1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

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

/

SECOND EXPERT REPORT OF DR. CAROLYN ABOTT

July 5, 2023

Introduction and Summary

The City’s Proposed Remedy (“Res. 23-271”) differs only marginally from the Enjoined Plan. The 

largest differences can be found in Districts 3 and 4, though Black voting-age populations do not 

change substantively at all between the two plans. Race is still the primary determinant of the 

shapes of the districts in Res. 23-271.

I was asked by Plaintiff’s counsel in this case to use data on voting-age population (VAP), 

citizen voting-age population (CVAP), and voting patterns within individual city precincts in order 

to determine whether and to what extent race can explain the overall shapes of the districts in

Res. 23-271 as well as the changes between the Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271. 

Based on my examination, I reach the conclusion that differences between Res. 23-271 and 

the Enjoined Plan are a result of racial concerns. 

Sources and Methodology

In preparing this report, I have relied on my personal knowledge gathered through my years of 

researching, studying, and publishing. I also utilize the standard methodology that political 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 22
2

scientists use when investigating precinct and census data. The 2020 Census provided data on 

voting-age populations (VAP) by race at the block level that could then be aggregated up to the 

precinct and split-precinct level. Data on 2020 citizen voting-age population (CVAP) by race 

provided in the Appendix is from the 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (ACS).

City Commission district maps were provided to me by Counsel. Precinct shapefiles and 

statewide election results were downloaded from the Voting and Election Science Team on 

Harvard’s Dataverse (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/electionscience). 

Overview of Commission Districts in Res. 23-271

Overall, the commission districts in Res. 23-271 are nearly identical to those contained in the 

Enjoined Plan. Figure 1 displays the two maps next to one another. They are visually very similar. 

The biggest changes to the overall composition of the districts occurred in Districts 3 and 4. As 

shown in Table 1 and Table 2, White VAP increases in District 3 from 7.7% under the Enjoined 

Plan to 10.5% under Res. 23-271. Hispanic VAP, on the other hand, decreases in District 3 from 

88.3% to 84.5%. District 4 absorbs most of these changes such that White VAP decreases (from 

7.6% to 7.2%) and Hispanic VAP increases (89.5% to 90.0%). District 2 also absorbs some of these 

racial changes, though to a lesser degree. Across all districts, Black VAP remains virtually 

unchanged. Population deviation improved under Res. 23-271, decreasing the population spread 

from 6,722 (with 86,578 in District 5 and 93,300 in District 2) under the Enjoined Plan to a spread 

of 3,149 (with 86,444 in District 5 and 89,593 in District 2).

While both maps are overwhelmingly similar, as discussed above, there is a degree of 

compactness that is lost in Res. 23-271 relative to the Enjoined Plan. This is particularly true with 

regards to District 5 and the areas moved between District 5 and 1 (especially Areas 13, 14, and 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 2 of 22
3

16 in Figure 2) and the areas moved between Districts 5 and 2 (particularly Area 19). The single 

block that makes up Area 12, moved from District 3 to 2, also creates an unnatural sliver of 

District 3 that extends into District 2, decreasing overall compactness.

Figure 1: The Enjoined Plan (Top Panel) and Res. 23-271 (Bottom Panel)

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 3 of 22
4

Table 1: District Racial Compositions Under the Enjoined Plan

District Black VAP White VAP Hispanic VAP

1 11.0% 3.5% 89.5%

2 7.3% 37.4% 48.6%

3 5.4% 7.7% 88.3%

4 3.1% 7.6% 89.5%

5 50.3% 10.5% 40.6%

Table 2: District Racial Compositions Under Res. 23-271

District Black VAP White VAP Hispanic VAP

1 10.9% 3.4% 89.7%

2 7.7% 36.5% 49.6%

3 5.4% 10.5% 84.5%

4 3.1% 7.2% 90.0%

5 50.3% 10.5% 40.6%

Figure 2: Areas Moved Between Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 4 of 22
5

Individual Areas Moved Between Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271

District 1

District 1, under both plans, is a super-majority Hispanic district with a small Black and even 

smaller White VAP. Under Res. 23-271, District 1 lost four areas from the Enjoined Plan as 

depicted in Figure 2: Areas 7, 13, 16, and 17. These areas moved out of District 1 are highlighted 

in yellow in Table 3. District 1 also gained four areas: Areas 6, 8, 14, and 15. These areas are 

highlighted in teal. Below I discuss the racial compositions of each of these areas and how they 

impacted the overall change to District 1. I exclude Areas 15 and 16 in this discussion as they are 

given separate treatment in the discussion of Historic Overtown.

