1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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

GRACE, INC.; ENGAGE MIAMI, INC.;

SOUTH DADE BRANCH OF THE NAACP;

MIAMI-DADE BRANCH OF THE NAACP;

CLARICE COOPER; YANELIS VALDES; 

JARED JOHNSON; ALEXANDRA 

CONTRERAS; and STEVEN MIRO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

/

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiffs file this Supplemental Complaint to redress ongoing harm due to the City 

of Miami’s continued separation of its residents along racial lines into the five City Commission 

districts.

2. As alleged in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (ECF 23), the five Miami City 

Commission districts have been racially gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth 

Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

3. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and 

nominal damages, for the violation of their rights inflicted by the City’s redistricting plan enacted 

in 2022 (“2022 Plan” or “Enjoined Plan”). de 2022 Plan went into effect after its adoption in 

2022, and was used in the February 27, 2023 special election for District 2.

4. In 2023, in response to this Court’s preliminary injunction (ECF 60), the City 

redrew the Commission districts by enacting Res. 23-271 (“2023 Plan”). de 2023 Plan continues 

to separate Miamians along racial lines, is not justified by any compelling interest, and violates 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 1 of 23
2

Plaintiffs’ rights to the equal protection of the laws.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff GROVE RIGHTS AND COMMUNITY EQUITY, INC. (GRACE) is a 

nonprofit community-based membership organization serving Miami’s West Coconut Grove 

neighborhood since 2019. GRACE advocates for equitable economic development while 

preserving the historic culture and community of the West Grove. GRACE’s members, most of 

whom are Black, reside in Commission District 2 under the 2023 Plan.

6. Plaintiff ENGAGE MIAMI, INC. is a nonprofit membership organization centering 

young people’s participation in civic engagement, with members who are largely Gen Z and 

Millennial Black and Latino Miamians who reside in all five districts. Founded in 2015, the 

mission of Engage Miami is to build a more just, democratic, and sustainable Miami by developing 

a local culture of civic participation for young people that is bold, creative, and impactful.

7. Plaintiff SOUTH DADE BRANCH OF THE NAACP (South Dade NAACP) is a 

nonprofit membership organization serving Miami-Dade County south of Flagler Street.

8. Plaintiff MIAMI-DADE BRANCH OF THE NAACP (Miami-Dade NAACP) is a 

nonprofit membership organization serving Miami-Dade County north of Flagler Street.

9. de South Dade NAACP and Miami-Dade NAACP (together, NAACP Branches) 

are affiliate branches of the Florida State Conference of Branches and Youth Units of the NAACP, 

the oldest civil rights organization in the state, formed in 1909. deir mission is to ensure the 

political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racebased discrimination. Consistent with this mission, the NAACP Branches advocate for the voting 

rights of African Americans and other voters of color in Miami, including their members. de 

NAACP Branches’ members—most of whom are Black—reside in all five districts (the South 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 2 of 23
3

Dade NAACP’s in Districts 2, 3, and 4; the Miami-Dade NAACP’s in Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).

10. If the 2023 Plan is not enjoined, the members of GRACE, Engage Miami, and the 

NAACP Branches (together, “Organizational Plaintiffs”) will be harmed by living and voting in 

unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered districts.

11. Plaintiff CLARICE COOPER is Black, was a resident of District 2 under the 2022

Plan and is a resident of District 2 under the 2023 Plan.

12. Plaintiff JARED JOHNSON is Black, was a resident of District 3 under the 2022 

Plan and is a resident of District 3 under the 2023 Plan.

13. Plaintiff STEVEN MIRO is Hispanic and Cuban American, was a resident of 

District 3 under the 2022 Plan and is a resident of District 3 under the 2023 Plan.

14. Plaintiff ALEXANDRA CONTRERAS is Latina and Cuban American, and was a 

resident of District 4 under the 2022 Plan and of District 4 under the 2023 Plan.

15. Plaintiff YANELIS VALDES is Latina and Cuban American, was a resident of 

District 5 under the 2022 Plan, and is a resident of District 2 under the 2023 Plan.

16. de 2023 Plan placed Plaintiffs Cooper, Johnson, and Valdes, and Organizational 

Plaintiffs’ members, in districts where they are not the predominant racial group. de 2023 Plan 

sent the message that their commissioner’s job is to represent the predominant group, not them.

