrd, filed in Leon County Circuit Court the same day DeSantis signed the bill; a suit brought by Common Cause and the Campaign Legal Center; and Thompson-Wynn v. Byrd, filed by individual plaintiffs.16On May 4, 2026 — the same day DeSantis signed the bill — the Equal Ground Education Fund filed suit in the Circuit Court of Leon County, seeking to block the map’s enforcement. The case, Equal Ground Education Fund v. Byrd, was soon consolidated with two other challenges: one brought by Common Cause and the Campaign Legal Center, and another filed by individual plaintiffs in Thompson-Wynn v. Byrd. The plaintiffs argue the map was drawn to favor Republicans and disfavor Democrats, fails compactness requirements, and disregards existing political and geographic boundaries, cracking the Democratic-leaning cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg while surgically packing minority voters elsewhere.17The plaintiffs argue the map violates the Fair Districts Amendments on three grounds: it was drawn with the intent to favor the Republican Party and disfavor Democrats; it fails to meet the constitution’s compactness requirements; and it disregards existing political and geographic boundaries. The complaint alleges the map “cracks the Democratic-leaning cities” of Tampa and St. Petersburg and uses “surgical” packing to concentrate minority voters while diluting their influence elsewhere.
The state’s defense goes further than defending the map itself. Florida argues that because the Fair Districts Amendment’s minority-protection clause may conflict with the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted in Callais, the entire amendment, including its ban on partisan gerrymandering, should be struck down as nonseverable.18The state’s defense rests on an audacious constitutional argument: that because the Fair Districts Amendment’s minority-protection clause may conflict with the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted in Callais, the entire amendment — including its ban on partisan gerrymandering — should be struck down as nonseverable. In other words, the state argues that if the racial provisions are unconstitutional, the anti-gerrymandering provisions fall with them.
On May 26, 2026, Leon County Circuit Judge Joshua Hawkes denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction, finding “insufficient evidence of impermissible intent” and writing that “the potential partisan intent in the 2026 map is the lesser of the two evils” compared with the state’s equal protection concerns about the old map. Hawkes also invoked the Purcell principle, finding the challenge “more relevant to the 2028 or 2030 election cycles than the 2026 cycle.”19On May 26, 2026, Hawkes denied the injunction. He found “insufficient evidence of impermissible intent” to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits… Hawkes wrote that “the potential partisan intent in the 2026 map is the lesser of the two evils” when weighed against the state’s claim that the old map violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. He also emphasized election stability under the Purcell principle, noting that the election machinery was already in motion and that the challenge appeared “more relevant to the 2028 or 2030 election cycles than the 2026 cycle.”
On June 10, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene while the case was still proceeding in lower courts. The six justices in the majority were all DeSantis appointees. Justice Jorge Labarga was the lone dissenter.20The plaintiffs sought emergency relief from the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled 6-1 on June 10, 2026, that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene while the case was still proceeding in lower courts. The six justices in the majority were all DeSantis appointees. Justice Labarga, again the lone dissenter, would have granted the petition. The plaintiffs have appealed the denial of the temporary injunction to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The candidate filing deadline passed on June 12, 2026, the primary is scheduled for August 18, 2026, and the general election for November 3, 2026. The new map will be used for all three. The underlying constitutional challenge remains active and could eventually reach the Florida Supreme Court on the merits, though any remedy is unlikely to affect the 2026 elections.21As of mid-June 2026, the plaintiffs have appealed the trial court’s denial of the temporary injunction to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The candidate filing deadline passed on June 12, 2026, and the primary election is scheduled for August 18, 2026, with the general election on November 3, 2026. The new map will be used for all three. The underlying constitutional challenge — whether the map violates the Fair Districts Amendments’ ban on partisan gerrymandering — remains active and could eventually reach the Florida Supreme Court on the merits, though any remedy is unlikely to affect the 2026 elections.