TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Arguing that the issue is moot, voting-rights groups on Friday urged an appeals court to reject an attempt by the state House and Senate to shield lawmakers and legislative staff members from testifying in redistricting lawsuits.

Lawyers for the groups filed a 44-page brief at the 1st District Court of Appeal that said they decided in December 2022 not to continue seeking depositions of lawmakers and staff members as part of a constitutional challenge to a congressional redistricting plan passed in spring 2022.

As a result, the groups said an appeal of an October 2022 decision by a Leon County circuit judge that could have led to depositions is moot.

But attorneys for the House and the Senate have continued pursuing the appeal, arguing that a legal concept known as “legislative privilege” bars requiring testimony from lawmakers. Ultimately, the House and Senate want to take the issue to the Florida Supreme Court and to undo a 2013 ruling that allowed such testimony in certain circumstances.

The voting-rights groups’ brief said that “in December 2022, there was no longer a live issue — or even the threat of one — for this (appeals) court to resolve.”

“This appeal is unquestionably moot,” the brief said. “It challenges the circuit court’s October 27, 2022, order allowing appellees (the voting-rights groups) to depose a limited subset of legislators and staff involved in the 2022 congressional redistricting process on a limited number of topics. But those depositions never happened.”

In a March 11 brief, however, attorneys for the House and the Senate argued that the “appeal raises questions of great public importance” and that the 1st District Court of Appeal should send the case to the Florida Supreme Court. The Legislature ultimately wants the Supreme Court to “recede” — essentially reverse course — from the 2013 ruling in a case known as Apportionment IV.

“Apportionment IV erred in rejecting an absolute legislative privilege in civil cases and instead establishing a shapeless, standardless balancing analysis as the purported safeguard of the prerogatives of the legislative branch,” the March brief said. “That error threatens the legislative process with grave consequences and should be overruled.”

A coalition of groups, such as the League of Women Voters of Florida and Equal Ground Education Fund, and individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in 2022 challenging the constitutionality of a redistricting plan that Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed through the Legislature. They contend the plan violated a 2010 constitutional amendment that set redistricting standards, including a standard that said plans could not “diminish” the ability of minorities to “elect representatives of their choice.”

The 1st District Court of Appeal in December 2023 upheld the constitutionality of the plan, and the groups have appealed to the Supreme Court, where that issue is pending.

But as part of the case, the plaintiffs in 2022 also sought depositions from six current and former lawmakers and five current and former staff members. The Legislature fought the depositions, but Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh in October 2022 said he would allow the lawmakers and staff members to be questioned, with some limits.

Marsh cited the 2013 Supreme Court precedent.

“The appropriate line in this case is where the doors to the House and Senate meet the outside world,” Marsh wrote. “Accordingly, each legislator and legislative staff member may be questioned regarding any matter already part of the public record and information received from anyone not elected to the Legislature, their direct staff members or the staff of the legislative bodies themselves. They may not be questioned as to information internal to each legislative body that is not already public record (e.g., their thoughts or opinions or those of other legislators.)”

In addition to arguing that the appeal of Marsh’s ruling is moot, lawyers for the voting-rights groups also wrote in Friday’s brief that there is “no absolute legislative privilege in Florida.”

But in the March brief, attorneys for the House and the Senate wrote that historically, “the legislative privilege safeguarded the integrity and independence of the legislative process and assured that fear of personal repercussions would not sway the votes of lawmakers or chill the freedom of speech and action in legislative deliberations.”

The current and former lawmakers involved in the dispute are former House Speaker Chris Sprowls, R-Palm Harbor; former Sen. Ray Rodrigues, R-Estero; former Sen. Aaron Bean, R-Fernandina Beach; Sen. Jennifer Bradley, R-Fleming Island; Rep. Tom Leek, R-Ormond Beach; and Rep. Tyler Sirois, R-Merritt Island. Each had a leadership role in the 2022 redistricting process.

You won’t see an 18-year-old stripper in Florida after July 1.

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill Monday afternoon that bans anyone younger than the drinking age from working at an “adult entertainment establishment,” affecting not only strip clubs but places like adult movie theaters and libraries, too.

That restriction is expected to receive First Amendment challenges in court. It’s part of broader legislation (HB 7063) aimed at combating human trafficking, including by extending the lifetime of the Statewide Council on Human Trafficking.

“We’re going to stand strong for those who may not be in a position to defend themselves,” DeSantis said at a press conference in Coral Gables. “Our state is a great state … We are a united front here saying that we’re not going to just stand idly by.”

DeSantis also announced he would be approving $4.9 million in the state budget to expand access to emergency beds and increase staff to provide trafficking survivors a safe place to begin their recovery. He added that the state has a $900,000 grant opportunity to enhance staffing and training for law enforcement targeting trafficking.

Bill supporters have alleged businesses like strip clubs are dens for trafficking, especially of young women.

But when the bill was making its way through the Legislature, some Democrats wondered if the age restriction had more to do with ideological disagreement with the exotic dancing profession. And they warned those who lose their jobs could go into more dangerous work.

“If there’s not controlled environments, young girls will get pulled into private parties,” said Rep. Michele Rayner, D-St. Petersburg, on the House floor this past session. “Once again, this House, this body, is trying to legislate what women can and cannot do with their bodies. And it’s overwhelmingly a lot of men who are trying to do that.”

Rep. Carolina Amesty, a Windermere Republican and a bill sponsor, said during press conferences that adult entertainment establishments are no place for those younger than 21 years old.

“My vision for the young women of Florida is to not work in the adult entertainment (industry) but rather get a job, an education and career and have a good quality of life,” she said.

The bill ultimately passed the Legislature with bipartisan approval, including from Rayner, with only three Democratic “no” votes in the House and Senate.

Under the law, employers who “knowingly” hire workers younger than 21 years old at adult entertainment establishments would face criminal penalties. Those criminal penalties would go as high as a second degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years behind bars, if that worker performs nude.

And the language emphasizes that “a person’s ignorance of another person’s age or a person’s misrepresentation of his or her age may not be raised as a defense in a prosecution.” 

Expect a legal challenge

The measure comes as the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule soon on a Jacksonville dancer age restriction ordinance, a decision that could set a First Amendment precedent on age-based regulation of expression – and a decision that could potentially knock down such restrictions.

During the Jacksonville litigation, it came out that “no arrest for human trafficking has ever been made in an exotic dance establishment” in that city, according to court records. But a federal judge upheld the ordinance, and it remains in effect awaiting the decision.

“It just seems rushed and unwise to to pass a law like this now, while litigation is ongoing,” said Gary Edinger, a Gainesville-based First Amendment attorney who is representing Jacksonville clubs that filed suit against the ordinance. “You’d think (lawmakers would) just wait until the next legislative session, so they know whether the law is constitutional or not.”

Regardless, Edinger says he’s in talks with other attorneys and he has “no doubt” a lawsuit will be filed against the state law.

“There are lots of things to be concerned or note about this statute,” he said. “Adult entertainment (establishments) are not a hotbed of sex trafficking … When we’re dealing with the First Amendment, the state can’t just say something and have the courts accept it. There’s no deference to the Legislature. They’re going to have to prove those allegations.”

Lawmakers pass the age restriction: On International Women’s Day, Florida lawmakers pass bill to raise age to be a stripper

Age restriction was once thought dead: Florida Senate passes bill to raise state’s exotic dancing age to 21

This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA TODAY Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Douglas Soule can be reached at DSoule@gannett.com.