17. de 2023 Plan placed Plaintiffs Miro and Contreras, and Organizational Plaintiffs’ 

members, in districts where they are the predominant racial group. de 2023 Plan sent the message 

that they were placed in their districts simply because of their race.

18. Individual Plaintiffs and Organizational Plaintiffs’ members are further harmed 

because the 2023 Plan splits up their neighborhoods—and they are split along racial lines.

19. Defendant CITY OF MIAMI is a Florida municipality. As a municipal corporation

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 3 of 23
4

established under Florida law, Miami has the authority to regulate and conduct its elections, 

including establishing its Commission district boundaries, consistent with state law. Fla. Const. 

art. VIII, §§ 2(b), 3; Fla. Stat. § 100.3605; Miami Code of Ordinances (City Code) ch. 16.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20. dis Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, and 2202, as well 

as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the 

United States.

21. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

because the Defendant resides in this District and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the 

claim occurred in this District.

22. dis Court has personal jurisdiction over the City of Miami.

SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS

I. 5e 2023 Redistricting Process

23. On May 3, 2023, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report & Recommendation in 

this case (ECF 52), recommending that this Court grant Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction (ECF 26) and enjoin implementation of the five districts in the 2022 Plan.

24. de City began a remedial mapmaking process shortly after the R&R.

25. At the Commission’s May 11 meeting, Commissioner Díaz de la Portilla suggested 

returning to at-large elections, noting “then there’s no debate about where the lines are drawing, 

whether it’s . . . like Flagami is cut in half where Allapattah’s cut in half.”

26. He doubled down on the Commission’s view that representation was racially 

categorical, and that redistricting’s goal was to reserve one Anglo and one Black seat, and to avoid 

having five Hispanic commissioners.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 4 of 23
5

27. Díaz de la Portilla discussed why Miami originally created single-member districts 

and his desire to maintain racially categorical representation:

Because what happened, the reason why single member districts 

were created back then was to make sure the diversity that Miami 

has, as we said, it’s already in on the record, doesn’t matter if I say 

it again, right . . . the reason [it] was created was to keep harmony 

in our city because we have a very diverse community . . . we want 

an African American representation, we want a non-Hispanic white 

representation, we want that.

28. According to Díaz de la Portilla, the commissioners had been trying to “be fair and 

to provide representation for all communities in our city.”

29. Commissioner Reyes agreed with him, noting: “[S]ince day one when their 

boundaries were drawn, it was to assure diversity in the city of Miami. And the only way that we 

can assure diversity of the city of Miami is by—I’m going to call a spade a spade—but 

gerrymandering.”

30. Commissioners Díaz de la Portilla and Reyes stressed that what the Commission 

did in the Enjoined Plan was right.

31. Concluding the discussion, the Commission voted unanimously (with 

Commissioner Carollo absent) to direct their consultant Miguel De Grandy to meet with them “and 

start redrawing a map, that will guarantee that ten years from now we’re going to have the diversity 

. . . 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.”

32. de same day, the Court held a telephone conference and suggested both sides 

prepare for remapping.

33. de Court issued a preliminary injunction on May 23 and ordered mediation. ECF 

60–61.

34. dat night, Plaintiffs submitted two proposed maps—P1 and P2—to the 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 5 of 23
6

Commission, along with a letter explaining them.

35. On June 9, Plaintiffs shared supplemental information on P1 and P2’s compliance 

with the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs followed that up with a full analysis from Dr. Bryant Moy 

on June 12.

36. de Parties mediated on June 13, adjourning at 6:20 P.M.

37. Responding to mediation discussions, commissioners’ comments on P1 and P2, and 

community input, Plaintiffs submitted a third map (P3) during mediation.

38. After 5 P.M. on Friday, June 9, the Commission noticed a special redistricting 

meeting for 10 A.M. June 14. de agenda listed a single “Discussion Item” focused on redistricting.

39. On June 14, the morning after mediation, the Commission met. Plaintiff Valdes 

gave a statement for the Plaintiffs, and Rev. Nathaniel Robinson III of Plaintiff GRACE also spoke.

40. De Grandy publicly presented his “draft plan proposal,” named Version 12 

(“V12”), marking the first time the City shared a map in the interim remedial process.

41. De Grandy developed V12, and other drafts, after individual private meetings with 

commissioners to “amalgamate” their input.

42. dere are no records of those private meetings.

43. de Commission debated proposed changes to V12 and then took a recess after 103 

minutes in session.