Area 7 is a small (population of 48), high Hispanic VAP, low Black VAP area that was moved 

from District 1 to District 3. Both districts are of similar racial composition and this movement 

made little difference to either of their overall racial VAP. Areas 13 and 17, however, have higher 

Black VAP than District 1 (29.2% and 66.7%, respectively) and were moved into District 5, a 

majority Black district. 

Table 3: Areas Moved Between Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271 in District 1

(areas moved out highlighted in yellow; areas moved in highlighted in teal)

Area # Movement WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop.

6 4 to 1 0.0 99.1 3.6 139

7 1 to 3 25.7 68.6 8.6 48

8 3 to 1 1.5 97.1 2.9 762

13 1 to 5 1.0 80.2 29.2 805

14 5 to 1 2.4 66.3 37.5 286

15 5 to 1 11.1 41.9 55.6 376

16 1 to 5 7.3 66.7 26.4 1,353

17 1 to 5 0.0 33.3 66.7 10

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 5 of 22
6

Areas 6 and 8, moved into District 1 from racially similar Districts 4 and 3 (respectively) are 

high Hispanic VAP, low Black VAP areas. Area 14, moved from District 5 to District 1, has a 

relatively high Hispanic VAP compared to the district it is being moved from, and a relatively low 

Black VAP.

Areas 15 and 16 are discussed separately in the discussion of Overtown.

District 2

District 2 is the most ethnically and racially diverse Commission district in the City. Though the 

district is still Hispanic VAP-plurality under both plans, white VAP trails by only 11 percentage 

points under the Enjoined Plan, compared to about 13 percentage points under Res. 23-271. In 

other words, the white VAP of District 2 is just 0.9 points lower than the Enjoined Plan, and 

Hispanic VAP is just 1.0 point higher. Six areas moved between the Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-

271 affected District 2 directly. These are listed in Table 4, where areas moved out of District 2 

are again highlighted in yellow and areas moved into District 2 are highlighted in teal. 

Table 4: Areas Moved Between Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271 in District 2

(areas moved out highlighted in yellow; areas moved in highlighted in teal)

Area # Movement WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop.

10 4 to 2 31.7 59.2 7.1 1,597

11 2 to 3 41.0 43.6 5.2 8,304

12 3 to 2 45.9 42.1 4.7 1,360

18 5 to 2 30.6 50.6 8.6 342

19 5 to 2 20.8 64.0 11.9 3,731

20 2 to 5 30.5 56.7 5.5 2,433

Both Areas 11 and 20 are Hispanic VAP-plurality areas with low Black VAP. They are similar in 

racial composition to the donor District 2. Area 11 has lower Hispanic VAP than recipient District 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 6 of 22
7

3, although it is a Hispanic-plurality area. Area 20 has lower Black VAP than recipient District 5, 

and a lower white VAP than donor District 2.

All of the areas that were moved into District 2 look more similar, racially, to District 2 than 

their donor districts. Area 12, in particular, is a white VAP-plurality area that was moved out of a 

Hispanic VAP supermajority district. Similarly, Areas 18 and 19 have Black VAP that is 

considerably lower than their donor District 5 and considerably higher White VAP.

District 3

District 3 is another Hispanic VAP supermajority district. Table 5 lists the moved areas that 

affected District 3.

Areas 8, 9, and 12 were moved out of the Enjoined Plan’s District 3 under Res. 23-271. While 

Areas 8 and 12 were discussed in previous sections, Area 9 was also moved out of District 3. Area 

9 is a supermajority Hispanic VAP area that was moved into another high Hispanic VAP district 

(District 4). While both Areas 8 and 9 are high Hispanic VAP areas that were exchanged amongst 

other high Hispanic VAP areas, it bears repeating that Area 12 is a plurality White VAP area that 

was moved out of District 3 and into the more diverse District 2, forming an irregular divot into 

District 3—as if to compensate for the more evenly divided plurality Hispanic VAP Area 11, which 

was added to District 3 immediately to the south.

Table 5: Areas Moved Between Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271 in District 3

(areas moved out highlighted in yellow; areas moved in highlighted in teal)

Area # Movement WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop.

