Now that the Florida Supreme Court has given Amendments 5 and 6 a clear run to the Nov. 2 ballot, it's up to voters to decide whether the so-called FairDistricts proposals will make for improved representation in the Legislature and in Congress.

Proponents of the measures -- bankrolled by trial attorneys, unions and other Democratic Party loyalists -- say current district boundaries reflect the worst partisan gerrymandering designed to maximize Republican control.

FairDistricts founder Ellen Freidin says the campaign's proposed reforms would favor neither party. She points to three of the group's six honorary co-chairs: Republicans Nathaniel Reed, Bob Milligan and Thom Rumberger.

But when it comes to money and organization, attorney Freidin's campaign is a true-blue affair. Its largest contributors are big-time Democratic donors, including:

• Service Employees International Union: $375,000
• National Education Association: $300,000
• Florida Education Association: $150,000
• Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley law firm: $115,000.

Big individual donors include loyal Democratic supporters: retired energy executive Christopher Findlater ($200,000), Boar's Head Chairman Frank Brunckhorst ($115,000) and Jacksonville attorney Wayne Hogan ($70,000).

Several other unions -- ranging from the Florida Pipe Trades Council to the National Air Traffic Controllers -- and individual attorneys and law firms pitched in five-figure donations.

Having raised $4,213,080 through Aug. 18, FairDistricts scored a key legal victory last month when the state Supreme Court knocked a counter-amendment off the fall ballot.

Amendment 7 would have given voters an alternative redistricting proposal, effectively safeguarding the Legislature's legal responsibility for drawing state and federal legislative boundaries. But the court, in a 5-2 decision, ruled that Amendment 7's ballot summary was "confusing" and killed the measure.

Now voters are left to weigh the merits of Amendments 5 and 6. In almost identical language, Amendment 5 (dealing with legislative districts) and Amendment 6 (dealing with congressional districts) state:

"Legislative [or congressional] districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries."

It all seems sensible and logical enough -- especially when contrasted with the tortured lines that encompass many state and federal districts.

But if the high court thought rival Amendment 7 was "confusing," others call Amendments 5 and 6 both disingenuous and treacherous.

"They are written so poorly that I think who would win a redistricting lawsuit probably comes down to who has a better lawyer, assuming these amendments passed and someone brought suit," says Seth McKee, a University of South Florida political scientist who has written extensively on redistricting issues.

Bet on a spate of legal challenges, says incoming state Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who calls FairDistricts "a full-employment act for lawyers."

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, agrees.