44. During the recess, De Grandy met privately with commissioners and drew 

alternative maps at each’s request.

45. dere are no records of these private meetings, either.

46. Commissioners returned from recess for a final 44-minute session where each 

pushed for changes to their districts. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 6 of 23
7

47. Díaz de la Portilla proposed “Version 14,” a draft De Grandy had previously drawn, 

as the D1 Alt. Map; Covo, Carollo, and King each proposed maps of their own based on V12 (the 

D2, D3, and D5 Alt. Maps); and Reyes stood by the original V12. 

48. After some discussion, De Grandy and counsel Christopher Johnson modified the 

D3 Alt. Map to move a portion of Overtown from District 1 to 5, in a change agreed upon by King 

and Díaz de la Portilla, resulting in “D3 Alt. v.2.” 

49. After Díaz de la Portilla objected to the change going too far, some territory was 

moved back into District 1, yielding “D3 Alt. v.3.” 

50. de Commission approved that plan on a 4-1 vote, and it was later memorialized in 

writing as Res. 23-271.

51. de resolution and map were not properly noticed under the Sunshine Law and City 

Code.

52. Mayor Suarez let Res. 23-271 become law without his signature and seven days 

later, the City filed Res. 23-271 with the Court.

53. de resolution submitted to the Court on the docket was drafted after June 14 and 

never voted on by the Commission.

54. There is a discrepancy between the map the Commission passed on June 14 and the 

plan submitted to the Court in Res. 23-271. The discrepancy falls on the border between Districts 

2 and 3.

II. Racial Considerations Predominated in the Line-Drawing Process

55. Just as the 2022 Plan, the Commission’s overriding goal in crafting the 2023 Plan 

was to separate Hispanic, Black, and Anglo voters as much as possible into “their” respective 

districts.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 7 of 23
8

56. Improper racial considerations predominated throughout the Commission’s linedrawing process. Race-neutral, traditional redistricting criteria were subordinated to race in the 

design of each of the districts.

57. dese race-based decisions resulted in a map that splits neighborhoods, ignores 

traditional redistricting criteria, and eschews fair, public-minded representation.

58. On May 11, Commissioners repeated their attitude that representation on the 

Commission was racially categorical, that the redistricting’s goal was to draw one Black, one 

Anglo, and three Hispanic seats (in part to avoid having all five commissioners be Hispanic), and 

that they had done the right thing.

59. de Commission unanimously directed De Grandy to “start drawing a map that will 

guarantee that ten years from now we’re going to have the diversity . . . in the city government and 

we are going to elect an African American to see that they’re going to be properly represented as 

well as other groups”—i.e., the two other groups the Commission had just discussed, Hispanics 

and Anglos.

60. Referring to Allen v. Milligan, 143 S. Ct. 1487 (June 8, 2023), Commissioner King

asserted in a June 13 news article, “de Supreme Court ruling proves that our original redistricting 

was constitutional and in the best interest of our community.” She went on, “My top priority is 

keeping District 5 neighborhoods intact . . . Overtown, Liberty City, Little Haiti, Wynwood and 

the Upper East Side share the same needs. It would be unconstitutional to redraw those lines.”

61. Taken together, commissioners’ statements before De Grandy even publicized his 

first draft evinced an intent to pass the same map, for the same reasons, under a new name.

62. Where, as here, race is the central consideration in mapmaking and traditional, raceneutral criteria are ignored, race predominates. Unless the use of race is necessary to ensure fair 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 8 of 23
9

and equal opportunity for voters of color to participate in the electoral process, its use is 

constitutionally suspect.

63. But rather than advancing representation, the Commission continued racial

separation.

III. 5e Commission Adopted a Nearly Identical Map with the 2023 Plan

64. de 2023 Plan is 94.1% the same as the 2022 Plan. Only 5.9% of Miamians are 

moved into a different district.

65. Narrowing in on the three Hispanic-majority districts which the Commission 

previously sought to optimally “balance” with as high Hispanic populations as possible, 97.8% of 

Miamians who were sorted into those districts remain there in the 2023 Plan.

66. de makeup of the 5.9% of Miamians moved confirms the map’s continued racebased nature.

67. 5,125 residents were moved into Districts 2 and 5 from the three packed Hispanic 

districts, but those residents are disproportionately less Hispanic (59% HVAP compared to the 

enjoined districts’ 88–90%).