7 1 to 3 25.7 68.6 8.6 48

8 3 to 1 1.5 97.1 2.9 762

9 3 to 4 7.2 89.3 5.1 4,694

11 2 to 3 41.0 43.6 5.2 8,304

12 3 to 2 45.9 42.1 4.7 1,360

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 7 of 22
8

Area 7 was discussed in a previous section. 

Changes to Districts 4 and 5 were discussed in the sections on Districts 1-3.

Table 6 summarizes the areas moved into and out of District 4 and Table 7 summarizes the areas 

moved into and out of District 5. Note that eight distinct areas were moved in and out of District 

5, the largest number in any district.

Table 6: Areas Moved Between Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271 in District 4

(areas moved out highlighted in yellow; areas moved in highlighted in teal)

Area # Movement WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop.

6 4 to 1 0.0 99.1 3.6 139

9 3 to 4 7.2 89.3 5.1 4,694

10 4 to 2 31.7 59.2 7.1 1,597

Table 7: Areas Moved Between Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271 in District 5

(areas moved out highlighted in yellow; areas moved in highlighted in teal)

Area # Movement WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop.

13 1 to 5 1.0 80.2 29.2 805

14 5 to 1 2.4 66.3 37.5 286

15 5 to 1 11.1 41.9 55.6 376

16 1 to 5 7.3 66.7 26.4 1,353

17 1 to 5 0.0 33.3 66.7 10

18 5 to 2 30.6 50.6 8.6 342

19 5 to 2 20.8 64.0 11.9 3,731

20 2 to 5 30.5 56.7 5.5 2,433

Overall Movement between Majority-Hispanic and -Black Districts, and District 2

Looking at all of the areas moved into and out of the three majority-Hispanic Districts 1, 3, and 

4; majority-Black District 5, and the racially mixed District 2, further shows that the changes made 

to the Enjoined Plan shored up, or did not change, the racial composition of each grouping of 

districts. Collectively, the areas moved out of Districts 1, 3, and 4 have much lower Hispanic VAP 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 8 of 22
9

(58.8%) than the Enjoined districts (86.1, 85.6, and 89.6%), making that three-district grouping

more concentrated in its Hispanic VAP.

Likewise, the areas moved out of District 5 had a much lower Black VAP (16.6%) than the 

district overall. District 5’s Black VAP (50.3%) is the same in the Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271.

Areas moved out of District 2 were similar in demographics to the district overall.

Table 8: Overall Movement in and out of Districts 1-3-4, District 2, and District 5

Area # Description WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop.

6, 7, 8, 9 Areas moved among D1, D3, D4 6.4 90.4 4.8 5,643

10, 12, 13, 16, 17 Areas moved out of D1, D3, D4 

and into D2 or D5 25.6 58.8 14.3 5,125

11, 20 Areas moved out of D2 38.6 46.6 5.3 10,737

14, 15, 18, 19 Areas moved out of D5 19.8 61.2 16.6 4,735

Changes made to Overtown

Referring back to Figure 2, Area 15 (moved from District 5 to District 1) and Area 16 (moved from 

District 1 to District 5) are of special note. These areas are portions of a contested area of the City 

referred to as Overtown (by City Code § 2-1051,

1 the Miami Police Department (MPD),2 and the 

City’s now-dissolved Neighborhood Enhancement Team (NET)3) or as Historic Overtown (by the 

Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau (GMCVB)4 and consultant Miguel De Grandy).

While the definitions found in City Code and by the GMCVB/NET/MPD5 differ slightly, as 

1 The Code defines Overtown as follows: “As used herein, the "Overtown area" is that area approximately bounded 

on the north by Northwest 20th Street from Florida East Coast Railroad to Northwest 3rd Avenue to Northwest 5th 

Avenue; on the west by I-95 Expressway from Northwest 21st Terrace to 836 Expressway and State Road 836 (EastWest) Expressway from I-95 to the Miami River; on the south by Northwest 3rd Street from Florida East Coast 

Railroad to Northwest 7th Avenue and the Miami River from Northwest 7th Avenue to 836 Expressway; and on the 

east by Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way. (Note: All boundaries are to be construed expansively, incorporating 

the breadth of described streets, avenues, expressways, and railroad property.)” 2 https://www.miami-police.org/overtown.html 3 http://www.miami21.org/PDFs/support/netmapnew.jpg

4 https://www.miamiandbeaches.com/neighborhoods/historic-overtown 5 The GMCVB’s Overtown definition is identical to the NET and Police Neighborhood Service Area boundaries.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 9 of 22
10

depicted in Figure 3, they are both more expansive than the definition used by De Grandy.

