UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

 /

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

THIS CAUSE came before the Court following a bench trial held on January 29, 2024, and 

January 30, 2024. See (ECF Nos. 168, 169); Corrected Bench Trial Transcripts (ECF Nos. 179, 

180).1 Plaintiffs GRACE, Inc., Engage Miami, Inc., South Dade Branch of the NAACP, MiamiDade Branch of the NAACP, Clarice Cooper, Yanelis Valdes, Jared Johnson, Alexandra 

Contreras, and Steven Miro (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Defendant City of Miami 

(“City,” “City of Miami,” or “Defendant”) alleging that the five Miami City Commission districts 

as drawn in Resolution R-22-131 (“2022 Plan” or “Enjoined Plan”) constitute a racial gerrymander 

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See generally (“SAC” 

or “Second Amended Complaint”) (ECF No. 143). Plaintiffs further allege that each district 

remains racially gerrymandered in Resolution R-23-271 (“2023 Plan” or “Remedial Plan”). See 

id. Having reviewed the pleadings, examined the evidence, observed the witnesses, and considered 

1 References to the Bench Trial Transcripts shall be referred to as “T1. __” for trial day one (ECF 

No. 180), and “T2. __” for trial day two (ECF No. 179). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 1 of 83
2

the arguments of counsel along with the remainder of the record, the Court now enters its Findings 

of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

I. INTRODUCTION

Today, the Court adjudicates a racial gerrymandering claim unlike many others. As 

described in detail below, the Miami City Commission (“Commission”) intentionally designed the 

2022 Plan, and subsequently the 2023 Plan, to ensure that both plans would have three majority 

Hispanic districts, one majority Black district, and one “Anglo” district. Based on the faulty 

premise that each district would elect a commissioner who shared the racial demographics of the 

majority (or plurality) of its voters, the Commission believed that its redistricting strategy would 

ensure the racial diversity of its members for years to come. In other words, the Commission

racially gerrymandered each district in both the 2022 Plan and 2023 Plan, not necessarily out of 

malice, but as a means to provide multiracial representation for the City of Miami.

Perhaps the City’s ostensible goal of maintaining diversity in the Commission explains 

why Defendant previously stated that its alleged racial gerrymandering was “insignificant.” See

(ECF No. 117 at 10). But accepting Defendant’s argument would require minimizing the harm 

that each Miamian suffered when the Commission classified them on the basis of race. This, the 

Court will not do.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has made clear, time and time again, that the harms arising out

of racial gerrymandering are unequivocally serious. In Miller v. Johnson, the Supreme Court 

explained:

When the State assigns voters on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and

demeaning assumption that voters of a particular race, because of their race, think

alike, share the same political interests and will prefer the same candidates at the

polls. Race-based assignments embody stereotypes that treat individuals as the

product of their race, evaluating their thoughts and efforts—their very worth as

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 2 of 83
3

citizens—according to criterion barred to the Government by history and the

Constitution.

515 U.S. 900, 915–16 (2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In Shaw v. Reno, the

Supreme Court reiterated the unique dangers of racial classifications in the voting context:

Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial 

gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing 

racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in 

which race no longer matters—a goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments embody, and to which the Nation continues to aspire. It is for these 

reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial 

scrutiny.

509 U.S. 630, 657 (1993). And as the Supreme Court explained in Alabama Legislative Black 

Caucus v. Alabama (ALBC), the harms arising from racial gerrymandering include “being 

represented by a legislator who believes his primary obligation is to represent only the members 

of a particular racial group.” 575 U.S. 254, 263 (2015). 

Therefore, whether the City believed the pursuit of diversity in representation could justify

racial gerrymandering is immaterial. The harm stems not from the City’s objective, but rather, 

from the City’s racial classification of every Miamian in pursuit of that goal. By sorting its citizens 

based on race, the City reduced Miamians to no more than their racial backgrounds, thereby 

denying them the equal protection of the laws that the Fourteenth Amendment promises. 

To contextualize the nature and extent of the City’s constitutional violations, this Order 

begins with a lengthy but necessary recounting of the record. First, the Court describes this 

Action’s procedural history. Second, the Court provides a thorough recitation of the factual 

background of the 2021–2022 redistricting process by examining each Commission meeting where 

redistricting was discussed. In doing so, the Court spotlights the numerous instances where the 

Commissioners directed their redistricting consultant Miguel De Grandy, Esq. (“De Grandy”) to 

draw a new map predominantly based on the Commissioners’ goal of maintaining three majority 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 3 of 83
4

Hispanic districts, one majority Black district, and one “Anglo” district. The Court finds that De 

Grandy understood the Commission’s directive to ensure that any map he designed adhered to the 

racial demographics just described. The Court also emphasizes portions of those meetings where 

the Commission’s race-based directives resulted in the subordination of traditional redistricting 

criteria such as compactness of districts and maintaining communities of interest. The Court 

undergoes the same analysis in reviewing the remedial redistricting process which culminated in 

the 2023 Plan. Ultimately, the Court finds that race was the predominant factor in the design of 

each district in both the 2022 and 2023 Plans. The Court concludes by providing pertinent 

information about each of the named Parties.

After establishing the Findings of Fact set forth above, the Court turns to its Conclusions 

of Law. Therein, the Court holds that: (1) each Plaintiff has standing; and (2) no district within 

either the 2022 Plan or 2023 Plan withstands strict scrutiny.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Standing

Article III of the United States Constitution vests the judicial power in the federal courts 

and limits that power to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, §§ 1–2, see also Spokeo, 

Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 337 (2016). A challenge to a plaintiff’s standing to assert a claim 

presents a challenge to the Court’s power to entertain the suit, as standing is one of the components 

of a justiciable case or controversy required for the Court to possess subject matter jurisdiction. 

L.M.P. ex rel. E.P. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., Fla., 879 F.3d 1274, 1281 (11th Cir. 2018). To 

establish standing, a plaintiff must have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable 

to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable 

judicial decision.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338 (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 4 of 83
5

560–61 (1992); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–

81 (2000)). “The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of 

establishing these elements.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338 (citing FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 

215, 231 (1990)).

In a racial gerrymandering case, an injury in fact exists when an individual is classified 

based on their race. See ALBC, 575 U.S. at 263 (explaining that the harm “include[s] being 

personally . . . subjected to [a] racial classification, as well as being represented by a legislator who 

believes his primary obligation is to represent only the members of a particular racial group”)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). However, a “generalized grievance against allegedly 

illegal governmental conduct” will not suffice to demonstrate injury in fact. United States v. Hays, 

515 U.S. 737, 743 (1995) (citations omitted). Causation exists when the state actor enacts the 

challenged plan, and a plaintiff’s injury is redressed when she is no longer subject to racial 

classification. Put simply, “[w]here a plaintiff resides in a racially gerrymandered district . . . the 

plaintiff has been denied equal treatment because of the legislature’s reliance on racial criteria, and 

therefore has standing to challenge the legislature’s action.” Id. at 744–45 (citation omitted). 

An organization may also have associational standing to assert a racial gerrymandering 

claim. The Supreme Court has held that an organization has standing when one of the 

organization’s members “would have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are 

germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested 

requires the individual member’s participation in the lawsuit.” Friends of the Earth, Inc, 528 U.S. 

at 181. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 5 of 83
6

B. Racial Gerrymandering

1. Two-step Analysis

“The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State, without sufficient justification, from 

‘separat[ing] its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race.’” Bethune-Hill v. Va. 

State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. 178, 187 (2017) (quoting Miller, 515 U.S. at 911) (alteration in 

original). Courts must be sure to “exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a 

State has drawn district lines on the basis of race” because “[i]t is well settled that ‘reapportionment 

is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.’” Miller, 515 U.S. at 915–16 (quoting 

Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 27 (1975)). Indeed, “[e]lectoral districting is a most difficult 

subject for legislatures,” which requires a balancing of competing considerations. Id. at 916. 

Racial gerrymandering claims require a two-step analysis. Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 

291 (2017). “First, the plaintiff must prove that ‘race was the predominant factor motivating the 

legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular 

district.’” Id. (quoting Miller, 515 U.S. at 916). If racial considerations predominated over others, 

“the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny.” Id. at 292 (citing Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. 

at 193). That is, “[t]he burden shifts to the State to prove that race-based sorting of voters serves 

a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to that end.” Id. (citing Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 

193). 

2. Proving Racial Predominance

There is no “special evidentiary prerequisite” that a plaintiff must show to prove racial 

predominance. Cooper, 581 U.S. at 318. An individual alleging racial gerrymandering may rely 

on either direct or circumstantial evidence of legislative intent to show that the State subordinated 

traditional redistricting criteria to racial considerations. Id. at 291. In instances where there is an 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 6 of 83
7

absence of direct evidence that single-member districts were drawn with race as the predominant 

consideration, courts may determine legislative intent through an examination of the Arlington 

Heights evidentiary factors. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 

252, 266–267 (1977). Further, certain types of circumstantial evidence, such as a district’s “shape 

and demographics,” Cooper, 581 U.S. at 291, or the splitting of neighborhoods, “strongly 

suggest[]” racial predominance. Covington v. North Carolina, 316 F.R.D. 117, 145, 160 

(M.D.N.C. 2016), aff’d, 581 U.S. 1015 (2017) (mem.). Moreover, “[r]ace may predominate even 

when a reapportionment plan respects traditional principles” if “‘[r]ace was the criterion that, in 

the State’s view, could not be compromised.’” Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 189 (quoting Shaw, 517 

U.S. at 907); see also id. at 191 (“[S]howing a deviation from, or conflict with, traditional 

redistricting principles is not a necessary prerequisite to establishing racial predominance.”). 

Though race-based classifications are inherently suspect, the plaintiff’s burden to show that 

race was the predominant factor in designing each district is “demanding.” Cooper, 581 U.S. at 

319 (citing Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 241 (2001)). And until the plaintiff has made such 

a showing, the “good faith of a . . . legislature must be presumed.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 915 (citing 

Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 318–19 (1978)). 

Racial gerrymandering claims apply “district-by-district.” ALBC, 575 U.S. at 262. An 

individual therefore may not challenge the State, or in this case the City, as an “undifferentiated 

whole.” Id. Instead, the plaintiff must demonstrate that “race was improperly used in the drawing 

of the boundaries of one or more specific electoral districts.” Id. at 263 (citations omitted).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 7 of 83
8

III. FINDINGS OF FACT2

A. Procedural History 

In late 2021 to early 2022, the City of Miami engaged in a redistricting process which 

culminated in the enactment of the 2022 Plan on March 24, 2022. (“Joint Stip.”) (ECF No. 148 at 

6 ¶ 10). On December 15, 2022, Plaintiffs commenced this Action. See (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs

claim that the 2022 Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

because the City improperly used race as the predominant factor in drawing each of Miami’s five 

districts and the design of each district does not withstand strict scrutiny. See generally SAC. 

Plaintiffs further argue that the 2023 Plan maintains the unconstitutional components of the 2022 

Plan and remains racially gerrymandered. See id. 

On February 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an expedited motion for a preliminary injunction. 

See (ECF No. 26). Therein, Plaintiffs requested that the Court enjoin Defendant from “calling, 

conducting, supervising, or certifying any elections under the [2022] Plan, beginning with the 

[November] 2023 elections until entry of a final judgment.” Id. at 36. The Court referred the 

preliminary injunction motion to United States Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis for a Report and 

Recommendation. See (ECF No. 27). 

On May 23, 2023, Judge Louis issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending that the Court grant the preliminary injunction and set a schedule for the 

preparation of a remedial map to be used in the then-upcoming November 2023 elections. See

(ECF No. 52). In making this recommendation, Judge Louis first analyzed the contemporaneous 

statements of various Commissioners during the redistricting meetings that led to the passage of 

2 To the extent that any finding of fact is more aptly characterized as a conclusion of law, or any 

conclusion of law is more aptly characterized as a finding of fact, the Court adopts it as such.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 8 of 83
9

the 2022 Plan. See id. at 64–71. Judge Louis explained that the Commissioners’ “intent was, as 

expressed, to preserve previously-drawn race-based lines of the districts in the 2022 redistricting 

process.” Id. at 67. Judge Louis supplemented her finding with an examination of the Arlington 

Heights factors, which she also found “strongly support[ed] a finding that Plaintiffs are likely to 

succeed in establishing that racial considerations predominated in the City’s design of [each 

district].”3 Id. at 77. Finding that race was the predominant factor in each district’s design, Judge 

Louis also concluded that none of the districts withstood strict scrutiny. Id. at 78–87. 

Over Defendant’s objections, the Court adopted the R&R and issued a preliminary 

injunction on May 23, 2023. See (ECF No. 60). The Court reaffirmed Judge Louis’s findings that 

race was the predominant factor in the design of each district and that no district could withstand 

strict scrutiny. See id. at 18–22. The Court also addressed and rejected Defendant’s contention 

that there was insufficient time to craft a remedial map without violating the so-called “Purcell 

principle.”4See id. at 27–28.

Shortly thereafter, the Court issued a scheduling order instructing Defendant to enact a 

proposed remedial map and file it with the Court by June 30, 2023. See (ECF No. 69 at 1). 

Plaintiffs were to notify the Court if they had any objections to Defendant’s proposed remedial 

map and Defendant was permitted to file a memorandum of law in support of it. See id. at 1–2. 

The scheduling order set specific deadlines to ensure that the Court could review the proposed 

3 The Parties did not dispute that Defendant was required under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965 (“VRA”) to consider race when drawing District 5 in a manner where race would 

predominate. See R&R at 60. 

4 Under Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006), district courts should generally refrain from 

enjoining state election laws in a period close to an election. See League of Women Voters of Fla., 

Inc., v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 32 F. 4th 1363, 1371 (11th Cir. 2022).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 9 of 83
10

remedial plan and any objections prior to August 1, 2023, the date by which the Miami-Dade 

County Board of Elections required a remedial map to administer the November 2023 elections. 

See id. at 2; see also (ECF No. 26 at 36). 

On June 30, 2023, Defendant filed its Notice of Passage of Redistricting Plan notifying the 

Court that the City had enacted the 2023 Plan.5 See (ECF No. 77). Plaintiffs objected and argued 

that the 2023 Plan failed to remedy the likely constitutional violation that the Court identified in 

the 2022 Plan. See generally (ECF No. 83). Further, because Plaintiffs believed the 2023 Plan 

was unconstitutional, they urged the Court to adopt one of their own alternative maps entitled “P4.” 

See id. at 2–3. 

The Court sustained Plaintiffs’ objections and found that “the [2023] Plan does not 

completely correct the constitutional defects the Court found were substantially likely to exist in 

the [2022] Plan.” (ECF No. 94 at 1). Even while presuming the good faith of the Commissioners 

in the remedial process—as is required under Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018)—the Court 

found that Plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating that the 2023 Plan was unconstitutional. 

See id. at 40. The Court came to this conclusion after identifying explicit statements from multiple 

Commissioners expressing their intent to maintain the race-based sorting that tainted the 2022 

Plan. See id. at 20–24. Furthermore, the Court analyzed considerable circumstantial evidence 

supporting the conclusion that racial considerations predominated in the 2023 Plan’s design. See 

id. at 24–40 (analyzing core retention rates and the specific alterations between the 2022 Plan and 

2023 Plan on a district-by-district basis). 

5 Defendant also filed a motion to dismiss this Action as moot in light of the Remedial Plan. See

(ECF No. 80). The Court denied the motion and found that Defendant’s argument squarely 

contradicted Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. See (ECF No. 91).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 10 of 83
11

Given that Defendant was unable to pass a constitutional remedial map, and because the 

August 1, 2023 deadline was fast approaching, the Court faced the unenviable task of crafting a 

new map to use in the November 2023 elections. With no time for the City to draw a new map 

and for the Court to approve it, nor for the Court to engage a special master to draft an alternative 

plan, the Court analyzed Plaintiffs’ P4. See id. at 24–29. The Court found that P4 was 

constitutional, complied with the Commission’s legitimate policy goals, respected traditional 

redistricting criteria, and adhered to federal and state law. See id. at 41–50. The Court adopted 

P4 as the Court’s interim remedial plan (“Court’s Map”) pending final judgment. Id. at 50. 

Defendant filed an emergency motion to stay the implementation of the Court’s Map in the 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.6(ECF No. 96). A divided panel granted the stay solely on 

Purcell grounds.7 See Grace, Inc., et al. v. City of Miami, No. 23-12472, 2023 WL 5286232 (11th 

Cir. Aug. 4, 2023). Plaintiffs filed an application to vacate the stay with the U.S. Supreme Court,

which was ultimately denied. See Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 144 S. Ct. 45 (2023) (mem.). 

The November 2023 elections proceeded under the unconstitutional 2023 Plan. 

Despite the appellate proceedings, the case continued. In September 2023, Plaintiffs filed 

a supplemental complaint alleging that the five Miami City Commission districts continue to be

racially gerrymandered in the 2023 Plan. See (ECF No. 109). This supplemental complaint added 

to but did not replace the allegations in the First Amended Complaint. See (“FAC”) (ECF No. 23). 

6 Defendant initially filed an appeal challenging the preliminary injunction order, but voluntarily 

dismissed it. (ECF No. 88). Therefore, the result of this motion to stay could not undo the 

injunction; rather, the subject of the appeal was limited to the sole question of whether the City 

would use the 2023 Plan or the Court’s Plan in the November elections. 

7

In support of its Purcell argument, Defendant’s brief to the Eleventh Circuit contained multiple 

misrepresentations that contradicted the record in this case. For an extended discussion 

cataloguing such misrepresentations, see ECF No. 132 at 8–11.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 11 of 83
12

Plaintiff subsequently amended the FAC to consolidate the FAC and the supplemental complaint 

into the Second Amended Complaint. See (ECF No. 142). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss 

(ECF No. 117), and later, a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 131). The Court denied both 

motions. See (ECF Nos. 132, 139). 

On January 29, 2024 and January 30, 2024, the Court held a two-day bench trial. Once the 

trial concluded, the Court ordered the Parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions 

of law. Having had the opportunity to review the pleadings, exhibits, witness testimony, and the 

record as a whole, the Court makes the following findings. 

B. Background 

Only since 1997 has the City of Miami had five City Commission districts. Since then, the 

City has undergone multiple redistricting processes, including in 2021–2022, which culminated 

in the 2022 Plan. Below, the Court provides a brief overview of the districts and the 

Commissioners, both past and present. Next, the Court describes the brief history of Miami 

redistricting. Then, in extensive detail, the Court recounts the six Commission meetings where 

the Commissioners expressed their intent to redistrict predominantly along racial lines. 