68. de 4,735 residents moved out of the 2022 District 5 are just 16.6% Black, 

compared to the enjoined District 5’s 50.3% BVAP.

69. Meanwhile, 90% HVAP areas are shuffled among Districts 1, 3, and 4, creating the 

illusion they changed while maintaining their demographics.

IV. Changes Made on June 14 Walked Back Closer to the Enjoined Plan

70. Commissioners made several changes to De Grandy’s Version 12 to claw back even 

more elements of the Enjoined Plan that Version 12 had altered.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 9 of 23
10

A. 'e District 2/3 Border in the North Grove and Brickell

71. Carollo requested moving an area of the North Grove between 22nd and 27th

Avenues which Version 12 added to District 3.

72. At Carollo’s request, this area was returned to District 2.

73. dis area is one of the whitest in the city (54.8% WVAP, 35.9% HVAP), and in fact 

is the exact same area Carollo previously compared to the bone in a steak, in contrast to Hispanicrich “sirloin” areas elsewhere.

74. To compensate for the lost population, Carollo requested that District 3 add a 

plurality-HVAP area along South Miami Avenue to Brickell.

75. Somehow, an additional area of Brickell was moved into District 2, forming an 

irregular finger along the Miami River. dat movement was never requested or explained publicly. 

It is plurality-white.

B. 'e District 3/4 Border

76. Carollo’s only other requested change was along the District 3/4 border.

77. Version 12 shifted the border three blocks eastward in Shenandoah and Silver Bluff, 

from 17th Avenue under the 2013 and Enjoined Plans, to 14th Avenue. dis united all of Silver 

Bluff in District 4 for the first time, and meant most of Shenandoah—all but two-block-wide slice 

from 12th to 14th Avenues—was united in District 4 as well.

78. Carollo requested restoring the boundary to 17th Avenue south of Coral Way, while 

also restoring “in that same line as before” an area further north along SW 8th and 9th Streets that 

both he and Reyes wanted snapped back to the enjoined boundary, “keeping it in District 3 like it 

was.”

79. As for the 17th Avenue/Coral Way restoration, after City Attorney Méndez recast 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 10 of 23
11

Carollo’s “main concerns [as] to keep certain communities together and certain neighborhoods 

together,” Carollo justified “leav[ing] that section as it was” for “the simple purpose of the park 

we’re building . . . in that part of Silver Bluff.”

80. But earlier, he stated the park was still on the District 4 side of the line.

81. Indeed, the park (Silver Bluff Dog Run Park) is five blocks from the line, on the far 

side within District 4.

82. As a result of Carollo’s request, nearly 2,000 people between 14th and 17th Avenues 

moved back into District 3. In response, “to equalize population,” De Grandy moved from District 

3 to 4 an area in Auburndale/Little Havana—most of which had been in District 4 under the 2013 

Plan.

83. dus, the District 3/4 border walked back closer to the Enjoined (and 2013) Plan at 

commissioners’ requests, continuing the division of “distinct” and “historical” Shenandoah, Silver 

Bluff, and Little Havana that commissioners had kept divided in the Enjoined Plan to balance 

Hispanic populations and facilitate racial separation.

C. Morningside

84. Version 12 proposed moving part of Morningside between 55th Terrace and 61st

Street out of District 2 and into District 5. At 11.8% BVAP and 41.9% WVAP, the area (Area 26) 

has a much lower Black population and much higher white population than District 5.

85. And indeed, Version 12’s District 5 BVAP drops from the Enjoined Plan’s 50.3% 

to 50.0%.

86. Covo, who had previously given De Grandy a plan that moved all of Morningside 

into District 5, objected to Morningside being split, but acknowledged that parts of the 2013 

District 2 would have to be moved out to equalize population.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 11 of 23
12

87. Realizing that part of Morningside had moved into District 5, King objected.

88. De Grandy asked if she preferred to keep the neighborhood whole by including all 

of it into District 5, but King said, “No, I don’t think that any of Morningside should go to my 

district. Wouldn’t that be splitting up neighborhoods?”

89. King requested De Grandy bring back a revision with all of Morningside restored 

to District 2. The two then had a mostly-inaudible sidebar.

90. During the recess, King commented in her office that she was “looking out for the 

minorities” or had “to look out for the minorities” and did not want a “white affluent” area or areas 

in her district.