Figure 3: Different Definitions of Overtown/Historic Overtown

The top-left panel of Figure 3 compares the City’s definition with that of De Grandy’s; Area 35, in 

teal, is the area included in the City’s definition but excluded by De Grandy. Similarly, Area 36 in 

the top-right panel – though slightly smaller than Area 35 – is the area included in the 

GMCVB/NET/MPD definition but excluded in De Grandy’s. What both Area 35 and Area 36 have 

in common is that they have considerably lower Black VAP (24.6% and 26.2%, respectively) than 

Area 34 (60.5%), De Grandy’s definition of Overtown. This is important to note because Area 34 

corresponds almost exactly to the portions of Overtown that are contained in District 5 under 

Res. 23-271. While the northeast portions of Areas 35 and 36 (north of NW 20th St and east of 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 10 of

22
11

NW 1st Ave), which were also excluded from De Grandy’s definition, are contained within District 

5, these portions have much greater black VAP (64.1%) than the southwest portions that are 

contained in District 1.

Overall, De Grandy’s boundaries of Historic Overtown are considerably more restrictive than 

both City Code and the GMCVB/NET/MPD definition. The southwest portions of Historic 

Overtown that De Grandy excluded from his definition were kept in D1 (with high Hispanic VAP) 

and are notably racially different from the area that he defined as Historic Overtown. This 

definition shored up the existing racial composition of District 5 and shored up the Hispanic 

supermajority in District 1. While there is a small sliver of Historic Overtown excluded from De 

Grandy’s version in the northeast that contains very few people (413 relative to the 3,301 that 

made up the entirety of the area excluded by the consultant), it is characterized by levels of Black 

VAP that are more similar to the areas that the consultant did not exclude (64.1% in this northern 

portion compared to the 60.5% in the portion of Historic Overtown identified by De Grandy). 

Regardless of definitions, this small, high Black VAP section of Areas 35 and 36 was included in 

District 5 along with De Grandy’s defined area, providing further evidence that De Grandy defined 

Historic Overtown along racial lines, resulting in the area being split into District 1 and District 5 

on the basis of race.

Partisan motivations

Partisan motivations cannot explain the boundaries of the commission districts nor the

movement of specific areas between the Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271. In particular, a desire to 

maximize Republican advantage in Districts 1, 3, and/or 4 cannot explain any aspect of Res. 23-

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 11 of

22
12

271. As I discussed in my previous report, commission elections occur on a nonpartisan basis and 

commission district maps have no outcome on other elections (i.e., state or federal elections).

Additionally, the areas that were moved into Districts 1, 3, and 4 under Res. 23-271 were, 

in general, no less Republican than other surrounding precincts that could have potentially been 

moved. Most of Precinct 531, for instance, was kept in District 5 (which voted only 16% for Donald 

Trump for president in 2020) and out of District 1 (which voted 49% for Trump). But Precinct 531 

is less Democratic (28% for Trump) than both Precinct 522 (13% for Trump) and Precinct 523 

(26% Trump), parts of which were kept in District 1. It is notable that the less-Democratic Precinct 

531 includes most of the Overtown area, as discussed above. The more-Democratic Precinct 522 

is divided in the identical manner as in the Enjoined Plan, along racial lines, as discussed in my 

initial report at page 7.

Less-Republican areas like Precincts 996 (31% for Trump) and part of Precinct 546 (29% 

for DeSantis) were also added to or retained in District 3 (which voted 46% for Trump), while 

alternative adjacent precincts like 569 (43% Trump), nearly all of 541 (41% Trump), and part of 

566 (39% Trump) with higher Republican vote shares remained or were moved into District 2

(which voted 34% for Trump).

Further, Precinct 989 (78% Trump) was moved in its entirety from District 1 into District 

3. In exchange, most of the less-Republican Precincts 997 (58% Trump) and 971 (63% Trump) 

were added to District 1 from Districts 3 and 4. These movements suggest that enhancing

Republican advantage in District 1 was not a motivation behind the map.

Shoring up the Republican partisanship of any one of Districts 1, 3, or 4 would have 

allowed the mapmaker to move areas along the internal borders of those districts to achieve a 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 12 of

22
13

desired partisan advantage in the others, but the map does not reflect such a strategy. There is 

no evidence to suggest that any areas were moved or not moved to shore up partisan advantages 

in district cores.