1. Overview of the Miami Redistricting Process 

Defendant City of Miami is a Florida municipality. Joint Stip. at 6 ¶ 1. Under Florida law, 

the City has the authority to regulate and conduct its elections. Id. This authority includes the 

ability to establish commission districts and draw their boundaries consistent with state law. Id. 

Aside from candidate qualifying, the Miami-Dade County Elections Department administers 

municipal elections for the City. Id. at 6 ¶ 7. 

The City is governed by a five-member Commission and a Mayor. Id. at 6 ¶ 2. Since 1997, 

the Commissioners have been elected from single-member districts. Id. at 6 ¶ 4. The 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 12 of 83
13

Commissioners run on a nonpartisan platform and serve for staggered four-year terms, with 

Districts 1, 2, and 4 last elected in 2023 and Districts 3 and 5 last elected in 2021. Id. at 6 ¶ 5. 

Commissioners are limited to serving two consecutive terms. Id. at 6 ¶ 8. General municipal 

elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd-numbered years. 

Id. at 6 ¶ 6. 

The 2021–2022 redistricting process produced the 2022 Plan. Id. at 6 ¶ 10. The 2022–

2023 remedial redistricting process, discussed more below, produced the 2023 Plan. Id. at 7 ¶ 11. 

On January 11, 2024, the Commission adopted Resolution R-24-1, which amended the 2023 Plan 

by moving four census blocks and 48 people from District 1 to District 3. See (ECF No. 159 at 2). 

The 2023 Plan as amended is still in place. 

The current Commissioners are Miguel Angel Gabela (District 1), Damian Pardo (District 

2), Joe Carollo (District 3), Manolo Reyes (District 4), and Christine King (District 5). Joint Stip. 

at 7 ¶ 11. The District 1 and 2 Commissioners during the 2021–2022 redistricting process were 

Alex Díaz de la Portilla and Ken Russell. Id. at 7 ¶ 12. During the 2022–2023 redistricting process, 

the District 1 and 2 Commissioners were Alex Díaz de la Portilla and Sabina Covo. Id. at 7 ¶ 13. 

Former Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla and Commissioners Carollo, Reyes, and Gabela are 

Hispanic and Cuban-American. Id. at 7 ¶ 14. Commissioner Pardo and former Commissioner 

Covo are Hispanic. Id. Commissioner King is Black and former Commissioner Russell is White 

and Japanese-American. Id.

Commissioners Pardo and Gabela were first elected in the November 2023 election. Id. at 

7 ¶¶ 21, 22. Commissioner King was elected in 2021. Id. at 7 ¶ 16. Commissioner Reyes was 

elected in 2017 and then reelected in the November 2023 election. Id. at 7 ¶ 17. Commissioner 

Carollo was reelected in 2021 and is ineligible for reelection when his term ends in 2025. Id. at 7 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 13 of 83
14

¶ 18. Both former Commissioners Covo and Díaz de la Portilla lost reelection in the November 

2023 election. Id. at 7 ¶¶ 15, 20. Former Commissioner Russell ran for Congress in the 2022 

election and resigned on December 29, 2022. Id. at 7 ¶ 19. 

2. History of Redistricting in Miami 

Prior to 1997, the Commission was elected on an at-large, citywide basis. SAC ¶ 56; 

(“Answer”) (ECF No. 150 ¶ 56). Commissioner Carollo served as Mayor from 1996 to 1997

during which time he appointed a blue-ribbon panel to recommend a single-member district map 

for the City. SAC ¶ 57; Answer ¶ 57. Commissioner Reyes and Miguel De Grandy served among 

the members of the blue-ribbon panel. SAC ¶ 58; Answer ¶ 58. Based on the panel’s 

recommendations, the Commission developed its 1997 map as Resolution 97-495 (“1997 Plan”). 

SAC ¶¶ 59–60; Answer ¶¶ 59–60. Shortly thereafter, voters adopted a charter amendment 

adopting single-member districts and the 1997 Plan was implemented for the November 1997 

elections. SAC ¶ 61; Answer ¶ 61. 

When the City implemented the 1997 Plan, race predominated in the drawing of each 

district. At a November 18, 2021 Commission meeting, Carollo recounted his rationale as Mayor 

for single-member district elections: 

When we went to districts, we went to districts when I was mayor. We had no 

African American representation in the commission. So, instead of waiting for 

more years to go on like that so there could be a solid case made in court, I decided 

that I was gonna put in my political capital and make districts to assure that there 

would be an African American sitting in this commission and there would be an 

Anglo. We’ve got half of one now [referring to Japanese-American former 

Commissioner Russell] but we’re still good. And I wanted to make sure that there 

were three Hispanic districts because that’s the way that our population was and 

basically it still is. It passed . . . That’s why I pushed it and it passed.

(“Pls.’ Ex. 1”) (11/18/22 Meeting Tr., ECF No. 170-1 at 28:4–12) (emphasis added). Carollo 

doubled down in a February 7, 2022 meeting, explaining that, in 1997, he thought the singleCase 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 14 of 83
15

member districts would ensure “that there would always be an African American commissioner 

and an Anglo commissioner,” and that the original districts in the 1997 Plan were “gerrymandered 

but it was a legal gerrymander so that you would have an Anglo elected commissioner.” (“Pls.’

Ex. 3”) (2/7/22 Meeting Tr., ECF No. 170-3 at 51:13–14, 51:18–19). 

The Commission redistricted the City’s map in 2003 through Resolution 03-448 (“2003 

Plan”) and in 2013 through Resolution 13-208 (“2013 Plan”). SAC ¶ 62; Answer ¶ 62. De Grandy 

and Stephen M. Cody (“Cody”) served as the City’s redistricting consultants in both redistricting 

processes. SAC ¶ 63; Answer ¶ 63. The 2013 Plan remained in effect until after the 2020 United 

States Census (“2020 Census”) was released.

C. Race Predominated in the Drawing of the 2022 Plan

After the 2020 Census, the Commission again commenced its redistricting process. SAC 

¶ 64; Answer ¶ 64. This process took place over the course of six Commission meetings, the first 

of which occurred on November 18, 2021. Joint Stip. at 8 ¶ 27. After the final meeting on March 

24, 2022, the Commission passed the 2022 Plan by a 3–2 vote. See id. at 16 ¶ 44. 

As discussed further below, race predominated in the drawing of each district in the 2021–

2022 redistricting cycle. The Court begins by chronicling each redistricting meeting and 

identifying the vast number of occasions where direct evidence demonstrates the Commissioners’ 

clear intent to design each district based on race. Because racial gerrymandering claims are 

analyzed on a district-by-district basis, the Court then highlights some of this direct evidence as 

applied to each district. The Court then explains how circumstantial evidence confirms that race 

predominated in the redistricting process. Last, the Court describes how the Commission 

subordinated traditional redistricting criteria to racial considerations.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 15 of 83
16

1. November 18, 2021 Meeting 

Just as in the 2003 and 2013 Plans, the City hired De Grandy and Cody as redistricting 

consultants for the 2021–2022 cycle. Joint Stip. at 8 ¶ 23. At the November 18, 2021 meeting, 

De Grandy presented an initial report on redistricting considerations in light of the 2020 Census 

data showing the racial demographics of the 2013 Plan. SAC ¶ 68; Answer ¶ 68. The 2013 Plan 

is shown below.

Figure 1: 2013 Plan.

During his presentation, De Grandy explained that the 2020 Census data showed that the 

City’s population had grown by 42,752 residents (or 10.7%) in the last decade. Pls.’ Ex. 1 at 3:3–

4. Population growth, however, had not been uniform across each district. Id. at 3:6. According 

to De Grandy, the 2020 Census demographics indicated that the 2013 Plan now had a population 

deviation among each district exceeding 42%. Id. at 4:4–5. And according to federal case law, 

De Grandy explained, a constitutional map for local governments must achieve substantial equality 

of population as opposed to mathematical equality, meaning that the map “may not exceed an 

overall [population] deviation of 10%.” Id. at 4:9–11, 4:14–5:3, 5:23–6:1. Based on the City’s 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 16 of 83
17

total population, the ideal population for each district was 88,448. Id. at 3:10–11. Each district 

deviated from the ideal population (District 2 was substantially overpopulated and other districts 

needed to gain population), and thus, to achieve the constitutionally mandated substantial equality 

of population in each district, alterations to district borders were necessary. Id. at. 4:1–9. 

Figure 2: Population of 2013 Plan as Prepared in De Grandy's Initial Report (ECF No. 170-12 at 7).

Though the overall population in each district changed, the racial demographics of each 

district in the 2013 Plan remained true to the City’s original goal in 1997 of sorting the districts 

based on race. Districts 1, 3, and 4 contained supermajorities of Hispanic voters, with Hispanic 

voting age populations (“HVAP”) of 91.0%, 88.5%, and 91.6% respectively. Joint Stip. at 8 ¶ 24. 

District 2, the so-called “Anglo” district, had the highest White voting age population (“WVAP”) 

of 34.5%. See id. Black voters constituted a majority in District 5 with a Black voting age 

population (“BVAP”) of 52.9%. Id.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 17 of 83
18

Figure 3: 2013 Plan Demographics. Joint Stip. at 8 ¶ 24.8

Once De Grandy and the Commissioners finished discussing the need to redistrict, racial 

considerations immediately rose to the forefront of the conversation. De Grandy advised the 

Commissioners that “we can consider race as one of several factors that we will be conscious of 

in crafting a plan.” Pls.’ Ex. 1 at 6:23. De Grandy stated that “one can be race-conscious, but not 

race driven. In other words, racial consideration may be one of a menu of factors that one considers 

in developing a plan, but cannot be the overriding factor.” Id. at 7:4–6. De Grandy then asked the 

Commissioners for a directive regarding which criteria to use when crafting a new plan. Id. at

7:13–15. The Commissioners gave De Grandy four ranked directives for crafting a new map: (1) 

create substantial equality of population between districts, as opposed to mathematical equality; 

(2) maintain the cores of existing districts; (3) establish political cohesion of voters; and (4) keep 

traditional neighborhoods within one district if feasible. See id. at 35:20–36:11. 

8 The Court notes there is a slight discrepancy between the population and deviation values in

Figures 2 and 3 but finds their differences immaterial. Although De Grandy may have relied on 

slightly different population numbers when preparing his initial report, nothing in Figure 3 

indicates that De Grandy’s conclusion regarding the need to conduct redistricting was incorrect. 

In any event, the Parties have stipulated to the accuracy of Figure 3, and thus, for the purposes of 

this discussion regarding the demographics of each district, the Court accepts the values in Figure 

3 as true.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 18 of 83
19

The second directive—maintain the cores of existing districts—functioned as a proxy to 

ensure that any new map would further the Commission’s goals of sorting each district based on 

race. For example, Commissioner Reyes told De Grandy, “I will strongly request that the districts 

. . . remain as they are” because the districts were “drawn in a way that every single ethnic group 

would be represented.” Id. at 15:22–23, 16:8–9. Commissioner Carollo, after recounting that the 

rationale for moving to single-member districts was to “assure that there would be an African 

American sitting in this commission and there would be an Anglo,” and to “make sure that there 

were three Hispanic districts,” emphasized that he “want[ed] to be clear . . . that . . . the core of our 

districts are gonna be kept.” Id. at 28:6–10, 28:15–16. The Commissioners’ discussion of district 

cores as a substitute to reference the race-based districts was most on display during a discussion 

about District 5 and the Voting Rights Act. During the discussion, De Grandy stated that the 

redistricting process “will have to protect District 5,” to which Commissioner King responded, “I 

think what [De Grandy] [is] trying to say is that you have to, you’re going to attempt to try to 

maintain the core of the existing district.” Id. at 14:21, 15:2–3. As these quotations show, the 

Commissioners understood the instruction to maintain the cores of existing districts as a thinly 

veiled way for the Commissioners to communicate to De Grandy that any new map should 

preserve the race-based classifications from earlier iterations of the same districts. 

Similarly, the Commissioners used the “political cohesion” of voters as another way to 

ensure a future map kept racially homogeneous groups together. Indeed, the Commissioners and 

De Grandy almost never discussed the actual “political cohesion” or “voter cohesion” of any 

district; rather, they operated on the faulty assumption that moving a large group of citizens 

belonging to a particular race would result in that group sharing the same political preferences. In 

one instance, Commissioner Carollo explained that “minority voters will be politically cohesive 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 19 of 83
20

within these districts.” Id. at 28:20–21. De Grandy repeated this sentiment in later Commission 

meetings as well. See, e.g., Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 9:7–8 (“We felt that this movement was needed because 

this area has a high percentage of Hispanics and greater voter cohesion with D1 residents.”); id. at 

10:7–8 (“[W]e tried to find adjacent areas with similar demographics in order to maintain voter 

cohesion.”); (“Pls.’ Ex. 4”) (2/25/2022 AM Tr., ECF No. 170-4 at 7:6–7) (“[W]e felt this 

movement was needed because Hispanics in this area constitute roughly 70% of the population. 

Thus, they have greater voter cohesion.”). Just as with the Commissioners’ priority to maintain 

the core of existing districts, references to “voter cohesion” functioned as shorthand for keeping 

racially similar groups together. 

2. December 9, 2021 Meeting 

The Commissioners reconvened on December 9, 2021 to consider additional criteria and 

to supplement the directives that they gave to De Grandy at the November 18, 2021 meeting. See

(“Pls.’ Ex. 2”) (12/9/21 Tr., ECF No. 170-2 at 2:20–22). Despite the stated purpose of the meeting, 

the Commissioners used this time largely to reaffirm their primary goal of maintaining three 

Hispanic, one Black, and one “Anglo” district. 

Race permeated nearly every aspect of the discussion in this meeting. Speaking about 

District 5, Commissioner Carollo stated that there were “non-African American areas, mainly 

Hispanic or Anglo basically,” that could be removed from the district. Id. at 3:15–16. When 

discussing other potential district configurations, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla stated that “if 

we go beyond 112[th] [street], north of 112 we are entering into African American neighborhoods 

. . . And we can’t touch that area.” Id. at 5:18–21. Carollo concurred, asserting “then you will be 

taking away from the purpose of why we did the districts to begin with.” Id. at 5:23. Then, 

speaking about Districts 3 and 4, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla stated “we have to make sure 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 20 of 83
21

that we keep the structural integrity and the ethnic integrity, for lack of a better term again, in those 

two districts.” Id. at 7:2–3. To preserve the “ethnic integrity” of Districts 3 and 4, Commissioner 

Díaz de la Portilla asked, “[i]s there a problem with splitting Coconut Grove as an entity? Based 

on where the Hispanic voters live?” Id. at 7:16–18. De Grandy answered Díaz de la Portilla’s 

question about splitting the districts based on race by stating that “[t]here is no legal impediment 

to breaking up any community of interest.” Id. at 7:22–23. 

Later in the meeting, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla continued to question De Grandy 

about how his mapmaking process would maintain the racial division of the districts. During a 

discussion about how to shift population among districts and whether De Grandy should adhere to 

manmade barriers when drawing district borders, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla asked, “[h]ow 

do you not dilute, then, District 3 and District 4? Can you survive, can you keep the – again I’ll 

call it the ethnic integrity [of those districts]?” Id. at 10:4–5. De Grandy assured Commissioner 

Díaz de la Portilla that his map drawing process “would not compromise the integrity of those 

districts.” Id. at 10:13–14.

Turning specifically to a conversation regarding the Coconut Grove neighborhood, 

Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla once again used his time to emphasize that any changes made in 

a new map should reaffirm the racial makeup of the current districts, even at the expense of 

splitting Coconut Grove:

It’s kind of how we – how the elected officials here represent – how we have 

categorial representation. How we have people that represent the people that are 

like them and think like them. Right? And that’s important, I think that’s 

important. So that’s what we have, we have a representative form of government, 

we have to have people that think like us, and we represent those people . . . So if 

we go into the Grove, what’s wrong with just getting a little bit of that to make sure 

that we don’t jeopardize the ethnic integrity of our districts . . . And of course, 

without touching the racial integrity of District 5. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 21 of 83
22

Id. at 13:10–18 (emphasis added). Commissioner Carollo reaffirmed this concern, stating that “the 

Grove is going to have to be split in either two or three parts,” or otherwise, the City could face 

“the biggest danger” of “not . . . keeping an ‘Anglo’ seat or a Black seat.” Id. at 14:13–14, 14:16–

17.

Before leaving De Grandy with further instruction on how to draw a new map, 

Commissioner Carollo reiterated his redistricting priority:

My main interest in my district and [] Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla[’s] [district] 

and Mr. Reyes’ district is that I’m sure we’re going to keep the balance of the 

Hispanic population where we’re going to be getting Hispanics elected there . . . 

The other districts, like I said . . . they’re going to have the representation that we 

intended those districts to have for some time to come. 

Id. at 23:4–7, 24:9–10. De Grandy fully understood his objective to maintain the current 

demographics of these districts in a new map. Id. at 25:11–20 (“Because what I’m hearing from 

[the Commissioners] is, when you talk about maintaining the integrity of districts, the core of 

districts, is to minimize disruption . . . And I’ll try to do that.”).

While the Commissioners emphasized to De Grandy their desire for a map preserving the 

racial demographics of the 2013 Plan, they also stressed that De Grandy should not consider other 

traditional redistricting criteria.9 Regarding one such criterion, the compactness of a district, 

Commissioner Russell stated “[c]ompactness is not crucial” and Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla 

agreed, saying “I have no problem getting rid of compactness at the end of the day.” Id. at 18:2,

18:17–18. Even more bluntly, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla told De Grandy, “it is not possible 

to emphasize compactness and draw realistic districts, right[?] If you want to have an African 

American district and you want to have an Anglo district it’s almost impossible . . . [t]o 

emphasize[] compactness.” Id. at 28:22–29:1. De Grandy responded, “[r]ight,” confirming 

9 See Part III.C.9.a., infra, for a discussion about traditional redistricting criteria.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 22 of 83
23

Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla’s assumption. Id. at 29:2. As to another traditional redistricting 

criterion—respecting major manmade boundaries—the Commissioners could not decide if they 

wanted De Grandy to consider that factor in this meeting. Id. at 18:23–21:8. And as discussed 

above, the Commissioners eagerly discussed splitting Coconut Grove, a traditional Miami 

neighborhood, along racial lines if it would protect the “ethnic integrity” of the districts. Id. at

13:10–18. 

In sum, the original purpose of the December 9, 2021 meeting was for the Commissioners 

to provide further guidance to De Grandy regarding how they wanted him to craft a new map. 