91. de only change from Version 12 made in King’s proposed alternative map, the D5 

Alt., was returning that piece of Morningside to District 2. 

92. dat change was incorporated into the 2023 Plan.

93. Significantly, the Commission rejected at least four alternative plans that avoided 

“splitting up neighborhoods” in and around Morningside by adding the neighborhood to District 

5.

94. de 2023 Plan excludes from District 5 the low-BVAP neighborhoods south of the 

existing district boundary.

D. 'e Commission Defined Overtown Along Racial Lines

95. de only other change to Version 12 impacting District 5 was in Overtown.

96. King and the Overtown CRA sharply criticized Plaintiffs for moving part of 

Overtown out of District 5 in P1 and P2.

97. Responding to this criticism and mediation discussions, Plaintiffs submitted P3, 

which unites in District 5 all parts of Overtown that had been in the Enjoined District 5 (following 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 12 of 23
13

the CRA boundary), plus reunited eleven HVAP-majority Overtown blocks that the Enjoined Plan 

had moved into District 1 (between NW 5th and 8th Streets, from I-95 to 7th Avenue).

98. Neither De Grandy nor commissioners discussed P3’s treatment of Overtown. 

Instead, De Grandy criticized P1 and P2’s “severing parts of Overtown” and explained how 

Version 12 “keeps historic Overtown intact in District 5” at King’s request.

99. Contrasting Plaintiffs’ “own impression of where Overtown is,” De Grandy 

explained how Google Maps and the City’s now-defunct Neighborhood Enhancement Team 

(NET) “shows a configuration consistent with our understanding” and how, “as [he] understand[s] 

the community of Overtown,” Version 12 included all of it in District 5. His presentation included 

slides with his definition of “Historic Overtown.”

100. But De Grandy’s Overtown excludes large areas that are part of the Google Maps 

and NET definitions of Overtown—the very sources he cited. 

101. dose definitions are shared by the City’s Police Department (MPD) and the 

Convention & Visitors Bureau (GMCVB). 

102. de area De Grandy defined as Overtown is 60.5% BVAP. de parts of the 

Google/NET/MPD/GMCVB definition De Grandy excluded are disproportionately non-Black 

(63.7% HVAP, 26.2% BVAP).

103. Further, the City Code has an official definition of Overtown that is even broader 

than Google/NET/MPD/GMCVB. City Code § 2-1051.

104. de parts of the City Code definition De Grandy excluded from his neighborhood 

boundary are less Black, and more Hispanic.

105. 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, with his definition shoring up the existing 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 13 of 23
14

racial composition of District 5 and the Hispanic supermajority in District 1. 

106. No commissioner objected to his definition of Overtown that surgically excludes

Hispanic-majority areas, and the 2023 Plan tracks this division.

107. de Commission did object, however, to one small part of Version 12’s boundary 

in Overtown. King requested adding to District 5 a restaurant, People’s Bar-B-Que, located in 

Overtown under the Google/NET/MPD/GMCVB definition and City Code definition, but outside 

Overtown under De Grandy’s definition.

108. Díaz de la Portilla consented to the change—stressing only the restaurant should 

move, nothing more—and the restaurant moved into District 5 in the D3 Alt. Map v.2.

109. But De Grandy and counsel Chris Johnson incurred too much into the Hispanicmajority part of Overtown for Díaz de la Portilla’s taste, moving four whole city blocks between 

NW 7th and 8th Streets.

110. Díaz de la Portilla directed De Grandy and Johnson to restore to District 1 all but 

the single block with the restaurant, which they did in the final map. 

111. de three blocks returned to District 1 are over 70% Hispanic.

112. Adding just the restaurant block deviates as little as possible from the Enjoined Plan 

in this area.

113. de block’s 10 residents are two-thirds Black.

114. de line between Districts 1 and 5 in the Overtown area is predominantly a function 

of the Commission’s goal to hew to the Enjoined Plan and separate Hispanic from Black residents.

V. 5e Parts of Version 12 the Commission Chose to Accept Were Race-Based, Too

A. Avoiding “Packing Hispanics”

115. de Commission’s treatment of Districts 1, 3, and 4 was driven by a desire to avoid 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 14 of 23
15

“packing Hispanic voters” into a single district, and optimally “balance” the Hispanic population 

among the three districts at a uniformly high level.

116. One of the first criticisms of P1 and P2 lodged during the Commission’s meeting 

was how they “intentionally pack the more conservative Hispanic voters in the western areas of 

the city” into District 4.