Conclusion

The City’s Proposed Remedy (“Res. 23-271”) for the Miami City Commission has not been 

substantially changed from the Enjoined Plan. The changes that have occurred appear to 

continue to be designed around racial and ethnic considerations. There is no basis on which to 

make the argument that these considerations were instead partisan in nature.

Dr. Carolyn Abott, Ph.D.

July 5, 2023, in New York City, NY

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 13 of

22
14

Appendices

Appendix 1. Plan District Demographics

Enjoined Plan

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 88,108 –340 –0.4 3.5 89.5 11.0 5.0 86.1 8.2

2 93,300 +4,852 +5.5 37.4 48.6 7.3 40.5 44.4 8.7

3 87,658 –790 –0.9 7.7 88.3 5.4 9.9 85.6 3.9

4 86,597 –1,851 –2.1 7.6 89.5 3.1 8.3 89.6 1.3

5 86,578 –1,870 –2.1 10.5 40.6 50.3 9.5 30.8 58.2

Overall Range 6,722 7.6

Version 12

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 87,465 –983 –1.1 3.4 89.7 10.9 5.0 85.9 8.3

2 88,749 +301 +0.3 36.1 49.9 7.7 38.1 46.3 9.7

3 89,479 +1,031 +1.2 10.7 84.4 5.4 13.8 81.4 3.8

4 89,390 +942 +1.1 7.4 89.8 3.1 8.0 89.8 1.4

5 87,158 –1,290 –1.5 10.8 40.7 50.0 9.8 31.4 57.0

Overall Range 2,276 2.6

Version 14 (D1 alt)

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 87,465 –983 –1.1 3.4 89.7 10.9 5.0 85.9 8.3

2 89,424 +976 +1.1 35.9 51.2 5.9 38.9 49.5 5.7

3 89,530 +1,082 +1.2 7.1 89.5 5.1 9.9 86.0 3.6

4 88,247 –201 –0.2 10.2 84.6 5.1 10.4 83.6 4.8

5 87,575 –873 –1.0 11.0 40.5 49.9 10.2 31.4 56.6

Overall Range 2,065 2.3

Version 12 D2 alt

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 87,465 –983 –1.1 3.4 89.7 10.9 5.0 85.9 8.3

2 90,146 +1,698 +1.9 36.7 49.4 7.6 38.4 45.9 9.6

3 88,806 +358 +0.4 10.1 85.0 5.5 12.7 82.6 3.8

4 89,390 +942 +1.1 7.4 89.8 3.1 8.0 89.8 1.4

5 86,434 –2,014 –2.3 10.5 40.6 50.3 9.6 31.4 57.4

Overall Range 3,712 4.2

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 14 of

22
15

Version 12 D5 alt

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 87,465 –983 –1.1 3.4 89.7 10.9 5.0 85.9 8.3

2 89,473 +1,025 +1.2 36.2 49.8 7.7 38.0 46.1 9.8

3 89,479 +1,031 +1.2 10.7 84.4 5.4 13.8 81.4 3.8

4 89,390 +942 +1.1 7.4 89.8 3.1 8.0 89.8 1.4

5 86,434 –2,014 –2.3 10.5 40.6 50.3 9.6 31.4 57.4

Overall Range 3,045 3.4

Version 12 D3 alt v1

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 87,465 –983 –1.1 3.4 89.7 10.9 5.0 85.9 8.3

2 89,593 +1,145 +1.3 36.5 49.6 7.7 38.6 45.8 9.6

3 89,194 +746 +0.8 10.5 84.5 5.4 12.6 82.7 3.8

4 89,555 +1,107 +1.3 7.2 90.0 3.1 7.9 90.0 1.4

5 86,434 –2,014 –2.3 10.5 40.6 50.3 9.6 31.4 57.4

Overall Range 3,159 3.6

Version 12 D3 alt v2

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 87,201 –1,247 –1.4 3.4 89.8 10.8 5.0 85.9 8.3

2 89,593 +1,145 +1.3 36.5 49.6 7.7 38.6 45.8 9.6

3 89,194 +746 +0.8 10.5 84.5 5.4 12.6 82.7 3.8

4 89,555 +1,107 +1.3 7.2 90.0 3.1 7.9 90.0 1.4

5 86,698 –1,750 –2.0 10.5 40.7 50.3 9.6 31.6 57.3

Overall Range 2,895 3.3

Resolution 23-271 - Version 12 D3 alt v3 - City's Proposed Remedial Plan

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 87,455 –993 –1.1 3.4 89.7 10.9 5.0 85.9 8.3