Although De Grandy was prepared to discuss whether he should emphasize compactness, 

manmade and natural barriers, or contiguity, the Commissioners repeatedly made clear that those 

considerations would take a back seat to their racial redistricting goals. Over and over again, 

multiple Commissioners emphasized that their primary directive to De Grandy was to preserve the 

status quo, thereby maintaining three Hispanic, one Black, and one “Anglo” district. To the extent 

traditional redistricting criteria would jeopardize that goal, as was the case with compactness and 

maintaining traditional communities of interest, De Grandy was instructed to ignore them. With 

these instructions in mind, De Grandy left the meeting to develop a draft plan that he would show 

to each Commissioner individually ahead of another meeting in February. See id. at 33:18–35:14. 

3. February 7, 2022 Meeting 

The Commission’s met again on February 7, 2022, and this time, De Grandy prepared a

new draft plan (“Feb. 7 Draft Plan”). See generally Pls.’ Ex. 3. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 23 of 83
24

Figure 4: Feb. 7 Draft Plan.

During this meeting, De Grandy gave a presentation to the Commission and described his 

mapmaking process. Id. at 5:16–12:11; (“Pls.’ Ex. 15”) (2/7/22 Presentation, ECF No. 170-15). 

In doing so, De Grandy noted multiple race-based decisions he had made. For example, De Grandy 

explained that the Feb. 7 Draft Plan underpopulated District 5 by 1.6% below the ideal population 

“because bringing in additional population from most any side of the district might reduce the 

African American population percentage.” Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 8:13–15. Referencing one area moved 

from District 5 to District 1, De Grandy explained that he “felt this movement was needed because 

this area has a high percentage of Hispanics and greater voter cohesion with D1 residents.” Id. at

9:7–8. De Grandy further explained that he moved an area from District 1 to District 3 in the Feb. 

7 Draft Plan that went south from 17th Avenue going west to 27th Avenue, and from SW 9th Street 

to SW 12th Street, because he “tried to find adjacent areas with similar demographics.” Id. at

10:5–8. De Grandy informed the Commission that when adjusting population between the District 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 24 of 83
25

5 and District 1 border, he and Cody chose to move a population which was “highly Hispanic.” 

Id. at 11:15–20; see also (“Pls.’ Ex. 17”) (ECF No. 170-17) (Cody memorandum describing the 

demographic populations moved between each district).

The Feb. 7 Draft Plan split portions of Coconut Grove between Districts 2 and 4. This 

division prompted intense public scrutiny during the meeting. See Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 13:9–14:7, 16:22–

17:19, 19:11–20:3, 20:23–27:15, 28:6–33:20, 34:15–39:23. In response to comments from the 

public, Commissioner Carollo described the historical background for why the City converted to 

single-member districts. See id. at 50:7–53:9. He explained that District 2 was initially designed 

to track the coastal region of Miami to ensure that an “Anglo” commissioner would be elected. Id.

at 51:18–19 (“It was gerrymandered but it was a legal gerrymander so that you would have an 

Anglo elected commissioner.”). Carollo further explained that over the past two redistricting 

cycles, various neighborhoods such as Silver Bluff, Shenandoah, Little Havana, and Flagami were 

divided “to make sure there’s gonna be an African American elected . . . to make sure there’s an 

Anglo American elected and . . . that in the rest of the districts that are majority Hispanic, that 

they stayed that way.” Id. at 52:1–23. Commissioner Carollo informed the public that, to maintain 

the districts “in the way that [he] described,” areas like Coconut Grove would need to be split. Id.

at 53:9–19; see also id. at 54:5–9 (“As I see it, in order to give balance, first of all [to] protect the 

integrity of what was done in 2000 and making sure that we keep [an] African American district, 

that we keep an Anglo American district, but that we also keep that same balance . . . in the 

Hispanic districts[,] I don’t see any other way that we’re gonna to have to come in. At least a small 

portion into Coconut Grove.”). 

Commissioner Reyes reaffirmed that, in his view, changes to Coconut Grove would be 

necessary to maintain the racial divisions among the districts. He stated that the reason the districts 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 25 of 83
26

have “the odd shape they have now . . . was to make sure[,] and let’s call a spade a spade[,] [t]o 

make sure that an African American was gonna be elected and that an Anglo . . . was gonna be 

elected.” See id. at 67:19–21. “[T]o protect those two seats,” Reyes explained, “[t]here have to 

be changes” in Coconut Grove. Id. at 67:23–68:2. Commissioner Reyes asked De Grandy directly: 

“I want you to be very honest because we gave you your marching order. The most important 

question that we have is this [the Feb. 7 Draft Plan] the best you can do to protect the African 

American seat? I’m gonna be blunt[,] and the Anglo seat?” Id. at 68:6–9 (emphasis added). De 

Grandy confirmed that this draft plan adhered to the Commissioners’ directives as best as possible, 

claiming that he could make some alterations between Districts 1 and 5, but doing so would start 

“disbalancing District 1.” Id. at 68:10–13.

If it were not already clear enough, for the final time in this meeting, Commissioner Carollo 

emphasized what De Grandy’s top priority should be when making alterations to the Feb. 7 Draft 

Plan: “[w]hat I am trying to do is, number one: As I stated, were my goals from day 1 in the year 

2000 . . . so that we could have African American representation . . . guaranteed Anglo 

representation, and to have three districts that were Hispanic. These are my intentions here today.”

Id. at 100:13–17. He told De Grandy that “[t]here has to be a balance into the future[,] [s]o that 

District 3 . . . and District 1, can keep the same type of last names, faces that they have, and that 

we don’t end up [sic] diluting artificially[] [the] Hispanic population.” Id. at 103:18–21. Carollo 

addressed De Grandy, saying “I want to be clear in the instructions . . . and we have to be clear 

because look . . . [w]hat I care is that in the future, there [are] sufficient Hispanic votes . . . to elect 

a Hispanic.” Id. at 105:20–23 (emphasis added). Commissioner King concurred. Id. at 106:1.

After these discussions, the Commission voted 4–1 to direct De Grandy to evaluate 

alternatives to the Feb. 7 Draft Plan. Id. at 99:9–20. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 26 of 83
27

4. February 25, 2022 AM Session 

On February 25, 2022, the Commission reconvened to discuss alterations De Grandy made 

to the Feb. 7 Draft Plan. See generally Pls.’ Ex. 4. De Grandy met with each Commissioner 

individually for additional input before crafting a new map with revisions (“Feb. 22 Draft Plan”). 

Id. at 5:1–2. Prior to the meeting, De Grandy also provided each Commissioner with a detailed 

report of the revisions contained in the Feb. 22 Draft Plan. Id. at 4:5–11. 

De Grandy began by describing the changes he made to the Feb. 7 Draft Plan. For example, 

he noted that the Feb. 22 Draft Plan reduced the number of Coconut Grove residents moved from 

District 4 to District 2. Id. at 5:3–9. The Feb. 22 Draft Plan also reconfigured the districts so that 

Bay Heights would remain in District 2 (rather than District 3), and the Miami Riverside Center 

(“MRC”) would remain in District 5. Id. at 5:9–13. As a result, De Grandy explained, he was 

“able to slightly increase the total Black population [in District 5], as well as the voting age 

population, above 50%.” Id. at 5:13–15.

Consistent with the racial focus of the last three meetings, De Grandy provided a detailed 

discussion of the Feb. 22 Draft Plan’s demographics: 

Okay, next slide, District 1 is at a -.41 deviation, which is 340 residents below this 

ideal. It has an 88% Hispanic population with 89.5% Hispanic voting age 

population, it clearly complies with the Voting Rights Act. District 2, next slide, 

now has a +5.46 deviation, which is 4,832 residents above the ideal. District 2 

remains a swing district with 37% white non-Hispanic population, approximately 

7.5% Black population, and roughly 48.7% Hispanic population. Voting age 

percentages are almost the same as the total population percentages. D[istrict] 3 is 

slightly underpopulated at a -0.92 or 810 people under the ideal population. District 

3 has an 87.25% Hispanic population and approximately 88.3% Hispanic voting 

age population, and consistent with the Voting Rights Act, the Hispanic community 

has an equal opportunity to elect the candidate of its choice. District 4 is now 

slightly underpopulated with a -2% deviation or 1,774 residents below the ideal. 

88.2% of the population is Hispanic, with 89.5% Hispanic voting age population. 

As I said before, the drop in population compared to our preliminary plan was a 

direct result of reducing the number of Grove residents that we had moved from 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 27 of 83
28

D[istrict] 2 to D[istrict] 4. The district also complies with the requirements of the 

Voting Rights Act.

Now finally, we underpopulated D[istrict] 5 by roughly 2.14 under the ideal, this 

allowed us to slightly increase the Black voting percentage. The proposed district 

is now approximately 52.2% Black, with approximately 50.3% Black voting age 

population. Our analysis of voting patterns indicates that,[10]consistent with the 

requirements of the [Voting Rights Act], the Black community does have an equal 

opportunity to elect the candidate of its choice.

Id. at 6:1–19. 

De Grandy continued his presentation, further describing the race-based considerations that 

culminated in the Feb. 22 Draft Plan. When discussing the border between District 1 and District 

5, he told the Commission that “to keep the MRC in D5, we had to reduce this movement with a 

new boundary at the I-95 expressway. Again, we felt this movement was needed because 

Hispanics in this area constitute roughly 70% of the population. Thus, they have greater voter 

cohesion . . . .” Id. at 7:3–8. When discussing the changes to District 3, De Grandy continued to 

use the term “voter cohesion” as a proxy for whether a particular area was racially homogenous:

The next slide is of the proposed District 3 . . . It was not feasible to cross the river 

to the north, so our options were to move east, west or south. We did not feel it 

was appropriate to move east because of dissimilar demographics. And the next 

slide now shows the movements we made . . . [were] done to balance population, 

and in that regard[,] we tried to find adjacent areas with similar demographics in 

order to maintain voter cohesion.

11

10 As noted in the R&R, despite De Grandy’s claim that he analyzed voting patterns, no such 

analysis is memorialized in the record. See R&R at 28. 

11 De Grandy’s testimony at trial does not disturb the Court’s finding that, during the 2021–2022 

redistricting process, he used “voter cohesion” as a proxy for race. He testified that “the 

Commissioners in District 2 have campaigned on sea rise, climate change” and the electorate is

“very sensitive to LGBT issues, etcetera, none of that resonates in the western districts.” T2. at

116:23–117:2. Be that as it may, nothing in the record indicates that De Grandy ever factored 

these considerations into his mapmaking process. These issues were never mentioned in this 

meeting, or in any other. Rather, and as shown above, De Grandy mentioned voter cohesion as a 

convenient shorthand for his decisions to move racially homogenous groups between the districts.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 28 of 83
29

Id. at 7:20–8:4 (emphasis added); see also (“Pls.’ Ex. 18”) (Feb. 25, 2022 Redistricting 

Presentation, ECF No. 170-18 at 17–28) (describing each discrete area moved between the 

Districts). 

Later, when summarizing the Feb. 22 Draft Plan, De Grandy stated:

E]very district maintains the core configuration and the vast majority of its existing 

population [from the Feb. 7 Draft Plan] . . . Wherever possible, we tried to move 

population based on similar demographics and voting patterns in order to maintain 

voting cohesion . . . Moreover, because the current configurations and the directives 

to maintain the core of existing districts as well as a need to balance population, the 

directive to maintain communities of interest and traditional neighborhoods could 

not be substantially achieved.

Pls.’ Ex. 4 at 8:15–9:1. Put differently, De Grandy made alterations in the Feb. 22 Draft Plan to 

ensure the preservation of the previous race-based districts at the expense of maintaining united 

communities and neighborhoods.

The Commission opened the meeting for public comment on the Feb. 22 Draft Plan. The 

community feedback was overwhelmingly negative, with most commenters emphasizing their 

desire to keep Coconut Grove united within one district. See id. at 13:5–64:15. Plaintiffs South 

Dade NAACP and Miami-Dade NAACP expressed their concern that splitting Coconut Grove 

would “dilute the Black vote within District 2” and voiced their opposition to “any dismantling of 

the Black vote in District 5.” Id. at 13:23–14:13. Plaintiff Donaldson echoed her concern that the 

Grove should remain united, id. at 16:10–20, as did Plaintiff Cooper, id. at 41:4–15.

Other parties expressed their concern with the legality of the Feb. 22 Draft Plan. A 

representative from the ACLU of Florida raised multiple concerns with the redistricting process:

First, districts must respect the Constitution’s prohibition on racial gerrymandering. 

The Commission is barred from adopting arbitrary numerical demographic targets 

when fashioning districts. Commissioners have previously discussed a target of 

50% Black population for District 5. Such as – such a numerical target divorced 

from any actual analysis [of what] is necessary to afford Black voters an 

opportunity to elect preferred candidates raises . . . concerns. Furthermore, 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 29 of 83
30

overconcentrating Black voters in District 5 may constitute unlawful packing . . . 

We urge you to take the full breadth of available data into account rather than 

looking [] merely at . . . surface-level census population totals.

Id. at 34:4–14; see also (“Pls.’ Ex. 23”) (2/25/22 ACLU Letter, ECF No. 170-23). Another resident 

raised concerns that the redistricting process engaged in “cracking,” or in other words, drawing 

electoral districts that divide the population of a community. Pls.’ Ex. 4 at 55:2–12. Others raised 

concerns that the Feb. 22 Draft Plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Id. at 26:18–22,

65:4–5.

At the end of the time allotted for public comment, Commissioner Carollo again reiterated 

the reason why the City had created single-member districts:

But let me be as clear as I can. When I did that, I was mayor of the city. We had 

had an election that someone that looked like her [pointing to Commissioner King] 

was no longer here. You had four Hispanic commissioners and you had my dear 

friend J.L. Plummer, that Coconut Grove uh – after serving so many years decided 

that they don’t want him when we went to districts. So Plummer was the only nonHispanic in the commission and if we would’ve had another election, and Plummer 

would not have ran, you probably would have had five Hispanics on the 

commission. Just like now, if it would be a citywide vote, you would have five 

Hispanics up here. So I put my neck on the line and I said, no, I’m not going to wait 

for a couple more elections and not have an African American in this commission, 

because that’s what it would’ve required. Just because you don’t have a 

representation from a certain minority group automatically you don’t get to go to 

court and you get that. You have to show that it’s a pattern, not necessarily that the 

guy that they voted out is someone that people didn’t want, and you can’t do that 

in one election. So I went out knowing the pluses and frankly, all the negatives the 

districts bring and ask[ed] for the residents of Miami to vote for districts and for 

the mayor to be an executive mayor like it is today, and I was the first executive 

mayor of the city of Miami. And that’s how the district came. We, yes, 

gerrymandered District 2, so that someone that would be of an Anglo background, 

not Hispanic, would be elected. And that’s why District 2 crossed into – across the 

highway, and a big chunk of a Hispanic district was put into District 2 because we 

had to balance the population within the five districts. In order to accommodate that 

and to make sure that there were enough African Americans in District 5 to elect 

an African American from District 5, we gerrymandered and broke up numerous 

neighborhoods into the other three – in the other three districts, and particularly 

District 3 and District 4. And that’s how we came about today. And we’ve had 

since then a couple of more revisions, I think Mr. De Grandy has been the guy 

who’s been doing it all these years so, I mean, we haven’t gone and try to pick 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 30 of 83
31

anybody else to put something different or hoodwink people. We kept the same guy 

that we’ve had, so throughout the different revisions since then, uh we’ve had to 

cut into other areas. 

Id. at 60:17–61:19 (alteration in original) (emphasis added). Shortly thereafter, the meeting 

recessed until the afternoon.

5. February 25, 2022 PM Session 

In the afternoon session, the meeting started with De Grandy’s rebuttal to public comment. 

In particular, De Grandy took issue with the concerns that the ACLU mentioned regarding District 

5 and whether it was narrowly tailored to VRA compliance. See (“Pls.’ Ex. 5”) (2/25/22 PM Tr., 

ECF No. 170-5 at 2:6–4:1). But rather than explain why he believed District 5 in the Feb. 22 Draft 

Plan was narrowly tailored, De Grandy simply stated that he was able to design District 5 with a 

50.3% BVAP. See id. at 2:6–11. He dismissed the ACLU’s concern by saying “[w]hat [the 

ACLU] is basically saying is I put too many Black folks into District 5.” Id. at 2:6–8. De Grandy 

concluded his remarks by dismissing concerns about the alleged “packing” and “cracking” of the 

Black community in the Feb. 22 Draft Plan. See id. at 2:15–3:16. 

Following De Grandy’s remarks, the Commissioners each had time to give comments. See 

id. at 4:2–5. Just as in the four prior meetings, Commissioner Carollo used this time to repeat his 

understanding that the City had purposely divided traditional neighborhoods in other districts to 

racially gerrymander District 2, thereby ensuring an “Anglo” commissioner could be elected: 

Commissioner Carollo: Look, what I’m most amazed at is that when we created 

districts from the get-go, and then the redistricting that has been done each decade, 

every 10 years, we have purposely divided neighborhoods in the other districts to 

try to keep District 2 into a district that a non-Hispanic would be elected. And that’s 

why Coconut Grove was kept together. In fact, from the beginning, a big chunk 

across US 1 was given to Coconut Grove because there would not have been 

enough population to balance it out otherwise in District 2. Nobody objected to that 

at the time, nobody objected to numerous neighborhoods in the city of Miami in 

having been divided. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 31 of 83
32

Like someone sen[t] me recently on Silver Bluff some [] information and the history 

of it which was interesting, this is from an old newspaper article I believe is a short 

history of Silver Bluff platted in 1941 incorporated in 1920 — excuse me platted 

in 1911 and incorporated in 1921 the town of Silver Bluff. Was independent for a 

short period of time, it was one of several municipalities that was annexed by the 

city of Miami in 1925. Nestled between Miami’s original southern boundary and 

the town of Coconut Grove. Silver Bluff is named for the bluff located along the 

eastern edge of the quarter that appears silver when touched by morning light.

And Silver Bluff is one of those communities that was split in half to be able to 

create a District 2 that would elect someone like Mr. Russell —

Commissioner Russell: Japanese American.

Commissioner Carollo: I didn’t hear — well you didn’t quite mention the Oriental 

part when you were running, only the yo-yo at the time. But I’ll leave it at that. It 

was the — after you got elected that I guess it was more convenient, the — but 

Silver Bluff, Shenandoah, Little Havana, I mean Little Havana has really been kept 

major, Little Havana goes to 37th Avenue, so from 27th to 37th Avenue, huge area 

of Little Havana was cut up. You got Flagami that not originally, but then when 

growth came in, Flagami was then cut in the second round I think after districts 

were originally created. Down the middle. You got other neighborhoods within 

District 4, others within District 1. Some in District 5. So the arguments that I’ve 

heard here today just don’t hold any water. As this city grows in population, we 

have to make adjustments and the adjustments have to be made in — in the best 

way to try to keep all five of these districts in proportion to our population for the 

reasons that we went into districts.