117. De Grandy commented that “the plaintiffs’ plan was designed to concentrate the 

most conservative voters into District 4. And you see it right there,” showing a slide noting 95.03 

and 95.55% HVAP in P1 and P2

118. To fix the “packing” of Hispanics, Version 12 “restored [District 1’s] connection to 

. . . the western part of the city” where “the great majority of Hispanic voters live.” 

119. Except for a single block, District 1’s boundary is identical to the Enjoined (and 

2013) Plan from the city limit at 65th Avenue all the way to 22nd.

1

120. Satisfied by the “restoration” of the Enjoined Plan’s optimal division of Hispanic 

residents, the Commission left this line untouched on June 14.

B. Adding Back an Area “Where the Hispanic Voters Live” to District 3

121. Along the District 2/3 border, De Grandy proposed moving the Bay Heights region 

of Coconut Grove from District 2 into 3.

122. In the Commission’s first redistricting process, Bay Heights was an area Díaz de la 

Portilla named specifically as “where the Hispanic voters live,” suggesting adding it and other 

parts of the Grove to Districts 3 and 4 because “there’s ethnic diversity in Coconut Grove too.” 

1 de fewer than 1,000 people moved between Districts 1, 3, and 4 along the District 1 border 

swapped high-Hispanic areas between the predominantly Hispanic districts, thus did not alter the 

racial “balance” the plan achieved.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 15 of 23
16

123. Following this direction, De Grandy’s Feb. 7, 2022 draft moved Bay Heights into 

District 3. 

124. After Russell objected, De Grandy restored Bay Heights to District 2 in the Feb. 

22, 2022 Base Plan, instead adding to District 3 another “ethnically diverse” part of the Grove 

“with similar demographics” around Natoma Manors, ensuring District 3’s HVAP dropped only a 

tenth of a point.

125. Nonetheless, Bay Heights’ high Hispanic population was the subject of later 

discussion, and Carollo even expressed interest in adding the area back to District 3 and “tak[ing] 

it all the way down to Simpson Park” northward. But the Enjoined Plan kept Bay Heights in 

District 2.

126. In Version 12, De Grandy again moved Bay Heights—and its 62% HVAP—into 

District 3.

127. Just as in 2022, Carollo was happy to add it, and again requested “taking it all the 

way down to Simpson Park,” a request accommodated in the 2023 Plan.

128. As in the Enjoined Plan, the whitest and northernmost parts of Brickell were kept 

out of District 3.

129. dree minutes before the Commission voted on the D3 Alt. Map v.3, Covo—who 

wanted to unify as much of the Grove as possible in District 2—questioned why Bay Heights had 

to be moved and asked if keeping it in District 2 would “make a real difference in the numbers” 

for population equality. 

130. De Grandy’s response: “It would make a difference,” suggesting it would “increase 

the deviation” and cause ripple effects.

131. But simply moving Bay Heights’ 604 residents from District 3 to 2 would better 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 16 of 23
17

equalize District 3’s population (going from +746 to +142 from ideal) and raise the plan’s overall 

range to just 4.2%.

132. dat range is well within the 10% range De Grandy repeatedly advised Carollo and 

King was permissible minutes prior, and less than the Enjoined Plan’s 7.6%.

133. dus, the Commission adopted Res. 23-271 with Natoma (and its “similar 

demographics”) retained in District 3, plus the 62%-HVAP Bay Heights—“where the Hispanic 

voters live” added too.

VI. District-by-District, Race Predominated in the 2023 Plan

A. District 2

134. Race predominated in the design of District 2.

135. District 2 remains “not compact,” a “relatively thin strip confined to the coast, 

extending from the northeast in the Morningside area . . . and continuing southwest along the water 

through Coconut Grove.” R&R at 72.

136. To the north, District 2 retains “white affluent” Morningside, and adds a thin, lowBVAP adjacent strip.

137. de border zig-zags from NE 2nd Avenue, to the railroad tracks, back to 2nd, and 

back to the tracks to retain whiter Condo Canyon, add an additional lower-BVAP area around 

Omni, and separate higher-BVAP areas of Downtown kept in District 5.

138. To the south, “ethnically diverse” areas of the Grove “where the Hispanic voters 

live” are either kept in District 3 (Natoma), or moved back in after having been returned to District 

2 under the Enjoined Plan for non-racial reasons (Bay Heights to Simpson Park).

