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.

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS

TO THE CITY’S PROPOSED INTERIM REMEDIAL PLAN

Nicholas L.V. Warren

ACLU Foundation of Florida

336 East College Avenue, Ste. 203

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(786) 363-1769

nwarren@aclufl.org

Daniel B. Tilley

Caroline A. McNamara

ACLU Foundation of Florida

4343 West Flagler Street, Ste. 400

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

dtilley@aclufl.org

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

Neil A. Steiner*

Dechert LLP

Three Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 698-3822

neil.steiner@dechert.com

Christopher J. Merken*

Dechert LLP

Cira Centre

2929 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

(215) 994-2380

christopher.merken@dechert.com

* Admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 1 of 32
2

INTRODUCTION

Six weeks ago, this Court found that all five districts in the City’s 2022 redistricting plan 

(“Enjoined Plan”) were substantially likely to be unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, and that 

Plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction to avoid serious and irreparable harm. ECF 60 

(“PI”). Le Court adopted Judge Louis’s detailed R&R (ECF 52), finding that the Enjoined Plan 

embodied commissioners’ goals that “Districts 1, 3, and 4 remain ‘Hispanic districts’” with as 

high, optimally “balance[d]” Hispanic populations as possible, “that District 2 remain an ‘Anglo 

district,’” and that “District 5 would be a ‘Black district’” shaped by an “arbitrary” Black votingage population (BVAP) quota of 50%. PI 10, 19; R&R 68.

Le City has doubled down. Rather than accepting this Court’s findings and abandoning 

their goal of dividing the city along racial lines to achieve “categorical representation,” ECF 24‐12 

(Tr. 2) 13:11, the City created a “new” map that closely resembles the Enjoined Plan. Le City

pursued this goal from the moment the R&R first indicated it might have to create a new map. Le 

City ignored Florida’s Sunshine Law and worked in the shadows to replicate the Enjoined Plan 

with just enough difference to pretend otherwise. But the result is clear: under the City’s 

proposal—dubbed Resolution 23-271—94.1% of Miamians remain in the same district. ECF 82-

11 (McCartan Rep.) at 8. Le City, in other words, chose to ignore the Court’s injunction and 

passed the same map.

Because this Court has “its own duty to cure illegally gerrymandered districts,” it cannot 

accept Res. 23-271. North Carolina v. Covington (“Covington II”), 138 S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (2018). 

While the City’s map does not remedy the violations the Court identified, Plaintiffs presented

several (P1, P2, P3) that do, and submit one (P4) to the Court. P4 also complies with all other legal 

requirements and honors the City’s legitimate, non-race-based policy choices. Le Court should 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 2 of 32
3

thus reject Res. 23-271 and adopt P4 as a “constitutionally conforming remedial map.” PI 32.

THE CITY’S INTERIM REMEDIAL PROCESS

Le City’s remedial process began shortly after the R&R. 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.” ECF 82-1 (5/11 Tr.) 4:2–4. 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. Id. 4:16–20, 7:18–

19. Reyes agreed. Id. 5:13, 5:20, 6:4–14 (“[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.”); see also id. 17:9–

13. Le two stressed that what the Commission did in the Enjoined Plan was right. Id. 8:12–16, 

13:8–14, 16:17-20. Concluding the discussion, the Commission voted unanimously (with Carollo 

absent, ECF 82-3) to direct 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.” ECF 82-1 17:10-13, 17:14–21, 18:15–23.

Le same day, the Court held a telephone conference and suggested both sides prepare for

remapping. Le Court issued its injunction on May 23 and ordered mediation. PI; ECF 61. Lat 

night, Plaintiffs submitted P1 and P2 to the Commission, along with a letter explaining them. ECF 

77 at 46–51; 82-7 at 2–3. On June 9, Plaintiffs shared supplemental information on P1 and P2’s 

compliance with the VRA. ECF 82-7 at 2; 82-8. Plaintiffs followed that up with Dr. Moy’s full 

analysis on June 12. ECF 82-7 at 1; 82-9. Le Parties mediated on June 13, adjourning at 6:20 P.M.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 3 of 32
4

ECF 65, 75. Responding to mediation discussions, commissioners’ comments on P1 and P2, and 

community input, Plaintiffs submitted a third map (P3) during mediation. ECF 77 at 53; 82-7 at 1.

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

10 A.M. June 14. ECF 82-4. Le agenda listed a single “Discussion Item.” ECF 82-5 at 3. On June 

14, the morning after mediation, the Commission met. Plaintiff Valdes gave a statement for the 

Plaintiffs. ECF 82-2 (6/14 Tr.) at 6:2–8:2. And De Grandy publicly presented his “draft plan 

proposal,” named Version 12 (“V12”),

1 e.g., id. at 69:5, marking the first time the City shared a 

map in the interim remedial process. Id. at 8:3–16:13. De Grandy developed V12, and other drafts, 

after individual private meetings with commissioners to “amalgamate[]” their input, in possible 

violation of Florida’s Sunshine Law, Fla. Stat. § 286.011 and FLA. CONST. art. 1, § 24(b). ECF 77 

at 6; Blackford v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 375 So. 2d 578, 580-81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Fla. Off. 

of Att’y Gen., Gov’t-in-the-Sunshine Manual (2023 ed.), at 10. Le Commission debated proposed 

changes to V12 and then took a recess after 103 minutes in session. 6/14 Tr. 31:22–56:5; ECF 82-

6 at 1. During the recess, De Grandy met privately with commissioners and drew alternative maps

at each’s request. 6/14 Tr. 64:5–14. Lere are no records of these private meetings, either.