Id. at 4:6–5:10 (emphasis added). Therefore, not only did Commissioner Carollo reiterate the 

reasoning about why the City implemented single-member districts, he also reasserted that the 

intent of this redistricting process was to solidify those same racial demographics in this cycle at 

the expense of maintaining traditional communities. 

Commissioner Reyes was more direct when asking whether De Grandy designed the Feb. 

22 Draft Plan to ensure that the “Anglo” and Black districts would remain intact: 

Commissioner Reyes: . . . My commitment is that everyone be represented. 

According to your — all the movement that you have done of population and the 

way that will the, the, Afro American district and the so-called Anglo district will 

stand time. I mean the next ten years, for the next ten years, given the movement of 

population that we are going to experience, we — there stand the test of time and 

we will be able, or the probability of electing an Afro American and an Anglo are

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 32 of 83
33

that you will — are confident that it is very probable that we, because nothing is 

sure but death and taxes, but it is very probable that we will — we will continue to 

have a mixed commission, which is my — my main concern.

De Grandy: To answer your question commissioner, we have done our level best 

to ensure that District 5 performs for the African American community and that 

they will continue throughout the decade to have the ability to elect the candidate 

of their choice. As to District 2, as I said in my report, District 2 is a competitive 

district, it actually has a greater percentage of Hispanics than of single-race white 

individuals, as was self-identified by, in the census. It is my belief that that 48+% 

will continue to grow. So, it’s gonna be very competitive—

Commissioner Reyes: It’s competitive but is there still the probability is high?

De Grandy: Yes.

Id. at 19:13–20:12. 

Shortly after this exchange, Commissioner Reyes clarified that this redistricting process, 

was in reality, a racial gerrymander to protect the demographics of each district:

Commissioner Reyes: Okay, and I heard people, no gerrymandering! Yes, we are 

gerrymandering to preserve those seats. And that’s it. And if you want to take us to 

court for it, —

De Grandy: That that actually wouldn’t be called gerrymandering —

Commissioner Reyes: But that’s what —

De Grandy: That’s a tradition —

Commissioner Reyes: Just what — just what some of the —

De Grandy: Yeah.

Commissioner Reyes: Some —

De Grandy: But that is a traditional redistricting principle.

Commissioner Reyes: Okay. 

Id. at 22:14–23 (emphasis added). This exchange demonstrates that—despite De Grandy’s attempt 

to prevent Commissioner Reyes from actually using the word “gerrymander”—maintaining the 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 33 of 83
34

current racial demographics of each district was the main consideration the Commission wanted 

De Grandy to consider during the redistricting process. And though De Grandy stated that “there 

are thousands of ways to do a plan,” he designed the Feb. 22 Draft Plan to adhere to the 

Commission’s racial criterion. See id. at 22:7–8. Above all else, adhering to the Commission’s 

instructions ensured that the districts remained racially gerrymandered.

At the end of this afternoon session, the Feb. 22 Draft Plan was approved as the “Base 

Plan” to be discussed with community stakeholders and considered at a redistricting meeting on 

March 11, 2022 for a final vote. Id. at 42:9–43:1. 

6. March 11, 2022 Meeting 

The March 11, 2022 meeting, after extended debate between Commissioners Russell and 

Carollo regarding the former’s ability to vote, began with De Grandy attempting to discredit 

allegations that the Feb. 22 Draft Plan was “racist.” See (“Pls.’ Ex. 6”) (3/11/22 AM Tr., ECF No. 

170-6 at 37:18–21). After explaining Miami’s racial demographics generally, De Grandy stated 

with no justification that “[t]he facts are that this plan complies with both the 14th Amendment 

and the Voting Rights Act.” Id. at 37:22–40:10. At no point did De Grandy address the numerous 

episodes in prior meetings where the Commission directed him to design a map to ensure that the 

City would maintain three majority Hispanic districts, one Black district, and one “Anglo” district. 

See id. Rather, De Grandy used this time to denigrate the Miami Herald Editorial Board and to 

describe his past successes as a redistricting consultant in other matters. See id. at 39:13–40:7 

(describing the Miami Herald Editorial Board’s article accusing the Feb. 22 Draft plan of racism 

as “simply false and inflammatory”). 

Just moments after De Grandy’s remarks about the purported constitutionality of the Feb. 

22 Draft Plan, Commissioner Reyes also decided to comment on the allegations that the plan was 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 34 of 83
35

racist. See id. at 43:17–44:10. Commissioner Reyes began by saying that “we should do away 

with using the race card” and that he “think[s] it is sad that we [are] bringing race into this

equation.” Id. at 43:23–44:1. Ironically, he supplemented that statement with the following: 

The only race that we’re gonna bring to this equation, I’m gonna tell you what it is. 

We have to keep diversity on this dais and that’s why we have districts. And we 

have to say and do everything that is needed to make sure that there is diversity in 

this dais. If not, if we are not gonna do whatever it takes to have diversity in this 

dais, let’s do away with the districts then and then everybody will be — we will 

have five Hispanics right here since we are 70% of the population. And in order to

avoid that, the districts were created. And I will always — my main concern and I 

have said it and I repeat it — my main concern is to save that seat that now is 

occupied by Ms. King [the African American commissioner for District 5]. And I 

will vote for any plan that will save that seat. Is that clear? So let’s get race out of 

this.

Id. at 44:2–10 (emphasis added). In other words, Commissioner Reyes would not tolerate 

commentary accusing the Commissioners of racism, even though the driving force behind this 

redistricting effort was to entrench the previous race-based districts. 

Next, De Grandy presented an alternative configuration of the Base Plan that 

Commissioner Russell had asked him to consider which would keep Coconut Grove within one 

district. See id. at 52:3–16. De Grandy explained that while this alternative would create an overall 

population deviation of 9.3% among the districts, this revised map would comply with the 

Commission’s directives because it “provides for an African American majority district and three 

. . . Hispanic districts.” Id. at 52:12–13. Again, De Grandy understood that maintaining these 

racial divisions among the districts was his primary objective. 

After considering this revision, as well as a separate proposal from Commissioner King, 

the Commission opened the meeting for public comment. See id. at 52:18–53:19. During the 

meeting, nearly every commenter expressed their disapproval for the Base Plan and desire for a 

proposal, like Commissioner Russell’s, which would not split Coconut Grove. Taking issue with 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 35 of 83
36

one commenter’s remarks about Coconut Grove, Commissioner Reyes responded about why he 

believed Coconut Grove must be split: 

Commissioner Reyes: One thing that really amazes me, nobody here cares that we 

chop up Shenandoah in seven pieces, nobody cares that we chop Silver Bluff, and 

all the other good neighborhoods that [] have been solid and been neighborhoods 

that have been in the city of Miami for a long, long time. Nobody cares about that 

as long as you keep Coconut Grove. And one thing is misrepresented here. It is that 

we are destroying Coconut Grove, by going to any other district Coconut Grove 

ceased to exist. You see, that sliver [of Coconut Grove] is not gonna go to 

Shenandoah or to Flagami, what we’re trying to do is to maintain diversity and 

trying to do whatever is right. And you should understand that Coconut Grove or 

any other neighborhoods that are part of the city of Miami have been cut in half 

and in three or four pieces in order to maintain diversity. And that is my point. I 

am gonna vote for what is best for the City of Miami. I am gonna vote my 

conscious, okay. 

[Speaker]: [j]ust to pick up seats. . .

Commissioner Reyes: No, I said, I am gonna keep that seat and if by –any other 

plan . . . weakens the possibility or the probability that that seat [pointing to 

Commissioner King] is gonna be there ten years from now I would vote against 

that, okay.

Id. at 74:22–75:15 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Commissioner Reyes emphasized that 

traditional neighborhoods must be split to achieve the Commission’s goal of maintaining the racial 

breakdowns of each district.

Once public comment ended, the meeting recessed until the afternoon session. When the 

Commission reconvened, the Commissioners continued their discussion with De Grandy regarding 

suggested alterations to the Base Plan, including whether MRC should be returned to District 5, 

which district should retain The Wharf Miami, and whether certain parts of Simpson Park, Bay 

Heights, and west Brickell should remain in their current districts. See generally (“Pls.’ Ex. 7”) 

(3/11/22/ PM Tr., ECF No. 170-7). Race predominated in these discussions as well:

• Discussing the movement of the MRC, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla stated:

“So the growth that’s going to happen over the next ten years, will it affect, 

[Commissioner King], make your district minority African American[?] Our goal 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 36 of 83
37

here is to have an African American district, for the lack of a better term, a white 

district, which is the coastal district, and three Hispanic districts.” See id. at 8:9–

16.

• Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla rejected Commissioner King’s suggestion: “The 

request that [Commissioner King] is making is that she take away an area that’s 

predominantly Hispanic.”); id. at 36:5–6 (Commissioner Russell: “Commissioner 

Reyes said that the western portion of Brickell is too white to put into 

Commissioner Carollo’s district when compared to the Natoma area.” Id. at 9:11–

12.

• De Grandy, in response to questions regarding the potential move of Natoma or 

Bay Heights: “[T]hey’re in the 50 [%] range of Hispanics . . . So I can fit 1,253 

Hispanics –I mean 1,253 people that are . . . 50% Hispanic into a D[istrict] 3.” Id.

at 37:11–14.

• Commissioner Russell discussing whether population could be moved from west 

Brickell or the North Grove into District 3: “Now I don’t want to dilute 

Commissioner Carollo’s district either. But it sounds like we’re pretty close to 

where we’re splitting hairs, where it would not make much of a difference to 

Commissioner Carollo’s district demographic.” Id. at 38:16– 9.

The Commission deferred a final vote until the special session on March 24, 2022—in the 

meantime, De Grandy would prepare alternate map proposals with the Commissioners’ requested 

adjustments. See id. at 41:2–9.

7. March 24, 2022 Meeting 

On March 24, 2022, the Commission convened for the final time to discuss redistricting. 

See generally (“Pls.’ Ex. 8”) (ECF No. 170-8). The meeting began with De Grandy summarizing 

the racial demographics of each Commissioners’ proposed changes to the Base Plan. Id. at 5:19–

8:19. These proposed changes included: (1) Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla’s request to move 

a development called Flagler on the River into District 5; (2) Commissioner Russell’s earlier 

proposal to retain Natoma Manors and the entirety of Coconut Grove within District 2 while 

moving other residents from west Brickell into District 3; and (3) Commissioner Reyes’ proposal 

to restore The Wharf to District 5, return the West Grove to District 2, and move an area from 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 37 of 83
38

District 2 to District 3 that includes portions of Bay Heights. See id. At the end of his presentation, 

De Grandy informed the Commission that he believed each proposed alteration to the map would 

comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. See id. at 8:5–7. Nevertheless, De 

Grandy advised the Commission that if they decided to move Flagler on the River into District 5, 

he would suggest “additional tweaks to the plan” to ensure that District 5’s BVAP exceeded 50%.12 

Id. at 8:6–9.

The Commission then opened the meeting for public comment again, and like every other 

meeting, most commenters expressed their opposition to any plan that would divide Coconut 

Grove. In response to one particular commenter expressing such a sentiment, Commissioner 

Carollo explained why, in 1997, Coconut Grove was able to be united in District 2: 

We could not have separated Coconut Grove and kept one Anglo district. In fact, 

what we had to do was what we’re discussing today. To give Coconut Grove 

enough of a population, even though we were going from one end of the water all 

the way to the end of the city in the northeast, we had to cross across US 1 to give 

District 2, the Anglo district, more of a population to balance those populations. 

And this is why you and the committee recommended that Little Havana had to be 

broken up, Shenandoah, Silver Bluff, Flagami, and I could go on and on. And that’s 

the only point that I’m trying to make.

Id. at 38:9–15. Commissioner Carollo later explained, however, why in this current 

redistricting process, Coconut Grove must be split. 

The only reason [District 5] doesn’t take the rest [of Downtown Miami] is we need 

to keep a sliver on Biscayne Boulevard so that the northeast, the part of the northeast 

that’s left, can be connected with Downtown and Coconut Grove, and Brickell 

etcetera. The reason we’re having to do this is because the growth we’ve had – and 

we have to keep one district that is going to have a majority of African Americans. 

We’re gonna have to keep one district that you can get an Anglo, whether they’re 

an Anglo that’s Japanese or an Anglo that’s Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, Polish, 

English, French, they can get elected. And City of Miami still has a population that 

is at least 70%, maybe more, I don’t know, maybe De Grandy can clarify that, that’s 

12 For an examination of the Commissioners’ proposed alterations, see (“Pls.’ Ex. 22”) (3/24/22 

Presentation, ECF No. 170-22 at 5–11); (“Pls.’ Ex. 72”) (Revised Russell Plan, ECF No. 173-13); 

(“Pls.’ Ex. 73”) (Reyes Plan, ECF No. 170-14). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 38 of 83
39

Hispanic. And we have to keep three districts that are going to be majorityHispanic. But since Hispanic comes in all types, colors, creeds, races, religions, not 

all think alike, not all act alike, we’re trying – and based on the federal guidelines 

– are trying to keep those Hispanic-majority districts within those guidelines of 

people that are closer to each other so that three Hispanics could be elected in those 

districts too. And this is why we’re going through that process.

Id. at 56:12–57:1 (emphasis added). 

Commissioner Reyes concurred with Commissioner Carollo’s assertion that the object of 

this redistricting process was to ensure that the districts would contain the racial demographics 

described above. In doing so, he stated: 

[F]or the city to be the great city that we have, and for me to be proud of my city, I 

need to look at this [gesturing in direction of Commissioner King and 

Commissioner Russell] and see diversity here, even if I’m not here. But I need to 

see that every single group, major group is represented. And every major group has 

a voice and that’s what we’re trying to perpetuate, that is my point, we’re trying to 

perpetuate that.

Id. at 40:17–21; see also id. at 63:20–22 (Commissioner Reyes explaining his support for uniting 

the West Grove in one district stated: “I hope [alternatives to moving the West Grove area] doesn’t 

require others – that decision to affect our main objective, which is to maintain diversity [] in this 

dais, you see, having all the city represented.”). 

Later in the meeting, Commissioner Russell argued in favor of his proposal which would 

keep Coconut Grove within District 2. See id. at 65:9–17. According to Commissioner Russell, 

his plan would move into District 3 areas in west Brickell that were demographically similar to 

District 3’s population. See id. at 69:13–17. Commissioner Carollo disagreed, saying 

Commissioner Russell’s plan “would put District 3 into the future in possible jeopardy.” Id. at

66:13. Elaborating on his concern, Commissioner Carollo stated:

I do not want to change the District 3 voting patterns, the types of people that are 

there with different people. I don’t want to do that to District 4, nor to District 1. 

Just like I want to be able to leave District 2 where it could still elect a guy like 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 39 of 83
40

[Commissioner Russell], if they want to. In District 5, that will be a majorityAfrican American District.

Id. at 68:13–17. Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla also disapproved of Commissioner Russell’s 

plan. He explained:

[W]hat Mr. Russell’s plan does, down the line, not in 2022, but in 2026 or ’27, is 

disintegrate that Hispanic district, District 3 . . . But Commissioner Carollo’s 

district, whoever replaces him, its jeopardized to having an Hispanic American 

commissioner. And that’s wrong. There’s no one here, me and you Commissioner 

Russell, that can argue this Commission should be majority non-Hispanic. The 

same way that we fought for you [looking at Commissioner King] Madam Chair, 

to be there, same way we fought for you [looking at Commissioner Russell] to be 

there, you have to fight for the majority of the city. And Commission District 3 will 

be compromised severely. 

Id. at 70:15–71:7. Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla concluded that a vote for Commissioner 

Russell’s plan “jeopardizes the Hispanic American seat” and he “cannot do that.” Id. at 72:2–3.

De Grandy then explained why he did not move portions of west Brickell into District 3. 

He told the Commission that “[t]he reason I did not go east when I was doing District 3 is because 

I found the population to be dissimilar. It was approximately forty-some percent Hispanic, going 

into a district that was approximately 88% Hispanic.” Id. at 75:11–13. Simply put, De Grandy 

elected not to do so because the population he would have moved belonged to a different race. 

Further, when discussing whether to shift areas of Coconut Grove or Brickell, the 

Commissioners’ predominant concern revolved around the implications of such shifts on the 

districts’ racial demographics. For example, Commissioner Russell asked De Grandy, “what is 

the Hispanic population of the North Grove?” Id. at 76:17–18. Addressing Commissioner Reyes’ 

proposal about moving areas of Bay Heights, De Grandy told the Commission that the area was 

“more Hispanic [than] moving straight east into Brickell.” Id. at 77:7. When discussing high-rise 

apartment buildings in Brickell, De Grandy informed the Commission that the occupants of those 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 40 of 83
41

residences were “almost even . . . between Hispanic and Anglo . . . but its markedly different than 

the population in District 3.” Id. at 78:11–13.

At the end of the meeting, the Commission rejected Commissioner Russell’s plan and voted 

3–2 to adopt the Base Plan with The Wharf included in District 5. Id. at 86:17–21, 89:21–22. 

Commissioners King, Díaz de la Portilla, and Carollo voted in favor; Commissioners Reyes and 

Russell voted against. Joint Stip. at 16 ¶ 43. The 2022 Plan became law. See id. at 16 ¶ 44.

Figure 5: The 2022 Enacted Plan.

The demographics of the 2022 Plan are as follows:

Figure 6: 2022 Plan Demographics. Joint Stip. at 16 ¶ 44.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 41 of 83
42

8. District-by-District Analysis

The extraordinary amount of direct evidence in the record demonstrates that the 

Commissioners were motivated by race far more than any other consideration in the drawing of 

each district. Over the course of six redistricting meetings, the majority of Commissioners made 

clear that their intent in the 2021–2022 redistricting process was to create a new map that ensured 

Districts 1, 3, and 4 would contain a Hispanic majority, District 5 would contain a Black majority, 

and District 2 would be created in a way to ensure an “Anglo” could be elected.13 See, e.g., Pls.’

Ex 1 at 28:6–10, 15–17 (Carollo explaining that he “wanted to make sure that there were three 

Hispanic districts,” and in reference to the Commission’s prior emphasis on ensuring that there 

was a Black and “Anglo” seat, he emphasized that he wanted “to be clear that the core of our 

districts are [going] [to] be kept.”); id. at 15:22–23, 16:8–9 (Commissioner Reyes instructing De 

Grandy, “I will strongly request that the districts . . . remain as they are” because, “the districts 

[were] drawn in a way that every single ethnic group would be represented.”); Pls.’ Ex. 7 at 9:11–

12 (Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla stating “[o]ur goal here is to have an African American 

district, for the lack of a better term, a white district, which is the coastal district, and three Hispanic 

districts.”); Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 105:20–106:1 (Commissioner King concurring with Commissioner 

Carollo’s statement that: “I want to be clear in the instructions . . . and we have to be clear because 

look . . . [w]hat I care is that in the future, there [are] sufficient Hispanic voters to elect a 

13 While it is true that the Commissioners also discussed the historic reasons for their race-based 

preferences in redistricting, the Court does not consider those statements particularly probative of 

legislative intent in passing the 2022 Plan. Rather, to determine legislative intent, the Court 

focuses on the Commissioners’ contemporary statements in this redistricting process. Cf. 