139. Whiter areas on Brickell’s north end remain excised from District 3, achieved via 

an irregular finger.

140. District 2 retains 92.2% of its enjoined population.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 17 of 23
18

141. Its compactness scores on the Polsby-Popper, convex hull, and Reock measures are 

identical to the enjoined District 2.

B. District 5

142. Race predominated in the design of District 5.

143. de 2023 Plan’s District 5 is driven by a decision to define every distant corner of 

the enjoined District 5 as part of a common “community of interests,” locking in place the 

unconstitutional borders from the get-go.

144. Commissioner King delineated a non-negotiable list of neighborhoods to ensure the 

replication of the enjoined District 5’s boundaries—including Overtown (itself racially defined), 

Liberty City, Little Haiti, Wynwood, and the Upper East Side.

145. Together, these areas constitute every corner of the enjoined District 5 except its 

Downtown tail. But King requested specific landmarks at the extreme southern end of the 

Downtown appendage too, yielding jagged edges that scooped up FDC-Miami and its 

disproportionately Black inmate population (just as in the Enjoined Plan), while carefully avoiding 

less-Black areas like “Condo Canyon” and Overtown south of NW 8th Street that the enjoined 

District 5 excluded.

146. Indeed, the 2023 Plan moves from District 5 to 2 an area around Omni (which the 

Enjoined Plan moved from District 2 to 5, and which King neglected to include in her “community 

of interests”) that is even less Black than the Condo Canyon corridor immediately south (11.9% 

versus 14.2%).

147. District 5’s incursion into Northeast Allapattah across I-95 and SR 112 remains too, 

reconfigured slightly, but still dividing the neighborhood along racial lines by following local 

streets.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 18 of 23
19

148. de Commission rejected adding adjacent areas like Morningside and Edgewater 

because of their whiter makeup.

149. Just as in 2022, the Commission rejected plans with sub-50% BVAPs, and inched 

the BVAP back up to 50.3%, from Version 12’s 50.0%, by restoring the Enjoined Plan’s raciallymotivated Morningside/Upper East Side border.

150. de new District 5 retains 94.7% of the enjoined population.

151. de new District 5 is less compact than the enjoined District 5 based on the PolsbyPopper, Reock, and Convex Hull measures.

C. Districts 1, 3, and 4

152. Race predominated in the design of Districts 1, 3, and 4 as well.

153. de three predominantly Hispanic districts continue to be driven by a desire to 

optimally “balance” the Hispanic population and avoid concentrating Hispanic voters into one 

95%+ HVAP district.

154. Together, these districts are 97.8% the same as the Enjoined Plan; individually, they 

high core retention from 90.6 to 98.2%.

155. de District 1/4 and District 3/4 borders maintain the nearly untouched division of 

Flagami, Silver Bluff, Shenandoah, and Little Havana to balance Hispanic population and 

“preserv[e] the racial and ethnic composition of the Commission.” R&R 75.

156. District 1 maintains the “staircase-like stepping pattern in its northeastern corner in 

Allapattah,” reconfigured slightly. R&R 74.

157. It maintains “an appendage extending toward Downtown Miami along the Miami 

River,” “described by the Commissioners as an ‘attractive’ area that was ‘mainly Hispanic or 

Anglo.’” Id.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 19 of 23
20

158. It excluded De Grandy’s racially-defined Overtown, while scooping up Overtown 

landmarks in majority-HVAP areas.

159. District 3 became less compact, even as it smoothed out its “ethnically diverse” 

Natoma Manors appendage by adding Bay Heights “where the Hispanic voters live,” all while 

minimizing additions from the whiter northern end of Brickell.

VII. Lack of Narrow Tailoring to Achieve

a Compelling Interest in Racial Predominance

160. Where, as here, race was the predominant factor in the government’s decisionmaking, strict scrutiny is triggered and “[t]he burden . . . shifts to the [government] to prove that 

its race-based sorting of voters serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to that end.” 

Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1464 (2017) (internal quotations omitted). Traditionally, 

compliance with the Voting Rights Act, namely Section 2, has served as the primary justification 

for predominant considerations of race. de Commission’s use of race, however, was not narrowly 

tailored to any compelling government interest, including compliance with the VRA.

