cess (culminating in Apportionment V, which stayed a district court order that would have prohibited the evidence from being used at trial, and Apportionment VI, which held that the evidence was properly compelled over claims of First Amendment and trade secret privilege), the case proceeded to a twelve-day bench trial before the Honorable Terry P. Lewis. Plaintiffs presented their evidence and arguments as to why the 2012 congressional apportionment plan violated the FairDistricts Amendments, as interpreted by this Court in Apportionment I, and the Legislature presented its evidence and arguments to the contrary. The trial court ultimately entered a detailed order, labeled as a “final judgment,” 2 finding that the congressional apportionment plan was constitutionally invalid, concluding that at least two districts (5 and 10) would have to be redrawn, and rejecting Plaintiffs’ challenges directed at other districts. (R86:11,289-329.) The Legislature moved the trial court to clarify that the 2014 election would proceed under the unconstitutional 2012 Congressional Plan. (R85:11,131.) The Legislature argued that it alone was authorized to draw and adopt a remedial plan. (R85:11,130) Concerned that allowing the Legislature to devise its own “remedy” would only reward its misconduct, Plaintiffs urged the trial court to immediately 2 The order is not a true final judgment because it only adjudicated the validity of the congressional apportionment plan and did not address the remedy requested in the Plaintiffs complaints. E.g., Casino, Inc. v. Kugeares, 354 So. 2d 936, 937-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Even if it were final, the Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was timely to appeal it. 3