Jacksonville Branch of the NAACP et al., v. City of Jacksonville, 635 F. Supp. 3d 1229, 1287 

(M.D. Fla. 2022) (“[T]he Court considers the 2011 historical evidence only to the extent it gives 

rise to inferences regarding the intent of the City Council in 2022.”) (citing Abbott, 138 S. Ct. at 

2327).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 42 of 83
43

Hispanic.”). As cataloged extensively above, the Commissioners were not merely “aware of racial 

demographics” during the 2021–2022 redistricting cycle. Miller, 515 U.S. at 916. To the contrary, 

the Commission’s overarching, unequivocal goal was to ensure the 2022 Plan adhered to the racial 

demographics described above. 

And though sometimes “determining the intent of the legislature is a problematic and nearimpossible challenge,” the Commissioners’ repeated, explicit statements about their race-based 

objectives overcome this obstacle. Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec’y of State for State of 

Ala., 992 F.3d 1299, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Although in some cases, like 

Greater Birmingham Ministries, the record may not provide much insight into legislative intent, 

the Commissioners’ intent here is hardly difficult to ascertain. Id. at 1324–25 (finding that 

legislative intent cannot be inferred from the statement of a bill’s sponsor when that sponsor was 

making a comment on a separate law). In this case, over and over again, the Commissioners 

brazenly stated that their objective was to ensure the 2022 Plan would have three Hispanic, one 

Black, and one “Anglo” district. See supra, Part III.C.1–7. Thus, the Court finds that the factual 

uniqueness of this case renders it one where determining legislative intent based on the 

Commissioners’ statements is not a “near-impossible challenge.”14 Accord Harris v. McCrory, 

14 As Judge Louis recognized in the R&R on the preliminary injunction motion, ordinarily, courts 

consider the Arlington Heights evidentiary factors to determine legislative intent. See R&R at 62. 

The Eleventh Circuit recently summarized those factors as follows: (1) the impact of the 

challenged law; (2) the historical background; (3) the specific sequence of events leading up to its 

passage; (4) procedural and substantive departures; (5) the contemporary statements and actions 

of key legislators; (6) the foreseeability of the disparate impact; (7) knowledge of that impact; and 

(8) the availability of less discriminatory alternatives. Greater Birmingham Ministries, 992 F.3d 

at 1321–22. 

It is not clear, however, that the Court must delve into an Arlington Heights analysis given 

the voluminous instances in the record where Commissioners expressed their legislative intent. 

Whether the Commissioners’ intended to draw the 2022 Plan to comport with their race-based 

objective is not a difficult question. To the extent such an analysis is necessary, the Court adopts 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 43 of 83
44

159 F. Supp. 3d 600, 612 (M.D.N.C. 2016) (“The legislative record is replete with statements 

indicating that race was the legislature’s paramount concern in drawing CD1.”). 

Not only did the Commissioners reiterate their race-based objectives to De Grandy, but De 

Grandy understood their instructions and created the 2022 Plan reflecting the Commission’s 

unconstitutional preferences. For example, in response to a comment from Commissioner Carollo 

regarding his desire to ensure the 2022 Plan would retain the racial demographics from prior 

redistricting cycles, De Grandy explained, “what I’m hearing from [the Commissioners] is, when 

you talk about maintaining the integrity of districts, the core of districts, is to minimize disruption 

. . . And I’ll try to do that.” Pls.’ Ex. 2 at 25:11–12, 25:20; see also Pls.’ Ex. 6 at 52:12–13 (same); 

(ECF No. 52 at 64) (finding that “De Grandy acknowledged that he took instruction from the 

majority of Commissioners”). Further, as the Court described above, De Grandy often attempted 

to justify his race-based alterations in his mapmaking process as the product of his efforts to retain 

the cores of the previously drawn districts and to maintain voter cohesion. See supra, Part III.C.1. 

In reality, De Grandy made these alterations to further the Commission’s race-based goals—De 

Grandy’s presentations almost always described his alterations in racial terms and any analysis of 

voting patterns was notably absent. See, e.g., Pls.’ Ex. 15; (“Pls.’ Ex. 19”) (2/25/22 Presentation, 

ECF No. 170-19); (“Pls.’ Ex. 20”) (3/11/22 Presentation, ECF No. 170-20). To summarize, De 

Grandy understood the Commissioners’ goals to create three Hispanic, one Black, and one 

“Anglo” district, and based on his understanding of this directive, he crafted the 2022 Plan to 

achieve that goal. 

by reference the reasoning contained in its prior order (ECF No. 60) adopting the R&R and finds 

that the Arlington Heights factors compel the conclusion that each district was drawn with race as 

the predominant factor. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 44 of 83
45

Because racial gerrymandering claims are evaluated on a district-by-district basis, the 

Court identifies specific evidence of legislative intent as to each district. ALBC, 575 U.S. at 262. 

In doing so, the Court relies on the extensive factual background identified above, but it will not 

reiterate them in its entirety. Accordingly, the evidence below is non-exhaustive.

District 2

Since the City changed its representative model to one with single-member districts, 

District 2 was designed to ensure that an “Anglo” would be elected. See Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 51:18–19 

(explaining that District 2 was “gerrymandered but it was a legal gerrymander so that you would 

have an Anglo elected commissioner”). Commissioners Carollo, Reyes, and Díaz de la Portilla 

emphasized that their goal in this redistricting process was to ensure District 2 remained 

gerrymandered in this way. See, e.g., Pls.’ Ex. 8 at 56:16–18 (Carollo: “We’re gonna have to keep 

one district that you can get an Anglo, whether they’re an Anglo that’s Japanese or an Anglo that’s 

Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, Polish, English, French, they can get elected”); Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 68:6–9 

(Reyes asking De Grandy: “The most important question that [the Commissioners] have is [the 

Feb. 7 Draft Plan] the best you can do to protect the African American seat? I’m gonna be blunt[,] 

and the Anglo seat?”); Pls.’ Ex. 7 at 8:14–16 (Díaz de la Portilla: “Our goal here is to have . . . a 

white district.”). In turn, De Grandy assured the Commission that the map he was creating during 

the 2021–2022 redistricting process had a high probability of electing an “Anglo” commissioner. 

Pls.’ Ex. 5 at 20:11–12. Indeed, District 2 in the 2022 Plan had a 37.4% WVAP, the highest of 

any district by a large margin. See Joint Stip. at 16 ¶ 45; (“Pls.’ Ex. 121”) (“Abott Rep.,” ECF No. 

173-26 at 23). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 45 of 83
46

District 5

Race also predominated in the design of District 5. It isn’t clear from the Parties’ briefings 

if this issue is even in dispute. See generally Joint Stip. at 21 ¶ 13 (explaining that “[i]f race was 

the predominant factor in the design of Districts 1, 2, 3, or 4” remains an issue for the Court to 

determine); but see R&R at 79 (finding “[t]he Parties do not dispute that the City drew the borders 

of District 5 to comply with Section 2 of the VRA”). Indeed, in their proposed findings of fact 

and conclusions of law, Defendant concedes “District 5 was drawn to comply with the VRA,” thus 

implicitly acknowledging that District 5 was designed with race as the predominant factor. (ECF 

No. 182 at 35). District 5 has a BVAP of 50.3% in the 2022 Plan. Joint Stip. at 16 ¶ 45.

In any event, just like with District 2, the Commissioners frequently expressed their intent 

that District 5 in the 2022 Plan would remain a majority-Black district. See, e.g., Pls.’ Ex. 2 at 

13:10–18 (Carollo: “So if we go into the Grove, what’s wrong with just getting a little bit of that 

to make sure we don’t jeopardize the ethnic integrity of our districts . . . And of course, without 

touching the racial integrity of District 5.”); Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 67:19–21 (Reyes explaining that the 

reason the districts have “the odd shape they have now . . . was[,] to make sure[,] and let’s call a 

spade a spade[,] [t]o make sure that an African American was gonna be elected.”); Pls.’ Ex. 7 at 

8:14–15 (Díaz de la Portilla: “Our goal here is to have an African American district”). Moreover, 

De Grandy explained that during the 2021–2022 redistricting process, he and Cody “have done 

our level best to ensure that District 5 performs for the African American community and that they 

will continue throughout the decade to have the ability to elect the candidate of their choice.” Pls.’

Ex. 5. at 19:13–20:12. 

When designing District 5, the Commission adopted a 50% BVAP quota. In some 

instances, De Grandy made recommendations to the Commission solely based on the premise that 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 46 of 83
47

District 5 needed to have at least a 50% BVAP. See T2. at 101:12–16 (responding in the 

affirmative when asked if he used a 50% BVAP figure when determining if District 5 was VRA 

compliant); Pls.’ Ex. 8 at 8:7–9 (“recommend[ing] additional tweaks to the plan to bring the Black 

voting age population back above 50%”); Pls.’ Ex. 6 at 37:5–9 (identifying that Commissioner 

King’s proposal was problematic because it “would lower the Black VAP to 49%, but this could 

be remedied by making additional changes to . . . increase D5’s Black voting age population). De 

Grandy also advised the Commission that he could not make additional changes to District 5 if 

doing so would result in the district having less than a 50% BVAP. See Pls’ Ex. 8 at 64:23–65:2

(“I cannot put one more resident into Commissioner King’s district . . . [G]oing further east would 

dilute the Black majority in that district.”). The Commissioners then used this quota to inform 

their districting decisions. Id. at 68:16–17 (Carollo: “In District 5, that will be a majority-African 

American district.”).

The Parties agree that De Grandy designed District 5 using this BVAP quota to ensure 

VRA compliance. See (ECF No. 182 at 35) (“District 5 was drawn to comply with the VRA, as 

Plaintiffs concede.”); (ECF No. 181) (explaining that to comply with the VRA, “the Commission’s 

overriding goal was to keep the Black population as high as possible by establishing a 50% BVAP 

target.”). VRA compliance explains a number of De Grandy’s design choices as to District 5. For 

example, De Grandy deliberately underpopulated District 5 in both the Feb. 7 Draft Plan and Feb. 

22 Draft Plan to increase District 5’s BVAP. See Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 8:13–15; Pls.’ Ex. 4 at 6:15–16. 

Similarly, De Grandy’s focus on District 5’s BVAP target resulted in his reluctance to move areas 

between the District 2 and District 5 border. See Pls.’ Ex. 1 at 23:6–10. He also moved FDCMiami, a federal detention center with a disproportionately high Black population of detainees 

who cannot vote, into District 5. (“Pls.’ Ex. 123”) (P.I. Hr’g Tr., ECF 173-28 at 57:19–58:3). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 47 of 83
48

Nevertheless, the reason why the Commission considered race is relevant not to the question of 

predominance, but rather, to the issue of whether District 5 withstands strict scrutiny. The Court 

undergoes that analysis shortly, but for now, the Court concludes race predominated in the design 

of District 5. 

Districts 1, 3, and 4

Direct evidence also demonstrates that race predominated in Districts 1, 3, and 4. 

Commissioner Carollo explained that the Commission “ha[d] to keep three districts that are going 

to be majority-Hispanic.” Pls.’ Ex. 8 at 56:19–20. Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla expressed 

the same views while also emphasizing his desire to keep a Black and “Anglo” district. See Pls.’

Ex. 7 at 8:14–16. Likewise, Commissioner Reyes, when instructing De Grandy, stated, “I will 

strongly request that the districts . . . remain as they are” because, “the districts [were] drawn in a 

way that every single ethnic group would be represented.” Pls.’ Ex. 6 at 9:11–12. As a result of 

the Commissioners’ instructions, District 1 in the 2022 Plan had an 89.5% HVAP, District 3 had 

an 88.3% HVAP, and District 4 had an 89.5% HVAP. Joint Stip. at 16 ¶ 45.

Though the Court does not recount every alteration in the 2021–2022 redistricting process 

here, many of the Commission’s suggested changes to these districts, and De Grandy’s 

justifications for those changes, were motivated by the Commissioners’ goals to make these three 

districts heavily Hispanic. Some examples are as follows:

• Along the District 1 and District 5 border, Carollo explained that the border could be moved 

to include Wynwood and the north side of the Miami River in District 1 because their 

populations were “mainly Hispanic.” Pls.’ Ex. 2 at 3:12–17. Similarly, Commissioner 

Díaz de la Portilla stated that District 1’s border “really can’t go north” to gain population 

in Allapattah or Liberty since those are “African American area[s].” Id. at 4:19–20, 5:14–

19 (expressing same about extending the border north of 112th Street). 

• When discussing alterations incorporated into the Base Plan, De Grandy explained that he 

moved an area around the Riverside Center from District 1 to District 5, saying “we felt 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 48 of 83
49

this movement was needed because Hispanics in this area constitute roughly 70% of the 

population.” Pls.’ Ex. 4 at 7:6–8.

• When discussing alterations between Districts 2 and 3, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla 

suggested moving areas “where Hispanic voters live” from District 2 into Districts 3 and 

4. Pls.’ Ex. 2 at 7:16–17. De Grandy incorporated this suggestion into the Feb. 7 Draft 

Plan. Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 9:21–23. Further, De Grandy explained he moved this area, as opposed 

to areas of Brickell and Downtown further north “because of dissimilar demographics.” 

Pls.’ Ex. 4 at 7:22–23; Pls.’ Ex. 7 at 36:17–37:2. 

• The Commission rejected the Reyes and Russell proposed plans that were not as starkly 

separated along racial lines because, according to De Grandy, District 3 was a “stronger 

Hispanic district under the [B]ase [P]lan.” Pls.’ Ex. 8 at 75:21, 78:3–18; see also Abott 

Rep. at 24 (describing District 3’s HVAP as 86.6% under the Russell Plan and 87.3% under 

the Reyes Plan). 

• In Coconut Grove, the Commissioners discussed moving portions of the neighborhood into 

District 4 because that’s “where the Hispanic voters lived.” Pls.’ Ex. 2 at 7:16–17. Later, 

Commissioner Reyes assented to adding this portion of Coconut Grove into District 4 

because he believed it was necessary to maintain District 5’s racial demographics. Pls.’

Ex. 6 at 50:13–14.

As mentioned before, these examples of discussions are non-exhaustive. Race permeated 

every aspect of the 2021–2022 redistricting process. See supra, Part III.C.1–7. Just as with 

Districts 2 and 5, the Commissioners instructed De Grandy on how to design Districts 1, 3, and 4 

to ensure they remained “as Hispanic as [they] can.” Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 107:13–14.

9. Circumstantial Evidence

Though the record is replete with direct evidence that the Commissioners intended each 

district to be designed based on their racial preferences, circumstantial evidence also demonstrates 

the same. In particular, the Court focuses both on (1) the specific changes made between the Feb. 

7 Draft Plan and the Base Plan further separating citizens based on race, and (2) rejected alternative 

map configurations. An analysis of this circumstantial evidence further supplements the direct 

evidence identified throughout this Order. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 49 of 83
50

The alterations of the Feb 7. Draft Plan which culminated in the Base Plan exacerbated the 

racial disparities among each district. For example, the Base Plan moved less of Coconut Grove 

into District 4 than the Feb. 7 Draft Plan. The portion of Coconut Grove moved into District 4 in 

the Base Plan was 59.2% HVAP as opposed to the 49.1% HVAP population in the Feb 7 Draft 

Plan. Abott Rep. at 26. Moreover, in the Base Plan, De Grandy made a change to the border 

between District 1 and 5, swapping a 76.6% HVAP area in Allapattah into District 1 for a 66.7% 

HVAP area into District 5. Id. (identifying another swap where District 5 gained a 40.4% BVAP 

area of Downtown from District 1 and, in exchange, District 1 gained a 72.1% HVAP area west 

of I-95). This change had the effect of increasing District 5’s BVAP and District 1’s HVAP. 

Along the border between District 2 and 5, two 13% BVAP blocks were moved into District 2 and 

a 32.1% BVAP area was moved into District 5. Id. Each of these changes to the earlier Feb. 7 

Draft Plan function to further the Commissioners’ demographic objectives.

The rejected alterations in the redistricting process also provide circumstantial evidence 

that race predominated in the design of each district. Commissioner King requested restoring part 

of the riverfront area contained in the Base Plan’s District 1 to District 5, see Pls.’ Ex. 6 at 37:5–

6, but, as mentioned above, De Grandy explained that making this change would lower District 

5’s BVAP to 49%, id. at 37:6–9. This suggestion was ultimately abandoned. Pls.’ Ex. 7 at 4:21–

5:7. Similarly, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla suggested moving a single 73% HVAP city block 

containing condominium tower known as Flagler on the River into District 5. Pls.’ Ex. 8 at 6:12–

15. The Commission rejected the proposal after De Grandy informed them that this change would 

result in lowering District 5’s BVAP below 50%. Id. at 8:6–9. Commissioner Carollo suggested 

moving an area between 22nd and 27th Avenues in the North Grove into District 4. See Pls.’ Ex. 

3 at 101:11–14, 102:2–3. This area was less Hispanic (36.7% HVAP) than the alternative option 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 50 of 83
51

of moving a more Hispanic (59.2%) part of the West Grove into District 4. Abott Rep. at 26, 28. 

This option was never presented to the Commissioners in any of De Grandy’s drafts. 

