House Redistricting Committee members strongly rejected last-minute remapping efforts offered by the group behind the voter-approved method to reduce political gerrymandering as new congressional and legislative lines were pushed forward on Friday.

Committee members, whose proposals now head to a full floor vote next week, criticized the offerings from the Fair Districts coalition, saying the group has been noticeably absent since the Legislature conducted a statewide tour last summer to gather input on the once-a-decade redistricting based upon the changes required in Amendments 5 and 6.

Rep. Chris Dorworth, R-Heathrow, called it frustrating that the group accusing them of not being transparent, submitted maps 60 hours before the meeting.

The committee’s legal consultants were even more critical, claiming the coalition’s maps would reduce minority representation and violate the 2010 voter-supported amendments, which prohibit lawmakers from drawing state House, Senate and congressional lines that favor any incumbent or political party, keep counties and cities within a single district whenever possible, and protect minority voting strengths.

Committee Chairman Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, said he agreed, as a courtesy, to submit the map proposals from the coalition to the committee. He had received the coalition maps earlier in the week.

The coalition -- comprised of the League of Women Voters, the National Council of La Raza and Common Cause of Florida -- had a lobbyist at the meeting, but declined to participate in the workshop.

In a 12-page letter to Weatherford on Thursday, the coalition stated that their proposals comply with the Fair Districts amendments, while those under consideration by the committee and already approved by the Senate fail to comply with the wishes of the voters.

“Although we have only had a day to analyze the committee’s latest congressional and House maps, it appears that they, like previous submissions and like those passed by the Senate, do not comply with the Fair Districts amendments,” the coalition stated in the letter.

“Specifically, it appears that all maps under consideration were drawn with an intent to gain partisan advantage and/or to protect incumbents.”

The coalition, which has accused legislators of favoring incumbents and ignoring public input since before last summer’s statewide workshop, goes on to claim that the Legislature’s proposals fail to use geographic boundaries where feasible, as is mandated by the amendments.

“Moreover, our districts contain far more whole counties and whole cities than do the Legislature’s proposed maps,” the coalition continued.

Weatherford called the coalition’s map proposals a “January surprise.”

“When we first put out our maps, people recognized the amount of incumbents that would be running against each other. Many members within this room did not believe these were going to be the real maps; they thought surely members would not draw maps that would take themselves out of their districts,” Weatherford said. 

“They thought surely there'll be some January surprise or February surprise that would come into the process and will save everyone.

“Little did we know that not only were we going to stay the course and do what we said we were going to do since March (2011), that the January surprise would come from the very organization that told us that they didn’t think we’d be transparent or open; or that we wouldn’t follow the law.”