2 89,593 +1,145 +1.3 36.5 49.6 7.7 38.6 45.8 9.6

3 89,194 +746 +0.8 10.5 84.5 5.4 12.6 82.7 3.8

4 89,555 +1,107 +1.3 7.2 90.0 3.1 7.9 90.0 1.4

5 86,444 –2,004 –2.3 10.5 40.6 50.3 9.6 31.4 57.4

Overall Range 3,149 3.6

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 15 of

22
16

P1

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 86,569 –1,879 –2.1 14.9 70.1 16.1 14.8 66.3 16.5

2 89,078 +630 +0.7 31.2 57.9 5.8 33.2 56.3 6.4

3 87,666 –782 –0.9 5.8 90.8 5.2 7.4 88.6 3.6

4 89,091 +643 +0.7 3.5 95.0 3.0 4.5 94.1 0.8

5 89,837 +1,389 +1.6 13.8 41.2 45.2 12.4 32.3 53.0

Overall Range 3,268 3.7

P2

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 86,541 –1,907 –2.2 4.3 86.6 13.7 6.0 81.0 12.4

2 89,897 +1,449 +1.6 36.9 48.7 7.9 39.6 44.3 10.1

3 85,108 –3,340 –3.8 10.6 84.8 4.3 12.3 84.5 2.4

4 90,388 +1,940 +2.2 2.9 95.6 3.3 3.5 94.5 1.5

5 90,307 +1,859 +2.1 13.3 41.0 46.2 11.9 31.8 54.3

Overall Range 5,280 6.0

P3

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 87,607 –841 –1.0 5.6 85.4 13.0 7.2 80.6 11.7

2 89,522 +1,074 +1.2 37.9 48.2 7.0 41.1 44.2 8.2

3 85,973 –2,475 –2.8 10.6 84.9 4.3 12.2 84.6 2.4

4 90,388 +1,940 +2.2 2.9 95.6 3.3 3.5 94.5 1.5

5 88,751 +303 +0.3 11.3 41.1 48.8 10.1 31.6 56.5

Overall Range 4,415 5.0

P4

Dist. Total Pop. Pop. Dev. % Dev. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1 87,556 –892 –1.0 5.6 85.8 13.0 7.2 80.3 11.9

2 89,522 +1,074 +1.2 37.9 48.2 7.0 41.1 44.2 8.2

3 87,829 –619 –0.7 10.4 85.1 4.2 12.1 84.7 2.4

4 87,667 –781 –0.9 2.9 95.6 3.2 3.4 94.5 1.5

5 89,667 +1,219 +1.4 11.2 41.5 48.4 10.0 32.3 55.8

Overall Range 2,111 2.4

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 16 of

22
17

Appendix 2a. Areas Moved between Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271

Area # Description Movement WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop. Bounded by