Taken together, the circumstantial evidence also tends to demonstrate that the 

Commissioners approved and De Grandy implemented changes that would exacerbate their goals 

of creating race-based districts. In contrast, the Commissioners rejected proposals that tended to 

frustrate those goals.

a) The Commissioners Subordinated Traditional Redistricting 

Criteria

While the evidence identified above shows that race predominated in the drawing of each 

district, Plaintiffs still bear the burden of demonstrating that “the legislature subordinated 

traditional race-neutral districting principles . . . to racial considerations.” Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. 

at 187 (citation omitted) (alteration in original). Traditional redistricting criteria include 

“compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual 

shared interests, incumbency protection, and political affiliation.” ALBC, 575 U.S. at 254. Of 

these (non-exhaustive) criteria, the Commission did not mention contiguity or incumbency 

protection as factors De Grandy should consider. The Commission did, however, explicitly 

instruct De Grandy to break up traditional neighborhoods with shared interests like Coconut Grove 

to achieve their desired racial demographics for each district. Similarly, the Commission 

unequivocally told De Grandy that the 2022 Plan could sacrifice compactness to accomplish their 

racial objectives. The Court outlines their decisions below.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 51 of 83
52

(1) The 2022 Plan Split Neighborhoods15

Over the course of the redistricting process, the Commissioners were clear that 

neighborhoods would be split to preserve the racial demographics of each district. At the first 

November 18, 2021 meeting, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla stated that neighborhoods like 

Flagami could be split if the voters “will elect the same kind of representative.” Pls.’ Ex. 1 at 

33:14–16. In the December 9, 2021 meeting, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla suggested splitting 

Coconut Grove “based on where the Hispanic voters live.” Pls.’ Ex. 2 at 7:15–16. Later, 

Commissioner Carollo defended the Commission’s decision to split Coconut Grove, stating that 

“the Grove is going to have to be split in either two or three parts,” or otherwise, the City could 

face “ the biggest danger” of “not . . . keeping an ‘Anglo’ seat or a Black seat.” Id. at 14:13–14,

14:16–17. Despite a wave of public opposition at multiple Commission meetings where individual 

citizens presented race-neutral reasons not to split Coconut Grove, the Commissioners consistently 

reaffirmed that the neighborhood must be split to maintain the “ethnic integrity” of the districts. 

Id. at 7:16–18.

The Commissioners readily split other neighborhoods as well. Little Havana is split 

between each of Districts 1, 3, and 4, Silver Bluff and Shenandoah are split between Districts 3 

and 4, Flagami is split between Districts 1 and 4, and Allapattah and Overtown are split between 

Districts 1 and 5. Id. at 52:5–7, 52:8–17, 60:16–17; Pls.’ Ex. 1 at 17:20–22. Though some of these 

neighborhoods had been broken up in prior redistricting cycles, the Commission made clear that 

15 As noted in Part III.C.1, the Commission did not craft the 2022 Plan with respect for political 

subdivisions. The record demonstrates that the terms “voter cohesion” or “political cohesion” 

were used as a proxy for race. Thus, while the Commission did not necessarily subordinate respect 

for political subdivisions to the same extent they subordinated other criteria, the Court finds that 

any consideration of this factor actually constituted an effort to create race-based districts.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 52 of 83
53

these divisions were necessary in this redistricting cycle to preserve the racial makeup of the 

districts. See Pls.’ Ex. 5 at 4:6–5:10; supra, Part III.C.1–7. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Commission set aside the redistricting criterion of 

keeping traditional neighborhoods together within a single district. The Commission’s primary 

objective to retain the racial composition of each district resulted in the subordination of this 

redistricting criterion.

(2) The 2022 Plan Was Not Compact

Regarding compactness, another traditional redistricting criterion, the Commissioners 

explicitly disclaimed any need for compactness if designing the districts in such a manner would 

adversely affect the districts’ racial composition. As noted above, Commissioner Russell stated 

“[c]ompactness is not crucial” and Commissioner Díaz De La Portilla agreed, saying “I have no 

problem getting rid of compactness at the end of the day.” Pls.’ Ex. 2 at 18:2, 18:17–18. 

Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla asked De Grandy, “it is not possible to emphasize compactness 

and draw realistic districts, right[?] If you want to have an African American district and you want 

to have an Anglo district it’s almost impossible . . . [t]o emphasizes compactness.” Id. at 28:22–

29:1. De Grandy concurred that compactness would not be achievable in light of the 

Commission’s directives. See id. at 17:20 (“Compactness, again, I don’t think compactness is a 

feasible alternative.”); id. at 18:7–8 (“I mean look at the districts the way they are drawn, they are 

not compact.”).

And when examining the 2022 Plan, it is indeed non-compact. District 3 contains an 

irregular appendage south of US 1 stretching into Coconut Grove where a high proportion of 

Hispanic voters reside. District 2 features an offshoot into Downtown removing an area from 

District 5 with a lower BVAP. Abott Rep. at 28. District 1 also runs along the Miami River to 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 53 of 83
54

Flagler Street in an effort to move areas with a higher HVAP into District 1 from District 5. Pls.’

Ex. 3 at 9:5–8; Pls.’ Ex. 4 at 7:3–8.

Thus, the Commissioners were clear about their intent to sacrifice compactness in order to 

achieve their goals of having three Hispanic, one Black, and one “Anglo” district. They achieved 

their goal. The 2022 Plan is visibly non-compact and contains irregular appendages designed to 

exacerbate the districts’ racial divisions.

(3) The 2022 Plan Deviated from Manmade and Natural 

Boundaries

The Commission also subordinated respect for manmade and natural boundaries to racial 

considerations. Though De Grandy and the Commission considered using these boundaries—

particularly US 1—as a factor, the Commission never ratified whether to do so. See Pls.’ Ex. 2 at

18:23–19:21. The 2022 Plan thus departs from these boundaries in multiple instances. For 

example, the 2022 Plan crosses US 1 into areas “where the Hispanic voters live” in Districts 3 and 

4. Id. at 7:17. Moreover, the border between Districts 1 and 4 winds along residential streets in 

Flagami based on racial demographics. Pls.’ Ex. 20; (“Pls.’ Ex. 67”) (ECF No. 173-8). Allapattah 

was moved into District 5 along a two-lane street as opposed to I-95 and a federal highway as in 

the 2013 Plan. On the border between Districts 1 and 5, the border separates from I-95 to capture 

a 61% BVAP area in District 5. See Abott Rep. at 28; Pls.’ Ex. 67. And in Downtown, the border 

between Districts 2 and 5 departs from NE 2nd Avenue to gather a six-block, low BVAP area into 

District 2. Abott Rep at 28; Pls.’ Ex. 67. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 2022 Plan deviates 

from adherence to manmade and natural boundaries when necessary to further the Commission’s 

racial considerations. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 54 of 83
55

b) The 2022 Plan Was Not Designed to Protect Incumbents

Though not a factor that the Commission subordinated, the Court also finds that the 2022 

Plan was not designed to protect incumbent Commissioners. Among other traditional redistricting 

criteria mentioned above, another race-neutral consideration is incumbency protection. See ALBC, 

575 U.S. at 272. During his testimony, De Grandy opined that the Commissioners wanted him to 

maintain the core of existing districts from past redistricting cycles in the 2022 Plan because “quite 

frankly, it is an incumbent protection criteri[on].” T2. at 122:18–19. But the vast swaths of direct 

evidence demonstrate that maintaining the core of existing districts was an instruction designed to 

further entrench the racial divisions among districts. See supra, Part III.C.1–7. The 

Commissioners were not focused on drawing districts to ensure that they themselves could be 

reelected, but rather, they sought to ensure that future commissioners would share similar racial 

and ethnic backgrounds to them. Perhaps that explains why the Commission never raised 

incumbency protection in any redistricting meeting, or why Defendant doesn’t advance this 

argument. See generally (ECF No. 182). The 2022 Plan was not designed to protect incumbents.

D. Race Predominated in the Drawing of the 2023 Plan

On May 3, 2023, Judge Louis issued an R&R recommending that the Court enjoin the City

from using the 2022 Plan in the upcoming November elections. See R&R. Concerned about the 

R&R and the prospect that the Court would grant the preliminary injunction motion, the City 

Commission met on May 11, 2023 and again on June 14, 2023 to discuss redistricting. See

generally (“Pls.’ Ex. 27”) (5/11/23 Tr., ECF No. 170-27); (“Pls.’ Ex. 28”) (6/14/23 Tr., ECF No. 

170-28). In the first meeting, the Commissioners made clear that any remedial plan must ensure 

the racial divisions from the 2022 Plan remained. Circumstantial evidence from the second 

meeting further demonstrates that the Commission intended to change the unconstitutional 2022 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 55 of 83
56

Plan as little as possible. Expert reports support this conclusion considering that hardly any 

Miamians were moved between districts from the 2022 Plan to the 2023 Plan. And finally, while 

the City raised the argument earlier in this Action that partisanship influenced the 2023 Plan’s 

creation, the Court rejects that proposition for lack of record support.

1. May 11, 2023 Meeting

The meeting began with Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla, shortly after the issuance of the 

R&R, suggesting a return to at-large City Commission elections. See Pls.’ Ex. 27 at 2:7–11. 

Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla, expressing frustration with this lawsuit and reiterating that the 

goal of the 2021–22 redistricting cycle was to sort the districts based on race, stated the following:

So, we want an African American representation, we want a non-Hispanic white 

representation, we want that. I think it adds to the . . . fiber of our city and adds to 

the representation that we provide up here. But if that’s being questioned by 

[Plaintiffs] . . . like the NAACP and others, well, let’s do citywide [elections] and 

let’s see what the results are and then can they argue against that[?] 

Id. at 4:19–5:2. He continued, “What we’ve been trying to do . . . is to be fair and to provide 

representation for all communities in our city.” Id. at 5:12–13. To Commissioner Díaz de la 

Portilla, a return to at-large citywide elections could resolve the racial gerrymandering allegations.

Commissioner Reyes shared in Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla’s frustration. Telling 

Plaintiffs that they “should be careful what [they] wish for,” Commissioner Reyes explained “the 

only way that we can assure diversity of the city of Miami is by – I’m going to call a spade a spade 

– b[y] gerrymandering. We have to bunch together ethnicity, ethnic borders in order to be able to 

have Afro American, to make sure that they are represented, and non-Hispanic White in the – in 

representing the City of Miami.” Id. at 6:3–10 (emphasis added). Accordingly, and not for the 

first time, a commissioner explicitly stated in a public hearing that the Commission engaged in 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 56 of 83
57

racial gerrymandering during the 2021–2022 redistricting cycle and that gerrymandering was the 

only way to achieve their redistricting goals. 

As the conversation continued, multiple Commissioners doubled down on the view that 

the Commission correctly focused their redistricting efforts on race. See id. at 8:12–18. 

Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla explained, “[w]hat we did was the right thing to do. What we 

did was to protect Miami’s diversity and representation of all groups in our city.” Id. at 8:12–13. 

Commissioner Reyes, expressing his reluctance to support a shift to at-large elections, stated that 

the main consequence of such a change would be that “[w]e could eliminate diversity . . . as 

Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla said, most probably, if we eliminate the districts, we’re going to 

have five Hispanics sitting here.” Id. at 13:11–13.

The meeting concluded with the Commissioners establishing a singular directive to De 

Grandy. The Commission voted unanimously (without Carollo who was absent from the meeting) 

to instruct De Grandy to “start redrawing a map[] that will guarantee that ten years from now we’re 

going to have the diversity in this – in the . . . city government and we are going to elect an Afro 

American to a seat, that they’re going to be properly represented, as well as other groups.” Id. at

17:9–13, 18:16–23. To be clear, City Commission’s only instruction to De Grandy when 

constructing a new map was to ensure that a potential remedial plan would maintain the racial 

demographics of the existing districts. This time, the Commission did not even entertain the idea 

that other traditional redistricting criteria should factor into De Grandy’s analysis. Their sole 

priority and only instruction was to ensure that the districts continued to be drawn based on race.

2. June 14, 2023 Meeting 

The Court adopted the R&R and issued its injunction order on May 23, 2023. (ECF No. 

60). That same night, Plaintiffs submitted two proposed maps (“P1” and “P2”) and a letter 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 57 of 83
58

explaining them to the City Commission. See (“Pls.’ Ex. 33”) (ECF No. 172-5). Plaintiffs 

provided additional information to the Commission regarding P1 and P2’s compliance with the 

VRA. See (“Pls.’ Ex. 34”) (ECF No. 172-6); (“Pls.’ Ex. 36”) (ECF No. 172-8). On June 12, 2023, 

Plaintiffs provided the Commission with Dr. Bryant Moy’s (Plaintiffs’ expert) full analysis of their 

alternative plans. See (“Pls.’ Ex. 35”) (ECF Nos. 172-7, 172-8). The next day, Plaintiffs submitted 

a third map (“P3”) to the Commission. See (“D.’s Ex. 58”) (ECF No. 171-19).

On June 14, 2023, the Commission reconvened to discuss Plaintiffs’ alternative maps as 

well as De Grandy’s newly proposed draft plan. See Pls.’ Ex. 28. Prior to the meeting, De Grandy 

met with each Commissioner and created a new map (“V12” or “Version 12”) “that took into 

consideration the policy and political suggestions of the City Commissioners.” (“Pls.’ Ex. 32”) 

(ECF No. 172-4); T2 at 68:4–12, 69:10–20. According to De Grandy, his understanding of the 

Commission’s “political and policy considerations” came from the six meetings that occurred 

during the 2021–2022 redistricting process. T2. at 68:10–16. As discussed above, those policy 

and political considerations amounted to little more than ensuring that a future plan would have 

three Hispanic, one Black, and one “Anglo” district. Thus, De Grandy followed two directives

when developing V12: (1) comply with the Constitution and the VRA; and (2) “maintain the cores 

of existing districts.” Id. at 70:7–25. The existing districts, clearly, were the ones the Court just 

enjoined. 

The meeting began with Plaintiff Valdes advocating for P1, P2, and P3. Pls.’ Ex. 28 at

5:21–7:2. Valdes opined that each of Plaintiffs’ maps “feature compact and logical districts that 

respect neighborhoods, follow major geographic boundaries, and preserve genuine communities 

of interest. They don’t pack Hispanic voters into three specific districts and no longer designate 

one district as an Anglo access seat. They also fully comply with the VRA and provide[] Black 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 58 of 83
59

voters with the ability to elect their preferred candidate in District 5.” Id. at 6:13–17. Valdes also 

explained that P3 kept together key neighborhoods such as “Flagami, Edgewater, Allapattah, and 

Shenandoah.” Id. at 6:19–20. 

Following Valdes’s presentation, De Grandy opined that he had not yet had the opportunity 

to review Plaintiffs’ P3. Id. at 8:5. Accordingly, De Grandy’s presentation focused on a 

comparison of V12 to Plaintiffs’ P2. Id. at 8:5–9.

Figure 7: De Grandy's Proposed V12.

De Grandy informed the Commission that when crafting V12, he used P2 as a template 

and made “changes consistent with the policy choices of the majority of this elected body.” Id. at

9:2–3. According to De Grandy, he considered “where Commissioners have invested district 

resources,” “the need to balance poor areas with areas that have significant economic potential or 

activity,” “natural and manmade boundaries,” and “keeping as many communities of interest 

together as feasible.” Id. at 11:23–12:3, 12:10–11. De Grandy then described the changes he made 

to each district.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 59 of 83
60

For example, De Grandy explained that V12 incorporated Commissioner King’s desire to 

retain traditional neighborhoods as well as areas that would generate significant economic activity 

like Wynwood, Midtown, and the Design District. Id. at 12:2–3, 12:15–18. In District 1, V12 

now “restored the connection to the western part of the city,” contained “the bulk of the Miami 

riverfront,” and purported to adhere to manmade and natural boundaries. Id. at 13:5–19. V12 

extended District 2 to include significant portions of Morningside, Bay Point, Omni, Downtown, 

Brickell, and Coconut Grove. Id. at 13:20–14:11. Larger differences between the 2022 Plan and 

V12, however, arose in the border between District 3 and 4. In V12, Flagami is split between both 

Districts, and most of Shenandoah, Silver Bluff and Coral Gate were in District 4. Id. at 15:3–6. 

In turn, V12’s District 3 “wraps around District 4” but retains Little Havana. Id. at 15:13–15.

Following De Grandy’s presentation, multiple Commissioners commented on V12 and 

suggested some alterations. Commissioner Covo emphasized her desire that Coconut Grove 

should remain united within one district. See id. at 42:9–43:3. Commissioner King suggested an 

alteration to move Morningside entirely into District 2. See id. at 43:21–47:4. Commissioner 

Carollo requested that Domino Park should be completely in District 3. See id. at 52:21–53:5. 

Moreover, Commissioners Covo and Díaz de la Portilla each made copies of alternative maps that 

they wanted De Grandy to examine. See id. at 48:20–49:1, 50:4. The meeting recessed for three 

hours to permit De Grandy to consider the requested adjustments. Id. at 55:3–22.

De Grandy returned with five alternative maps for consideration: an unaltered V12 and 

maps suggested by Commissioners King, Carollo, Díaz de la Portilla, and Covo. See id. at 58:21–

23. After discussion, the Parties agreed to alter V12 so that the People’s Bar-B-Que restaurant 

would be included in District 5, the “Bahamanian Grove” would be restored into District 2, and 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 60 of 83
61

Domino Park would be placed entirely into District 3. See id. at 69:9–18, 70:8–11, 72:16–17,

87:20–22, 89:14–91:19. By majority vote, the Commissioners passed V12 with these adjustments. 

Figure 8: 2023 Plan.

3. De Grandy’s Testimony 

Direct evidence demonstrates that the Commission intended the 2023 Plan to retain the

racial divisions in each district from the 2022 Plan, and De Grandy’s testimony does not alter that 

conclusion. At trial, De Grandy testified that he did not receive any instructions prior to his 

presentation of V12 at the June 14, 2023 meeting. T2. at 109:4–13. According to De Grandy, he 

never learned of the May 11, 2023 meeting, and therefore, he did not receive any instruction that 

he should design the 2023 Plan to maintain the 2022 Plan’s racial demographics. See id. at 109:9–

13. The Court does not find his testimony credible for multiple reasons. But even if it did, the 

Court is still satisfied that De Grandy’s alterations to the 2022 Plan which culminated in the 2023 

Plan ensured that the five districts would retain largely identical racial demographics. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 61 of 83
62

There are multiple instances where De Grandy gave testimony showing his lack of 

credibility.16 For example, De Grandy testified that before he developed V12, he did not meet 

with any Commissioners. This testimony, however, contradicts both his own prior testimony as 

well as Resolution R-23-0271, which confirm that De Grandy did meet with the Commissioners 

prior to the June 14, 2022 meeting. Pls.’ Ex. 32 at 2; T2. at 66:18–25. Indeed, during the June 14, 

2023 meeting, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla asked De Grandy: “Version 12 is the city’s map, 

the one that takes into account everybody’s input in different conversations . . . But my 

understanding is that [V12] [has] been discussed for about over a week in long meetings, different 

commissioners, independent [of] each other[,] right?” Pls.’ Ex. 28 at 51:22–23, 52:5–7. De 

Grandy, answered, “Correct.” Id. at 52:8. Further demonstrating De Grandy’s lack of credibility, 

in a separate discussion about the 2021–2022 redistricting process, defense counsel asked De 

Grandy if he recalled “race being discussed . . . in the Commission.” T2. at 132:8–9. Incredibly, 

and despite the extensive discussions focusing on race catalogued above, De Grandy responded: 

“Yes. It was [discussed] to the extent that we needed to comply with the Voting Rights Act.” Id.

at 132:10–11. Discussions of race during the 2021-22 redistricting process were clearly not so 

limited.17 Given the contradictions between De Grandy’s testimony and the record, the Court 

16 This is not the first time the Court has found that De Grandy is not credible. See R&R at 84 

(“The Court declines to afford De Grandy’s testimony much weight, given his testimony at the 

March 29, 2023 hearing contradicted his statements made during the redistricting process. For 

example, De Grandy presented on February 7, 2022 a preliminary plan with a BVAP of less than 

50% in District 5 but later testified on March 29, 2023 that he believed the VRA required a BVAP

of more than 50% in District 5.”).

