Election forecasts you can inspect.Tested models, shown with their sources and their uncertainty.

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Florida House

Florida House District 105

2026 forecast · Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

Decided: only a Democrat is running · Marie Woodson (D)

Florida House District 105: Decided: only a Democrat is runningFlorida House 101: chance of a Democratic win 83%Florida House 104: chance of a Democratic win >99%Florida House 107: chance of a Democratic win >99%Florida House District 105: Decided: only a Democrat is running107104101105
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 105 is safe Democratic. Of its 3 neighbouring districts, 3 favour Democrats.

StatusDecided: only a Democrat is running
CandidatesMarie Woodson (D)
Candidate list fromofficial
Current memberMarie Woodson

How it has voted

On its current lines. Legislative contests and the top-of-ticket vote inside the district.

Legislature 2022D+37
Governor 2022D+28
Legislature 2024no two-party contest; won by Marie Woodson (Democrat)
President 2024D+26
← RepublicanDemocratic →

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtFlorida
Median household income$65,376$71,711
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)24%33%
Median age3943
White (not Hispanic)18%51%
Black36%15%
Hispanic41%27%
Asian2%3%
Born abroad41%21%
Jobs in manufacturing4%5%
Jobs in farming or mining0%1%

Initial version. This model was tested on every state legislative election from 1994 to 2024 before publication, forecasting each as if it had not happened. It beat the simple rule “the party that holds the seat keeps it”, and its chamber seat counts were off by 2.9 seats on average (target: under 3). Districts with no two-party race last time are read from their own presidential vote, a change tested in advance that cut their average error from 17 to 13 points. It missed one of its five accuracy targets: in 2024, the calmest year on record, its ranges were wider than they needed to be (92% of results fell inside its 80% ranges; target: at most 88%). Treat the ranges as cautious. The full test record and code.