6 Flagami (single block) 4 to 1 0.0 99.1 3.6 139 NW 3rd St, 4th Ave, 4th St, 45th Ave

7 Sewell Park 1 to 3 25.7 68.6 8.6 48 Dolphin Expy, Lawrence Canal, Miami River

8 Sewell Park 3 to 1 1.5 97.1 2.9 762 Dolphin Expy, Lawrence Canal, NW 7th St, 22nd 

Ave

9 Little Havana/Shenandoah 3 to 4 7.2 89.3 5.1 4,694

SW 32nd Ave, 5th St, 31st Ave, 4th St, 23rd Ave, 

8th St, 16th Ave, 22nd St, 17th Ave, 9th St, 27th 

Ave, 8th St

10 West Grove 4 to 2 31.7 59.2 7.1 1,597 US 1, SW 27th Ave, Bird Ave

11 Bay Heights to Brickell 2 to 3 41.0 43.6 5.2 8,304 SW/SE 7th St, Metromover, Brickell Plaza, S Miami 

Ave, Alatka St, US 1, I-95, Metrorail

12 West Brickell (single block) 3 to 2 45.9 42.1 4.7 1,360 Miami River, Metrorail, SW 7th St, 2nd Ave

13 Northeast Allapattah 1 to 5 1.0 80.2 29.2 805 NW 12th Ave, 36th St, 8th Ave, 34th St, 11th Ave, 

33rd Ct, 33rd St

14 Northeast Allapattah 5 to 1 2.4 66.3 37.5 286 I-95, NW 32nd St, 8th Ave, 35th St

15 Overtown 5 to 1 11.1 41.9 55.6 376 I-95, Dolphin Expy, NW 7th Ave, 22nd St

16 Overtown/Culmer 1 to 5 7.3 66.7 26.4 1,353 Dolphin Expy, NW 7th Ave, 8th St Rd, Seybold 

Canal

17 People’s BBQ block 1 to 5 0.0 33.3 66.7 10 I-95, NW 7th St, 4th Ave, 8th St

18 Baypoint/Morningside 5 to 2 30.6 50.6 8.6 342 Biscayne Blvd, Federal Hwy, NE 36th St

19 Omni 5 to 2 20.8 64.0 11.9 3,731 FEC Rwy, NE 19th St , NE 2nd Ave, NE/NW 10th St

20 Downtown 2 to 5 30.5 56.7 5.5 2,433 Miami River, Metrorail, SW 3rd St, S Miami Ave, SE 

2nd St, SE 2nd Ave

Total Moved 26,240

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 17 of

22
18

Appendix 2b. Overall Movement between Majority-Hispanic Districts, MajorityBlack District 5, and District 2 between Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271

Area # Description WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop.

6, 7, 8, 9 Areas moved among D1, D3, D4 6.4 90.4 4.8 5,643

10, 12, 13, 16, 17 Areas moved out of D1, D3, D4 

and into D2 or D5 25.6 58.8 14.3 5,125

11, 20 Areas moved out of D2 38.6 46.6 5.3 10,737

14, 15, 18, 19 Areas moved out of D5 19.8 61.2 16.6 4,735

Appendix 3. Cores of Enjoined Districts Remaining Intact in Res. 23-271

Dist. WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop.

1 3.4 90.0 10.6 85,892

2 37.2 48.8 7.5 82,563

3 7.1 89.0 5.4 80,842

4 7.2 90.1 3.0 84,861

5 9.9 39.3 52.5 81,843

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 18 of

22
19

Appendix 4. Areas Moved between Version 12 and Res. 23-271

Area # Description and Movement Between 

Enjoined, Version 12, and Res. 23-271 WVAP HVAP BVAP Total Pop. Bounded by

17 People's BBQ block moved from D1 to D3 in 

Res. 23-271 0.0 33.3 66.7 10 I-95, NW 7th St, 4th Ave, 8th St

21 North Grove area moved from D2 to D3 in 

Version 12, then back to D2 in Res. 23-271 54.8 35.9 3.3 1,672 US 1, SW 22nd Ave, Kirk St, S Bayshore Dr, Aviation Ave, SW 27th Ave

22 Shenandoah area moved from D3 to D4 in 

Version 12, then back to D3 in Res. 23-271 12.1 83.2 3.2 1,932 SW 17th Ave, 22nd St, 16th Ave, 8th St, 14th Ave, 3rd Ave, US 1

23 Little Havana area moved from D3 to D4 in 

Res. 23-271 3.0 94.8 4.3 2,097 SW 8th St, 32nd Ave, 5th St, 31st Ave, 4th St, 23rd Ave

24 Brickell/Simpson Park areas moved from D2 

to D3 in Res. 23-271 39.2 47.1 5.3 2,949 SW 25th Rd, I-95, Metrorail, SW 12th St, S Miami Ave; and S Miami Ave, SE 7th St, Brickell Place

25 Brickell area moved from D3 to D2 in Res. 

23-271 45.2 42.1 5.3 1,397 SW 7th St, 2nd Ave, Miami River, S Miami Ave

26

North end of Morningside moved from D2 to 

D5 in Version 12, then back to D2 in Res. 

23-271

41.9 42.8 11.8 724 Biscayne Bay, NE 55th Ter, Biscayne Blvd, NE 

61st St

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 19 of

22
20

Appendix 5. Other Areas of Comparison

Area # Description WVAP HVAP BVAP Total 

Pop Bounded by

27 South end of Morningside/Baypoint, kept 

in D2 in Version 12 39.5 44.7 10.1 1,980 Biscayne Bay, Julia Tuttle, Federal Hwy, NE 55th Ter

26 + 27 Entire Morningside/Baypoint area – moved 

into D5 in Version 14 and P1, P2, P3 40.1 44.2 10.6 2,704 Biscayne Bay, Julia Tuttle, Federal Hwy, Biscayne Blvd, NE 61st St