17 Other instances also demonstrate De Grandy’s lack of credibility. For example, he testified that 

though the initial map he brought to the June 14, 2022 meeting was entitled Version 12, he did not 

know whether earlier versions of the plan existed, nor how the plan came to be named V12. T2. 

at 66:22–68:3. Further, though De Grandy denied that when presenting V12, he was “looking to 

make one commissioner happy,” id. at 111:20–21, De Grandy expressed the opposite when 

describing why he drew District 3 to include Commissioner Carollo’s home. Id. at 86:21–24 (“My 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 62 of 83
63

does not find him credible and declines to offer much weight to De Grandy’s assertion that he did 

not take any instruction from the Commission to maintain the racial demographics from the 2022 

Plan in V12.

Instead, the Court finds that the Commission unanimously directed De Grandy to create a 

remedial map that would maintain three Hispanic, one Black, and one Anglo district. De Grandy 

understood this directive to mean that he should, “to the greatest degree possible,” retain the core 

of existing districts while still adhering to the Constitution and the VRA. Id. at 70:20–23, 82:17. 

De Grandy complied with this directive and designed V12 so that over 94% of the population 

would remain in the same districts that the Court found were substantially likely to be 

unconstitutional in the 2022 Plan. See id. at 177:18–22.

4. Circumstantial Evidence 

The 2023 Plan is staggeringly similar to the 2022 Plan. 94.1% of Miamians remain in the 

same district in the 2023 Plan as they were in the 2022 Plan. (“Pls.’ Ex. 122”) (“McCartan Rep.” 

ECF No. 173-27 at 8). The racial demographics of the 5.9% of Miamians who were moved into 

new districts in the 2023 Plan suggests continued racial predominance. 

In Districts 1, 3, and 4, where the Commission sought to maximize Hispanic population, 

97.8% of the citizens residing in one of those three districts in the 2022 Plan continue to reside 

there in the 2023 Plan. Id. Of the 5,125 residents moved from these three districts into District 2 

and District 5, those residents were disproportionately less Hispanic. See Abott Rep. at 38 

(explaining that the citizens moved into Districts 2 and 5 in the 2023 Plan were 59% HVAP, a 

number far lower than the HVAP of Districts 1, 3, and 4 in the 2022 Plan). And areas that were 

first plan did not go that far south [to include Carollo’s home in District 3]. Later on, when I saw 

all the newspaper accounts, etcetera, I thought yes, that would make him happy.”). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 63 of 83
64

approximately 90% HVAP were shuffled among Districts 1, 3, and 4, thus creating the illusion 

that these districts changed while maintaining their racial demographics. See id.

Further, the Commission only removed 4,735 residents from District 5 in the 2023 Plan. 

See id. The BVAP of that population which the Commission placed into other districts was 16.6%. 

See id. As noted above, District 5’s BVAP in the 2022 Plan was 50.3%. Joint Stip. at 16 ¶ 45. 

The 2023 Plan not only retains the vast majority of the 2022 Plan’s district cores, but the 

racial demographics of the citizens that the Commission chose to move in the 2023 Plan indicate 

continued racial predominance. Hardly any voters changed districts in the 2023 Plan. The 

populations that were moved, and what districts they were moved into, conspicuously align with 

the racial breakdown of the enjoined 2022 Plan. The Court considers this circumstantial evidence 

that race predominated in the design of each district in the 2023 Plan. 

a) Adjustments to V12 Show Continued Racial Predominance

Multiple changes to V12 that were incorporated into the 2023 Plan also provide 

circumstantial evidence that the Commission intended to preserve the racial divisions from the 

2022 Plan during this redistricting process. In other words, the evolution of the 2023 Plan provides 

circumstantial evidence of the Commission’s intent to change the unconstitutional 2022 Plan as 

little as possible. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 64 of 83
65

Figure 9: (“Pls.’ Ex. 84”) (ECF No. 173-23).

Between District 2 and 3, the Commission removed Area 21 from District 3 and returned 

it to District 2, just as it was in the 2022 Plan. Pls.’ Ex. 28 at 65:6–7. This area had a 54% WVAP. 

Abott Rep. at 48. Though never discussed in either the May 11 or June 14 meetings, the 

Commission moved Area 25, a plurality-white portion of the City, into District 2. Id.; T2. at 95:25–

96:4 (De Grandy explaining that he did not know why this area was moved other than to equalize 

population). The Commissioners then moved Area 24, a plurality HVAP area, into District 3. 

Pls.’ Ex. 28 at 38:5–39:10.

 The Commission’s alterations to V12 that resulted in the splitting of Morningside also 

provide circumstantial evidence of racial predominance. V12 proposed moving a portion of 

Morningside—Area 26—out of District 2 and into District 5. T2. at 94:18–95:1. This area had a 

41.9% WVAP and 11.8% BVAP. Abott Rep. at 48. Following extensive discussion where 

Commissioner Covo objected to the splitting of Morningside and where Commissioner King 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 65 of 83
66

requested that the neighborhood be restored to District 2, see Pls.’ Ex. 28 at 43:15–47:6, Area 26 

was moved into District 2 and incorporated into the 2023 Plan. See id. at 64:21–65:1.

That the Commission restored Area 26 to District 2 is problematic for multiple reasons. 

As an initial matter, Morningside remains divided between Districts 2 and 5. The Commission 

rejected each of Plaintiffs’ alternatives that would have maintained the entirety of the 

neighborhood within District 5. See (“Pls.’ Ex. 78”) (Version 14 Map, ECF No. 173-17); (“Pls.’

Ex. 29”) (Plaintiffs’ alternative maps P1 and P2, ECF No. 172-1); Pls.’ Ex. 36. The 2023 Plan 

also excludes from District 5 low-BVAP neighborhoods south of the existing boundary. See Abott 

Rep. at 49. In sum, this evidence supports the inference that the 2023 Plan divided Morningside 

along racial lines to preserve the racial demographics of Districts 2 and 5 from the 2022 Plan.

The Commission and De Grandy also defined the District 5 neighborhood Overtown along 

racial lines, and as a consequence, they excluded majority Hispanic areas. When describing how 

he included Overtown entirely in V12’s District 5 rather than splitting the neighborhood with 

District 1 (this definition of Overtown was incorporated into the 2023 Plan), De Grandy explained 

that he relied on Google Maps and the City’s Neighborhood Enhancement Team (“NET”) to 

determine his understanding of that neighborhood’s parameters. Pls.’ Ex. 28 at 16:4–7. The area 

De Grandy defined as Overtown had a 60.5% BVAP. See Abott Rep. at 38–40, 50. But De 

Grandy’s conception of Overtown actually excludes large areas that are part of Google Maps’ and 

NET’s version of Overtown. See id. The areas that De Grandy excluded are disproportionately 

non-Black. See id. at 50 (explaining that these areas are 63.7% HVAP and 26.2% BVAP). The 

City Code and the City Police Department also define Overtown to include the areas that De 

Grandy excluded. See id. at 38–40; City Code §2-1051. The manner in which De Grandy defined 

Overtown resulted in the continued racial divisions of both Districts 1 and 5.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 66 of 83
67

b) District-by-District Analysis

District 5

The Parties agree that race predominated in District 5 in the 2023 Plan. Joint Stip. at 18–

19 ¶¶ 10–13 (explaining that the Court must determine “[w]hether race was the predominant factor 

in the design of Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4”); supra, Part III.C.8. The Court concurs.

District 2

Race predominated in the design of District 2 in the 2023 Plan. Just as in the 2022 Plan, 

District 3 in the 2023 Plan is still a non-compact “thin strip confined to the coast, extending from 

the northeast in the Morningside area . . . and continuing along the water though Coconut Grove.” 

R&R at 72; see also McCartan Rep. at 6–8 (explaining that District 2 is equally as compact in both 

the 2022 and 2023 Plans). The district’s design adheres to the Commission’s initial goal of 

reserving an “Anglo” seat in District 2. It surgically excludes higher BVAP or HVAP areas to the 

north and south of the district. See Abott Rep. at 35–36. Further, District 2 retains higher WVAP 

portions of Morningside from the 2022 Plan while also adding an adjacent low BVAP area. Id. at 

46, 49. The border also snakes from NE 2nd Avenue to the railroad tracks, back to NE 2nd Avenue, 

and then back again to the railroad to retain a higher WVAP “Condo Canyon,” adds an additional 

low BVAP area near Omni, and moves higher BVAP areas into District 5. Id. Moreover, the 

Commission moved into District 3 higher HVAP areas of Coconut Grove which were in District 

2 in the 2022 Plan. Areas with a greater WVAP in north Brickell remain in District 2 in the 2023 

Plan, thus excising this population from District 3. Between the 2022 and 2023 Plans, 92.2% of 

District 2 residents remain there. McCartan Rep. at 6–8. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 67 of 83
68

Districts 1, 3, and 4

Race likewise predominated in the design of Districts 1, 3, and 4 in the 2023 Plan. The 

districts each have staggeringly high core retention rates. Id. at 8 (ranging from 90.6% to 98.2%). 

Flagami, Silver Bluff, Shenandoah, and Little Havana remain split between each of the three 

districts. District 1 maintains its “staircase-like stepping pattern in its northeastern corner in 

Allapattah” with slight deviations that still deviate from major highways. R&R at 74. Indeed, 

District 1 excludes portions of Overtown with high BVAP areas but includes portions of Overtown 

that contain majority-HVAP areas. See Abott Rep. at 38–40. District 3 is less compact, adding a 

high HVAP area in Bay Heights while minimizing additions from a high WVAP area in north 

Brickell. Overall, the 2023 Plan succeeded in maintaining the cores of these three districts as 

drawn in the 2022 Plan while making slight alterations that exacerbated the racial divisions the 

Commissioners desired.

5. Partisanship

Partisanship does not explain the design of any district in the 2023 Plan. At the outset, the 

Commissioners expressly denied that partisanship played any role in the remedial redistricting 

process. Pls.’ Ex. 28 at 32:13–21. In fact, the record is devoid of any evidence that partisanship 

played any role in the Commissioners’ decisionmaking. Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Abott also 

demonstrated that objective election data shows that the 2023 Plan was not drawn to achieve a 

particular partisan outcome. See Abott Rep. at 40–42. During his testimony, De Grandy responded 

in the affirmative when asked “[t]he Commission never publicly gave political consideration[s] as 

a redistricting principle that they followed, though, right[?]” though he noted he inferred those 

preferences from the directive to maintain the cores of existing districts. T2. at 77:23–78:21. 

Considering the record as a whole, the Court cannot find that partisanship influenced the 2023 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 68 of 83
69

Plan’s creation. To the contrary, the record indicates the Commission explicitly disclaimed 

partisan considerations. 

E. Summary of Racial Predominance

Though the Court presumes the good faith of the Commission, Plaintiffs have met their 

demanding burden of proving that race predominated in the 2021–2022 redistricting cycle. Over 

the course of six Commission meetings, the Commissioners repeatedly instructed De Grandy to 

design a map containing three majority Hispanic, one majority Black, and one plurality “Anglo” 

district. More than any other consideration, this objective was of paramount importance. During 

the redistricting process, the Commissioners reiterated that this was their goal on over fifty different 

occasions. The Commissioners also made clear that De Grandy should achieve this result at the 

expense of traditional redistricting criteria such as compactness, adherence to manmade or natural 

barriers, and respect for traditional neighborhoods. De Grandy understood his directive, often 

including race as the primary discussion point in his presentations and by frequently describing his 

mapmaking process in racial terms. The 2022 Plan adhered to the Commissioners’ primary 

objective of sorting voters based on race. This was not an instance where Commissioners were 

merely aware of race during redistricting. Rather, it was the Commissioners’ conscious objective 

to ensure that any redistricting plan resulted in the race-based sorting they preferred. 

In the remedial process culminating in the 2023 Plan, race likewise predominated. On May 

11, 2023, the Commissioners unanimously voted to instruct De Grandy to begin crafting a remedial 

plan that would preserve the racial demographics of the 2022 Plan. De Grandy understood this 

objective and created V12 based on the Commissioners’ desire to preserve the district cores from 

the 2022 Plan and the policy directives he received from the Commissioners in the 2021–2022 

redistricting process. The result of his process resulted in a remedial plan that retained 94.1% of 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 69 of 83
70

the 2022 Plan. Even presuming the good faith of the Commission, the Court finds that the direct 

evidence of legislative intent and circumstantial evidence demonstrate that the 2023 Plan remains 

unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered. 

F. The Parties18

1. The Individual Plaintiffs

a) Clarice Cooper 

Plaintiff Cooper is a Black resident of the City of Miami. T1. at 20:19–20, 21:17–19. She 

resides in Coconut Grove—a neighborhood within the City of Miami—at 3735 Oak Avenue, 

Miami, Florida. Id. at 22:22–23:2. Her residence was located in District 2 in the 2022 Plan and

the 2023 Plan. Id. at 24:24–25:9. Plaintiff Cooper is a registered voter who voted in the 2023 

Commission elections. Id. at 24:7–12.

b) Yanelis Valdes 

Plaintiff Valdes identifies as “Hispanic or Latina” and has lived in the City of Miami since 

2019. Id. at 218:16–17, 219:2–3. She resides at 58 Northeast 14th Street, Miami, Florida. Id. at

219:6–9. Her residence was located in District 5 in the 2022 Plan, and District 2 in the 2023 Plan. 

Id. at 219:14–220:2. Plaintiff Valdes is a registered voter. Id. at 219:4–5.

c) Jared Johnson

Plaintiff Johnson is a Black resident who has lived in the City of Miami since July 2021. 

Id. at 93:22–23, 94:15–18. He resides in Brickell—a neighborhood within the City of Miami—at 

255 Southwest 11th Street, Apartment 1302, Miami, Florida. Id. at 94:22–25. His residence was 

18 The Court separates Plaintiffs into two groups. Plaintiffs Cooper, Valdes, Johnson, Contreras, 

and Miro are hereinafter referred to as the “Individual Plaintiffs.” The Court uses the term 

“Organizational Plaintiffs” to collectively refer to Plaintiffs Engage Miami, Inc., GRACE, Inc., 

South Dade Branch of the NAACP, and Miami-Dade Branch of the NAACP. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 70 of 83
71

located in District 3 in the 2022 and 2023 Plans. Id. at 95:21–96:7. Plaintiff Johnson is a registered 

voter. Id. at 96:8–9.

d) Alexandra Contreras 

Plaintiff Contreras is a White-Hispanic individual who formerly lived in the City of Miami. 

Id. at 124:7–8, 127:1–16. From August 14, 2022, to July 31, 2023, she resided at 3237 Southwest 

4th Street. She therefore occupied this residence when this lawsuit was initiated on December 15, 

2022, and when the City passed the 2023 Plan. See (ECF No. 1); T1. at 124:22–23, 126:22–25. 

Her address was located in District 4 in both the 2022 and 2023 Plans. T1. at 125:24–126:2,

126:22–25. Plaintiff Contreras was registered to vote at this address until she moved out of the 

City of Miami. See id. at 125:6–126:11.

e) Steven Miro

Plaintiff Miro is a Hispanic resident of the City of Miami. Id. at 9:14–15, 11:20–21. As a 

former law enforcement officer of five years, his address is not available to the public. See id. at

9:18–25. His unrebutted testimony, however, demonstrates that he resides in District 3 under the 

2022 and 2023 Plans. See id. at 10:14–11:3.

2. The Organizational Plaintiffs

a) Engage Miami, Inc.

Plaintiff Engage Miami, Inc. (“Engage Miami”) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization 

founded in 2015 with the mission to increase civic engagement among the youth. T1. at 48:4–9. 

The organization’s mission is to advance justice, sustainability and democracy. Id. at 48:10–13. 

In carrying out its mission, Engage Miami is particularly active in advocating for voting rights, 

focusing on issues such as access to voting, election protection, and ensuring fairness in local 

redistricting. See id. at 48:14–49:11. With respect to the 2022 Plan, Engage Miami advocated 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 71 of 83
72

against the Commission’s use of race in the redistricting process. See id. at 49:15–50:15. The 

2023 Plan did not assuage Engage Miami’s concern. See id. at 50:16–24. Engage Miami has a 

database where it tracks its members and their addresses. See id. at 52:3–9. The organization has 

members who reside in all five districts under both the 2022 and 2023 Plans. Id. at 52:10–18.

b) GRACE, Inc.

Plaintiff GRACE, Inc., short for Grove Rights and Community Equity, Inc. (“GRACE”), 

is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. See (“Pls.’ Ex. 43”) (ECF No. 172-14 at 1). The corporation 

contains a coalition of Coconut Grove churches, civic groups, other nonprofit organizations, small 

business owners, tenants, and homeowners. Id. GRACE’s stated mission is to (1) protect 

vulnerable black tenants and homeowners at risk of eviction, displacement, and resegregation; (2) 

restore the rights of the wrongfully displaced; (3) preserve the community culture, and history of 

the West Grove and its people; and (4) to advocate for equitable economic development. Id. To 

further its purpose, Plaintiff GRACE has, among other pursuits, advocated against inequity in 

voting rights. T1. at 77:18–24. The unrebutted evidence shows that GRACE has both 

organizational and individual members who reside in various districts. See id. at 79:17–80:8 

(organizational member Greater St. Paul African American Episcopal Church has individuals who 

live in Districts 2, 3, and 5); id. at 91:24–92:16 (individual members Clarice Cooper and Apostle 

John Chambers live in District 2).

c) South Dade Branch of the NAACP

Plaintiff South Dade Branch of the NAACP (“South Dade NAACP”) is an affiliate branch 

of the Florida chapter of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored 

People). Id. at 135:7–14, 137:1–9. The South Dade NAACP is one of two branches within the 

City of Miami. Id. at 137:8–9. It operates in Miami-Dade County south of Flagler Street. Id. at

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 72 of 83
73

135:25–136:9. Consistent with the NAACP’s national guidelines, the South Dade NAACP’s 

mission is to advocate for the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all 

persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination. See id. at 140:4–11; (“Pls.’ Ex. 47”) (ECF 

No. 172-17). Part of that mission includes advocating for the equitable treatment of voters and the 

protection of voting rights. T1. at 140:20–141:11. 

