Florida lawmakers return to Tallahassee this week for a Special Session called by Gov. Ron DeSantis to address three issues: congressional redistricting, artificial intelligence protections, and medical freedom and vaccine policy.
On paper, it may be one agenda. But in public opinion, it’s three very different conversations with three very different messages for legislators.
Sachs Media conducted original data analysis and a statewide, scientific survey of 1,200 Florida voters via a random sample of the Florida Voter File to understand not only which issues Floridians care about most, but also how urgently they want lawmakers to act on each.
The short version: Floridians are not applying one speed limit to everything in the Governor’s call.
What Floridians think about the three agenda issues
First, we asked which of the three issues interests people the most.
A majority, 54%, said congressional redistricting is most interesting to them. This was followed by AI protections and regulations at 27%, with medical freedom and vaccine policy lagging at 19%.
Asking it slightly differently, we wanted to know which issue those Floridians believe would have the greatest impact on their family or community.
Interest and perceived impact are highly correlated, but not identical. When framed in terms of impact, congressional redistricting rises slightly to 56%, while AI protections decline to 21% and medical freedom and vaccine policy increases to 23%.
There are some notable differences between party and age.
Democrats (61%) and Republicans (57%) are significantly more focused on redistricting than are nonpartisans (44%). For their part, nonpartisans are paying greater attention to AI regulation (32%) than Republicans (21%) or Democrats (16%). All three groups are about equally focused on medical freedom and vaccine policy (a bit less than 1 in 4).
Floridians over 45 are also significantly more focused on redistricting (60%) compared with those age 44 and younger (47%). Younger Floridians are more interested in AI regulations (26% vs. 19% among older Floridians) and in medical freedom and vaccine policy (27% vs. 21%).
Same Session, different speeds
We also wanted to understand how urgent Floridians consider these issues.
Should lawmakers move quickly during the Special Session, or is more caution and time warranted?
On congressional redistricting, the answer is clear: Voters may be interested, but they’re not eager for speed.
While a majority of Floridians say congressional redistricting is the issue that interests them the most and is most likely to affect their lives, only about 1 in 4 (27%) want the Legislature to “move quickly” and finish maps during the Special Session. A majority (59%) would prefer to see lawmakers take their time, even if that delays a final set of maps. The remaining 14% are unsure.
In other words, Floridians are watching the maps, but don’t want them drawn hurriedly with a Sharpie.
On the other hand, the regulation of artificial intelligence produces almost the opposite response.
Seven in 10 Floridians would prefer lawmakers to “move quickly” to create guardrails for the use of AI, even as the technology continues to evolve. Just 22% would rather they take more time to see how AI develops before passing new laws, with the remaining 8% unsure.
That finding is striking because AI ranks lower than redistricting on both interest and perceived impact. Voters may not be following every detail of AI policy, but they appear to instinctively understand that the technology is moving faster than the rules around it.
Indeed, when asked what worries them more about AI, a majority of Floridians (53%) say they are more concerned that the government will do too little to protect people from harm. Just 9% are more worried that the government will overregulate AI and slow innovation. Another 38% are unsure which concern weighs more heavily.
Further, 8 out of 9 Floridians (88%) support the Legislature codifying an “Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights.” This level of consensus may help explain why Floridians are more comfortable with an expedited approach to AI policy. They may not know exactly what every regulation should look like, but they broadly agree that new protections should exist.
The public’s mixed mandate
These competing priorities may be the central tension heading into this Special Session.
Floridians aren’t applying a single standard of urgency to all three issues. They are distinguishing between questions that feel consequential and require deliberation, and questions that feel fast-moving and require proper guardrails before the train is fully out of the station.
For lawmakers, it creates a useful warning: The public may tolerate a Special Session – after all, Florida has had plenty of them – but voters aren’t necessarily asking for the same kind of action on every item on the agenda.
On redistricting, they want prudence, but on AI, they want guardrails. And on medical freedom and vaccine policy, they are watching, but less intently than the other two issues.
How ‘special’ are these Sessions, really?
Before treating this week’s Special Session as a political earthquake, it’s worth asking how unusual these gatherings really are.
This marks the 81st Special Session since 1972, making it an occurrence that has happened in 2 out of every 3 years over that period. Sometimes, it happens more than once in a single year.
Over the last 55 years, lawmakers have come back to Tallahassee for non-Regular Session business an average of 1.47 times per year. In other words, “Special Session” may sound rare and dramatic, but in Florida politics it’s less comet sighting and more seasonal allergy (you may not get one every year, but you’re never exactly shocked when it arrives!)
So, when are Special Sessions more or less likely to occur?
We looked at the data to find out.
Predictably, Special Sessions are less likely to be called in election years, when campaign season, fundraising limits, political risk, and the general instinct for self-preservation all diminish the appetite for dragging lawmakers back to Tallahassee.
Since 2006, Special Sessions have been called in 45% of election years, making them over one-third less likely than in off-cycle years. That gap widens even more dramatically when comparing presidential election years to Midterm or non-election years. Special Sessions have been called in just 20% of presidential election years, compared with 69% of all other years (a 71% difference).
Similarly – and directly related to those campaign-season dynamics – the Legislature reconvenes for Special Sessions 57% more often when the Regular Session begins in January. These are even-numbered years, when lawmakers have already wrapped up their regular work earlier and still have more calendar space before campaigns fully consume the oxygen. In the March Session years, the window is narrower, the weather is warmer, and everyone’s patience is thinner.
Beyond these calendar-related patterns, we looked for one less obvious dynamic: Are Special Sessions more or less likely when the leaders of either chamber are lawyers?
The answer is mixed, but entertaining.
Special Sessions are 52% more common when the House Speaker is a lawyer, 33% less common when the Senate President is a lawyer, and 92% more common when the Speaker, Senate President, and Governor are all lawyers.
Make of that what you will, counselor.