28 D5's Downtown appendage south of 

NW/NE 8th St retained from Enjoined Plan 21.1 47.4 32.5 2,848

Miami River, SW 1st St, I-95, NW/NE 8th St, 

NE/SE 2nd Ave, SE 2nd St, S Miami Ave, SW 3rd 

St, Metrorail

29

Entire Omni/Downtown area west of 

NE 2nd Ave included in D2 (including 

Condo Canyon)

20.8 62.9 12.7 5,703 FEC Rwy, NW 19th St, 2nd Ave, NE/NW 8th St

30 Bay Heights area added to D3 31.4 61.6 0.9 604 US 1, S Miami Ave, Alatka St

31 Entire Northeast Allapattah area included 

in D5 2.0 67.8 38.3 1,293 SR 112, I-95, NW 35th St, 8th Ave, 34th St, 11th Ave, 33rd Ct, 33rd St, 12th Ave

32 D1's entire riverside appendage 10.4 71.9 19.6 4,630 Miami River, Dolphin Expy, Seybold Canal, NW 8th 

St Rd, 8th St, 4th Ave, 7th St, I-95, SW 1st St

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 20 of

22
21

Appendix 6. Divisions of Overtown

Area # Description WVAP HVAP BVAP Total 

Pop Bounded by

34 “Historic Overtown” on De Grandy Slide 3.6 39.5 60.5 8,536 Dolphin Expy, I-95, NW 20th St, 1st Ave, FEC 

Rwy, NW 8th St, 8th St Rd, Seybold Canal

35 Areas of Overtown (City Code § 2-1051) 

excluded from De Grandy definition 9.1 67.6 24.6 4,394 Dolphin Expy, I-95, NW 21st Ter, 22nd St, 3rd Ave, 20th St, FEC Rwy, NW 3rd St, Miami River

36

Areas of Overtown (Greater Miami 

Convention & Victors Bureau/NET/MPD

definition) excluded from De Grandy definition

10.9 63.7 26.2 3,301 Dolphin Expy, I-95, NW 21st Ter, 22nd St, 3rd 

Ave, 20th St, FEC Rwy, NW 5th St, Miami River

37 3 Overtown blocks moved into D5 in Version 

12 D3 alt v2, then moved back into D1 5.3 70.2 35.6 254 NW 7th Ave, 8th St, 4th Ave, 7th St

38 14 Overtown blocks always kept in D1 2.9 76.5 23.6 2,589 NW 7th Ave, 7th St, I-95, 3rd St, Miami River

37 + 38 Total 17-block Overtown area in D1 (between 

NW 3rd and 8th Streets) 3.1 76.0 24.6 2,843 NW 7th Ave, 8th St, 4th Ave, 7th St, I-95, 3rd St, Miami River

39 Overtown area west of the Seybold Canal 

kept in D1 28.0 56.1 10.3 948 Dolphin Expy, Seybold Canal, NW 8th St Rd, 7th Ave, Miami River

40 Portion of Overtown (City Code) in D5 3.7 39.6 60.1 9,139

Dolphin Expy, I-95, NW 21st Ter, 22nd St, 3rd 

Ave, 20th St, FEC Rwy, NW 3rd St, I-95, NW 

7th St, 4th Ave, 8th St, 8th St Rd, Seybold 

Canal

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 21 of

22
22

Appendix 7. FDC-Miami Population and Placement in Different Plans

The Federal Detention Center (FDC) Miami is located at Block 1013 of Tract 37.06 in 

Miami-Dade County. The Census Bureau reports separately the incarcerated 

population. For this block, the incarcerated population is the same as the total 

population, meaning no non-incarcerated individuals were counted at this block. Below 

are the demographics of the FDC-Miami block, and which Commission district FDCMiami is located in under each of the redistricting plans.

Total Pop. WVAP HVAP BVAP WCVAP HCVAP BCVAP

1,407 20.7 40.5 43.7 12.3 40.3 47.4

Plan District Plan District Plan District

2013 Plan 2 Version 12 D5 alt 5 P1 1

Enjoined Plan 5 Version 12 D3 alt v1 5 P2 2

Version 12 5 Version 12 D3 alt v2 5 P3 1

Version 14 (D1 alt) 5 Version 12 D3 alt v3

(Res. 23-271) 5 P4 1

Version 12 D2 alt 5

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 22 of

22