Though the NAACP maintains a membership roster, it does not publish its membership 

publicly, nor does it provide the roster to affiliate branches. See id. at 143:17–21. This policy 

stems from the history of intimidation that members could potentially be exposed to by virtue of 

their affiliation. Id. at 144:2–18. Nevertheless, the corporate representative for the South Dade 

NAACP verified that it had individual members residing in Districts 2, 3 and 4 by identifying 

specific members who attend South Dade NAACP meetings, cross referencing their identities with 

the voter database to confirm their addresses and submitting this information to be confirmed by 

the national branch. Id. at 143:19–26. No party disputes this verification occurred. The corporate 

representative, despite verifying the residences of some South Dade NAACP in the abovementioned Districts, did not identify any member by name. Id. at 160:19–161:19.

d) Miami-Dade Branch of the NAACP 

Similarly, Plaintiff Miami-Dade Branch of the NAACP (Miami-Dade NAACP) is an 

affiliate branch of the Florida chapter of the NAACP. Id. at 177:24–180:1. The Miami-Dade 

NAACP operates in Miami-Dade County north of Flagler Street. Id. at 204:11–12. As with the 

South Dade NAACP, the Miami-Dade NAACP adheres to the national organization’s mission. 

See id. at 178:7–179:7. The Miami-Dade NAACP accordingly, as part of its purpose, focuses on 

voting rights regarding its members. See id. at 179:25–180:10. Just as described above, the 

corporate representative for the Miami-Dade NAACP had to contact the national branch to verify 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 73 of 83
74

that Miami-Dade NAACP members resided in the City of Miami. See id. at 180:11–22. Through 

this process, the corporate representative confirmed that the Miami-Dade NAACP members 

resided in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 in both the 2022 and 2023 Plans. Id. at 181:8–182:5. The 

representative did not provide the names of the members she verified but confirmed that she could 

provide a list of names in camera if asked by the Court. Id. at 182:11–14. 

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

Plaintiffs allege that the 2022 Plan was racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. SAC ¶¶ 503–506. Plaintiffs further allege that 

the 2023 Plan remains racially gerrymandered and is likewise unconstitutional. See id. 

Accordingly, the Court makes the following conclusions of law and explains them below: (1) 

Plaintiffs have standing; (2) the design of each district in the 2022 Plan and the 2023 Plan 

constitutes a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment.

A. Standing

The Court need only establish that one Plaintiff has standing. See, e.g., Town of Chester v. 

Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U.S. 433, 439 (2017) (holding that “[a]t least one plaintiff must have 

standing to seek each form of relief requested in the complaint”); Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at

264 n.9 (finding that, because one plaintiff had standing, the Court “need not consider whether the 

other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit”); Common Cause Fla., 

et al., v. Byrd, No. 4:22-cv-109-AW-MAF, 2024 WL 1308119, at *25 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2024) 

(“Where at least one plaintiff has standing to maintain the action, and to seek each form of relief, 

it is unnecessary to address the standing of the other plaintiffs.”). Nevertheless, the Court finds 

that each Plaintiff has standing to bring this Action. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 74 of 83
75

Each Individual Plaintiff has standing. As noted above, “[w]here a plaintiff resides in a 

racially gerrymandered district, [] the plaintiff has been denied equal treatment because of the 

legislature’s reliance on racial criteria, and therefore has standing to challenge the legislature’s 

action.” Hays, 515 U.S. at 744–45. Plaintiff Cooper has standing to challenge District 2 because 

her residence was located there in the 2022 and 2023 Plans. Plaintiff Valdes lived in District 2 

under the 2022 Plan and District 5 under the 2023 Plan, meaning she has standing to challenge 

each of those districts in both Plans. Plaintiffs Johnson and Miro have standing to challenge 

District 3 because they both resided in that district under both Plans. Finally, Plaintiff Contreras 

has standing—even though she moved from her home in District 4 on July 31, 2023—because she 

(1) resided in a gerrymandered district under the 2022 Plans and 2023 Plans, and (2) though she 

no longer resides in the City of Miami, she is seeking nominal damages. See Uzuegbunam v. 

Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792, 796 (2021) (holding that the doctrine of standing assesses whether the 

plaintiff’s personal interest in the dispute exists at the outset of litigation and that nominal damages 

may redress a past injury). 

The Organizational Plaintiffs also have standing to sue on behalf of their members who 

reside in the challenged districts. An organization has standing when one of the organization’s 

members “would have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the 

organization’s purpose, and neither the claims asserted, nor the relief requested requires the 

individual members’ participation in the lawsuit.” ALBC, 575 U.S. at 269 (cleaned up). There is 

no dispute as to the latter two elements. First, this lawsuit is germane to each organization’s 

purpose. See T1. at 48:4–13 (describing Plaintiff Engage Miami’s purpose as advancing 

democracy through voting rights advocacy); id. at 77:18–24 (describing Plaintiff GRACE’s 

purpose to include voting rights advocacy); id. at 140:4–24 (describing South Dade NAACP’s 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 75 of 83
76

purpose as including advocacy for equitable treatment of voters and the protection of voting 

rights); id. at 179:24–180:10 (describing same for Miami-Dade NAACP). Further, the Court finds 

no reason why the claims asserted would necessitate an individual member’s participation in the 

lawsuit. Therefore, the Court’s analysis below focuses on whether the Organizational Plaintiffs

have demonstrated that they have a member with standing to sue in their own right.

After reviewing the record and the testimony of the organizations’ corporate 

representatives, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Engage Miami and GRACE have members who 

reside in one of the challenged districts. As to Plaintiff Engage Miami, the Court credits its 

corporate representative’s testimony that Engage Miami maintains a membership database 

demonstrating that the organization had members residing in all five districts. See id. at 52:3–23 

(explaining that the corporate representative confirmed the addresses of their members and crossreferenced their addresses with where they were registered to vote). Moreover, individual 

Plaintiffs Valdes and Johnson are both members of Engage Miami, and as the Court has already 

found, they have standing to sue in their own right. See id. at 55:17–56:6. Regarding Plaintiff 

GRACE, Inc., the Court likewise credits the testimony of its corporate representative and finds 

that it has individual members residing in District 2, as well as other organizational members 

containing individuals residing in Districts 2, 3, and 5. Id. at 79:17–80:8, 92:2–16; see also N.Y. 

State Club Ass’n, Inc., v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 9–10 (1988) (holding that an organization 

has standing to sue on behalf of its constituent organization’s members if the constituent 

organization itself would have standing to sue). The corporate representative presented unrebutted 

testimony that Plaintiff GRACE, Inc. has individual members—Clarice Cooper, Reynold Martin, 

and Apostle John Chambers—who were residents of District 2. T1. at 92:2–16. Because both 

Plaintiffs Engage Miami and GRACE, Inc. have residents who reside in a gerrymandered district, 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 76 of 83
77

and those residents would have standing to sue in their own right under Hays, these two Plaintiffs 

satisfy the remaining element of associational standing. 

As to the two remaining organizational Plaintiffs—South Dade NAACP and Miami Dade 

NAACP—the Court finds that each organization has shown that it has members with standing to 

sue. Both branches emphasized that they would not identify a specific member by name given the 

history of intimidation and violence that members of the NAACP historically faced. See id. at

143:19–21, 144:2–18, 182:15–23. Carolyn Donaldson, the representative for the South Dade 

NAACP, testified that she was able to verify that the organization had members residing in 

Districts 2, 3, and 4. See id. at 145:10–21. She confirmed their membership by: (1) collaborating 

with the chapter secretary to confirm member’s addresses; (2) cross-referencing those members’ 

addresses with the voter database; and (3) confirming with the national chapter that these members 

were active in the South Dade NAACP throughout the life of this lawsuit. Id. at 143:7–144:1. 

Daniela Pierre, testifying on behalf of the Miami Dade NAACP, underwent a nearly identical 

process to confirm that the organization had members residing in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 during the 

same period. Id. at 180:14–182:5. Both Donaldson and Pierre testified that they could provide 

the specific names and addresses of their members in camera if necessary. Id. at 170:19–24, 

182:11–14. The Court finds their testimony credible. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that both 

branches of the NAACP contain members who would have standing to sue, and thus, both the 

South Dade and Miami-Dade NAACP have standing. Cf. Common Cause Fla., 2024 WL 

1308119, at *22 (holding that the Florida NAACP had standing without identifying a specific 

member when its representative confirmed their members’ addresses by cross-referencing each 

members’ ZIP code with Florida Supervisor of Election voter rolls). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 77 of 83
78

B. Racial Gerrymandering 

1. The 2022 Plan Was Racially Gerrymandered 

Because the Court finds that race predominated in each district under the 2022 Plan, each 

district must survive strict scrutiny, that is, the districts must be narrowly tailored to a compelling 

state interest. The Parties stipulate that if the Court finds that race predominated in the design of 

Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4, then the City’s use of race when designing those districts was not narrowly 

tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Joint Stip. at 21 ¶ 13. The Court made that finding 

above, see supra, Part III.C, and therefore, Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 do not withstand strict scrutiny 

and are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. Therefore, the only remaining question for this 

Court is whether District 5 withstands strict scrutiny.

The Court has already found that it does not. The Court adopted in full Judge Louis’s R&R 

which framed the analysis as follows: (1) the City drew District 5 to comply with the VRA, which 

is a compelling government interest; and (2) District 5’s design would be narrowly tailored to VRA 

compliance if the Commission had a strong basis in evidence constituting good reason for the racebased districting decisions. R&R at 79–81. Quoting Cooper, Judge Louis opined, “as relevant 

here, [i]f [the City] has good reason to think that all the Gingles preconditions are met, then so too 

it has good reason to believe that § 2 requires drawing a majority-minority district. But if not, then 

not.” Id. at 80 (quoting Cooper, 581 U.S. at 302) (alterations in original). The R&R also made 

clear that when determining if District 5 was narrowly tailored, “[t]he City is not necessarily

required to memorialize in writing the functional analysis undertaken in determining the minority 

population percentage required for compliance with the VRA—but the City’s determination of a 

minority population percentage . . . must nonetheless be well supported.” Id. at 82 (citing BethuneHill, 580 U.S. at 195). In other words, the City was not required to “‘determine precisely what 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 78 of 83
79

percent minority population’ compliance with the VRA demands,” but “rather, the question [was] 

whether the City ‘had good reasons to believe’ the BVAP floor it selected ‘was necessary to avoid 

liability’ under the VRA.” Id. (quoting Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 194).

With those principles in mind, and after reviewing the record, Judge Louis found that: (1) 

nothing in evidence memorializes that the Commissioners were ever presented with a preenactment analysis regarding what level BVAP or Black Citizen Voting Age Population would 

facilitate VRA compliance;

19 (2) the Commissioners selected an arbitrary 50% BVAP quota in 

District 5 based on their subjective belief about what Section 2 compliance required and De 

Grandy’s personal opinions about population trends which were unsupported by any quantitative 

analysis; and (3) both the Commission and De Grandy were on notice that VRA compliance did 

not require a 50% BVAP quota—to the contrary a lesser figure would have been sufficient 

according to Plaintiffs’ expert. Id. at 82–85.

Based on those findings, Judge Louis concluded that the City lacked a strong basis in

evidence for how it drew District 5 and they “instead mechanically set a minimum BVAP for the 

District.” Id. at 85. Judge Louis continued, “[t]here is no evidence in the record before the Court 

of any pre-enactment analysis that informed the Commission’s decision to select 50% as a BVAP 

floor; nor does the City point the Court to evidence that the Commissioners considered in selecting 

50%.” Id. at 85 (citation and quotation omitted). Accordingly, Judge Louis concluded that District 

19 To be clear, Judge Louis did not suggest that De Grandy conducted a pre-enactment analysis 

that was deficient because it did not identify a precise BVAP percentage at which VRA compliance 

could be achieved. Rather, Judge Louis identified that while De Grandy alluded to conducting an 

analysis of the Gingles preconditions, nothing in the record indicates that he communicated any 

details of this analysis to the Commission, nor does any evidence explain how his purported 

analysis compels the conclusion that District 5 requires a 50% BVAP floor. See id. at 82–83. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 79 of 83
80

5 was not narrowly tailored to VRA compliance in the 2022 Plan and thus, District 5 did not 

withstand strict scrutiny.

The Court adopted those findings and conclusions in full. (ECF No. 60). Defendant 

objected to Judge Louis’s findings and argued that District 5’s design was narrowly tailored to 

VRA compliance. See (ECF No. 55 at 12–15). After a de novo review, the Court denied 

Defendant’s objections and held that District 5 did not withstand strict scrutiny. See (ECF No. 60 

at 19–22). Now, having had the opportunity to review all the evidence, testimony, and available 

record material, the Court arrives at the same conclusion. On the record before it, the Court cannot 

conclude that the City had “good reason” to adhere to an arbitrary 50% BVAP floor when 

designing District 5. Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 194. For the same reasons explained in both the 

R&R and the Order adopting it, the Court reiterates today that District 5 in the 2022 Plan does not 

satisfy strict scrutiny because its design was not narrowly tailored to VRA compliance. 

Therefore, every district in the 2022 Plan fails to withstand strict scrutiny and is thus 

racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. The 2023 Plan is Racially Gerrymandered

Like with the 2022 Plan, the Parties stipulate that should the Court find race predominated 

in the design of Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4, then none of those districts withstand strict scrutiny. Joint 

Stip. at 21 ¶ 13. Similarly, then, the sole question for the Court is whether the 2023 Plan’s District 

5 was narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest, namely, VRA compliance. The Court 

concludes that it is not.

The Court has already answered this question as well. See (ECF No. 94). Once more, the 

Court reiterated that “the narrow tailoring requirement insists only that the legislature have a 

strong basis in evidence in support of the (race-based) choice that it has made,” and that by 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 80 of 83
81

performing a functional analysis of electoral behavior within District 5, “Defendant could 

demonstrate it had ‘good reasons to believe’ it must use race [in the manner that it did] to satisfy 

§ 2 of the VRA.”

20

 Id. at 38 (quoting ALBC, 575 U.S. at 262; Bethune-Hill, 580 U.S. at 194). 

Defendant could not make that showing. Suffering from the same fatal flaw that doomed District 

5 in the 2022 Plan, Defendant was unable to identify what functional analysis occurred to 

determine that a 50% BVAP floor was necessary in the 2023 Plan, nor could Defendant identify 

when that analysis was communicated to the Commission or that the analysis played any role in 

the Commission’s decision to adhere to that BVAP quota. Id. at 39. Instead, Defendant argued 

that the 2023 Plan’s District 5 was narrowly tailored based on the post-hoc analysis of its expert, 

Dr. John Alford. See id. at 38–39. Dr. Alford’s report, however, was not submitted until July 12, 

2023, nearly a month after the 2023 Plan was enacted. Id. at 39. Thus, the Court found that aside 

from its expert report, Defendant had again failed to explain how District 5 was narrowly tailored 

to achieve VRA compliance. See id. The Court held that District 5 did not withstand strict 

scrutiny. Id.

Defendant has not produced any evidence after the issuance of this Order, whether at trial 

or otherwise, that alters the Court’s conclusion. Nor has Defendant identified any material in the 

record that would warrant deciding the matter differently. The Court previously held, based on 

the findings recounted above, that the 2023 Plan’s District 5 does not withstand scrutiny. For the 

20 The Court is not imposing a requirement that, to satisfy the narrow tailoring requirement, the 

City must “determined with precision” a particular BVAP percentage or that “the City has [a] duty 

to memorialize the analysis or compile a comprehensive record of that analysis,” as Defendant 

claimed earlier in this litigation. See (ECF No. 97 at 8). Nor is the Court articulating a “purely 

subjective” test about whether the City’s analysis was “good enough.” (ECF No. 182 at 36). 

Rather, the Court is simply stating that when there is no evidence of how a purported functional 

analysis led to the Commission’s adherence to an arbitrary BVAP quota, the City has not met its 

burden to show it had good reason to implement that quota into District 5’s design. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 81 of 83
82

same reasons articulated in ECF No. 94, the Court holds that District 5 was not narrowly tailored 

to the compelling state interest of VRA compliance. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that no district in the City of Miami under the 2023 Plan 

withstands strict scrutiny. In other words, each district is unconstitutionally racially 

gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.21

V. CONCLUSION

In light of the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the 2022 Plan and 2023 Plan are 

unconstitutional, it bears repeating what the Court emphasized at the outset of this Order. Voters

who reside in a racially gerrymandered district suffer a serious harm:

When the State assigns voters on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and

demeaning assumption that voters of a particular race, because of their race, think

alike, share the same political interests and will prefer the same candidates at the

polls. Race-based assignments embody stereotypes that treat individuals as the

product of their race, evaluating their thoughts and efforts—their very worth as

citizens—according to criterion barred to the Government by history and the

Constitution.

Miller, 515 U.S. at 915–16 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Sorting voters on the basis 

of race, as the City did here, deprives Miamians of the constitutional promise that they receive 

equal protection under the law: 

Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial 

gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing 

racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in 

which race no longer matters—a goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments embody, and to which the Nation continues to aspire. It is for these 

21 As the Court noted at the outset of this Order, the City passed Resolution R-24-1 less than two 

weeks before trial. See (ECF No. 151). “By its own terms, Resolution R-24-1 merely ‘amends’ 

the 2023 Plan” by moving 48 people from District 3 back into District 1, thereby restoring the 

District 1/3 boundary line to follow the Dolphin Expressway as it existed in the 2022 Plan. See

(ECF No. 159 at 1) (citing ECF No. 151 at 7). Resolution R-24-1 does not otherwise alter the 

2023 Plan. In sum, Resolution R-24-1 does not disturb the Court’s conclusion that the map 

currently in place, the 2023 Plan with this exceedingly small alteration, is unconstitutionally 

racially gerrymandered. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 82 of 83
83

reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial 

scrutiny.

Shaw, 509 U.S. at 657. These are the serious harms that the City perpetuated, and Miamians 

suffered. Today, the Court permanently prevents the City from racial gerrymandering any longer.

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motions, the pertinent portions of the record, and being

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. All five districts in both the 2022 and 2023 Plans (including as amended by R-24-1)

are unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

2. The City of Miami and its officers and agents are permanently enjoined from calling, 

conducting, supervising, or certifying any elections under the unconstitutional districts;

3. Each Plaintiff is awarded nominal damages in the amount of $1.00;

4. The Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the remedial phase of this Action. By 

separate order, the Court will set a status conference to discuss potential remedies, 

including but not limited to the imposition of special elections or a remedial map. 

Accordingly, the Court does not rule on Plaintiffs’ request for special elections at this 

time.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ______ day of April, 2024. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

10th

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2024 Page 83 of 83