161. To ensure its use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve VRA compliance, the 

Commission was obligated to assess the level of minority citizen voting-age population or 

registered voters necessary for those voters to have the opportunity to usually elect their candidates 

of choice.

162. Despite their facial concern for protecting diverse representation, neither the 

Commission nor its consultants took steps to meaningfully assess VRA compliance. dere is no 

indication the Commission conducted an analysis of racially polarized voting (RPV) or any other 

analysis key to assessing VRA compliance.

163. Instead, the Commission carried forward the blanket racial target adopted in the 

2022 Plan and sought to increase the Black, Anglo, and Hispanic populations of the respective 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 20 of 23
21

districts as much as possible.

164. Furthermore, the Commission ignored the functional analyses and evidence-based 

assessments Plaintiffs provided that indicated what population or registered voter percentage 

would afford Black voters an ability to elect candidates of choice.

165. de City’s only comment on Plaintiffs’ analysis was De Grandy’s comment

concluding that “plaintiffs’ plan may also negatively impact the ability of Black voters to elect a 

candidate of choice throughout the decade in D5,” without explaining how he expected their 

margins (ranging from 56.4 to 82.7%, compared to 58.4 to 84.3% in the Enjoined Plan) to decline 

such that Black voters’ choice would fail to usually prevail.

166. De Grandy’s VRA analysis boiled down to “keeping as many communities of 

interest”—King’s proxies for the enjoined District 5—“together as feasible.”

167. De Grandy advised that the D1 Alt.—which kept all of King’s proxies but had nearidentical BVAP and BCVAP to P3—was VRA-compliant, even when he concluded Plaintiffs’ 

maps weren’t.

168. de Commission made changes to Version 12 to make District 5 even more Black, 

removing Morningside at King’s request.

169. de Commission rejected proposals to solve the problem of splitting Morningside 

by uniting it within District 5. dose proposals would have yielded a sub-50% BVAP.

170. And commissioners ensured not one inch of Hispanic-majority parts of Overtown 

moved into District 5.

171. drough these changes, District 5’s BVAP increased from 50.0 to 50.3%—the same 

arbitrary numerical target as the Enjoined Plan.

172. Without conducting a functional analysis of RPV, the Commission’s race-based 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 21 of 23
22

map drawing was not narrowly tailored to achieve VRA compliance.

173. de Commission identified no other compelling interest to justify its use of race 

when it drew the 2023 Plan.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Racial Gerrymandering 

in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

174. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

175. de Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in relevant part: “No 

State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

176. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, a racial classification 

is prohibited unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

177. As alleged in detail above, race was the predominant factor in the design of all five 

Miami City Commission districts. Race predominated over all other redistricting criteria when 

each of these districts was drawn.

178. de use of race as the predominant factor in creating the districts was not narrowly 

tailored to advance any compelling state interests, including compliance with the VRA.

179. Consequently, the districts do not survive strict scrutiny.

180. derefore, the districts violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause 

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court enter judgment in their favor and:

A. Declare the five Miami City Commission districts to be unconstitutional in 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 22 of 23
23

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as racially gerrymandered;

B. Permanently enjoin the City and its officers and agents from calling, conducting, 

supervising, or certifying any elections under the unconstitutional districts;

C. Order the City to hold special elections to limit the harm to Plaintiffs should 

adequate relief be unavailable prior to the next regularly scheduled elections;

D. Award each Plaintiff nominal damages of $100;

E. Award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees in this action;

F. Award Plaintiffs their costs of suit;

G. Retain jurisdiction to render any further orders this Court may deem necessary; and

H. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August, 2023,

/s/ Nicholas L.V. Warren

Nicholas L.V. Warren (FBN 1019018) Neil A. Steiner*

ACLU Foundation of Florida Dechert LLP

336 East College Avenue, Suite 203 dree Bryant Park

Tallahassee, FL 32301 1095 Avenue of the Americas

(786) 363-1769 New York, NY 10036

nwarren@aclufl.org (212) 698-3822

neil.steiner@dechert.com

Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882)

Caroline A. McNamara (FBN 1038312) Christopher J. Merken*

ACLU Foundation of Florida Dechert LLP

4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400 Cira Centre

Miami, FL 33134 2929 Arch Street

(786) 363-2714 Philadelphia, PA 19104

dtilley@aclufl.org (215) 994-2380

cmcnamara@aclufl.org christopher.merken@dechert.com

* Admitted pro hac vice

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2023 Page 23 of 23