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

changes to their districts. ECF 82-6 at 1. 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.

6/14 Tr. 59:5–12. After some discussion, De Grandy and counsel Chris Johnson modified the D3 

Alt. Map to move a portion of Overtown from D1 to D5, in a change agreed upon by King and 

1 Versions 1–11 and 13 were not made public. Le City’s counsel maintains that no such maps

exist. ECF 82-18. It is unclear why De Grandy would pick the names Versions 12 and 14.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 4 of 32
5

Díaz de la Portilla, resulting in “D3 Alt. v.2.” Id. at 70:9–72:12. After Díaz de la Portilla objected 

to the change going too far, some territory was moved back into D1, yielding “D3 Alt. v.3.” Id. at 

80:16–19, 81:6–15, 87:1–9. Le Commission approved that plan on a 4-1 vote, and it was later 

memorialized in writing as Res. 23-271. Id. at 91:9–19; ECF 77 at 5–7. 

Le resolution and map were not properly noticed under the Sunshine Law and City Code, 

and suffered from other deficiencies. ECF 83-1 ¶¶ 4–7, 9–17, 30–48; FLA. CONST. art. 1, § 24(b); 

Fla. Stat. § 286.011(1); City Code § 2-33. It is critical to note that the City represents “it has 

enacted a new redistricting plan, City of Miami Resolution 23-271,” but the resolution filed on the 

docket was drafted after June 14 and never voted on by the Commission. ECF 77 at 1. Further, 

there is an unexplained discrepancy between the map the Commission passed and the plan

submitted to the Court in Res. 23-271. McCartan Rep. ¶¶ 14–16; ECF 82-19; 82-20.

Seven days after Mayor Suarez let Res. 23-271 become law without his signature and 

sixteen days after the Commission voted, the City filed Res. 23-271 with the Court. ECF 77 at 8.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

In assessing the City’s proposed interim remedial plan, the Court “has a ‘duty’ to ensure 

that [the] remedy ‘so far as possible eliminate[s] the discriminatory effects of the past as well as 

bar[s] like discrimination in the future.’” Covington v. North Carolina (“Covington I”), 283 F.

Supp. 3d 410, 424 (M.D.N.C. 2018) (quoting Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 154 

(1965)), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 138 S. Ct. 2548; see also Jacksonville Branch of NAACP v. 

City of Jacksonville (“Jacksonville II”), 2022 WL 17751416, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Dec 19, 2022), stay 

denied, 2023 WL 119425 (11th Cir. Jan. 6, 2023), and appeal dismissed, Doc. 37, No. 22-14260 

(11th Cir. June 6, 2023). Le Court may approve Res. 23-271 only if it provides a “full and 

adequate remedy” to the race-based sorting of voters. United States v. Osceola Cnty., 474 F. Supp.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 5 of 32
6

2d 1254, 1256 (M.D. Fla. 2006). As the Supreme Court recently reiterated, “a State [cannot] 

immunize from challenge a new racially discriminatory redistricting plan simply by claiming that 

it resembled an old racially discriminatory plan.” Allen v. Milligan, 143 S. Ct. 1487, 1505 (2023).

“When . . . the districting plan is offered as a replacement for one invalidated by the 

[C]ourt,” Plaintiffs no longer bear the burden they “[o]rdinarily” would in launching a racial 

gerrymandering claim. Wilson v. Jones, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1322 (S.D. Ala.), aff’d sub nom. 

Wilson v. Minor, 220 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2000). Instead, the Court has an “independent duty to 

assess its constitutionality.” Id.; see also Jacksonville Branch of NAACP v. City of Jacksonville 

(“Jacksonville III”), 2023 WL 119425, at *3 (11th Cir. Jan. 6, 2023) (noting district court’s 

“independent obligation to decide whether [proposed] plan was constitutional and corrected the 

defects which rendered the initial plan unlawful”).

As a consequence, it is no longer Plaintiffs’ burden to “disentangle race from politics and 

prove that the former drove a district’s lines.” Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1473 (2017). 

Instead, in exercising “its own duty to cure illegally gerrymandered districts,” Covington II, 138 

S. Ct. at 2553, the Court must be wary when remedial districts are drawn “through reliance on 

political data closely correlated with race,” Covington I, 283 F. Supp. 3d at 431. Where, as in 

Miami, party and race are correlated, the City must do the disentangling, because the use of 

partisan data has “the potential to embed, rather than remedy, the effects of an unconstitutional 

racial gerrymander in a proposed remedial districting plan,” id., and risks “carr[ying] forward the 

effects of the identified racial gerrymanders,” id. at 434.

Similarly, incumbent-protection is the type of political goal that must “give way to [the] 

duty to completely remedy the constitutional violation.” Id. at 433; see also Jeffers v. Clinton, 756 

F. Supp. 1195, 1199–1200 (E.D. Ark. 1990), aff’d, 498 U.S. 1019 (1991). Before approving the 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 6 of 32
7

remedy, the Court must therefore ensure that any desire of the Commission’s to account for certain 

“political consideration[s]” has not eclipsed “the need to remedy a Shaw violation.” 

Personhuballah v. Alcorn, 155 F. Supp. 3d 552, 561 n.8 (E.D. Va. 2016).

While the Court must otherwise defer to the City’slegitimate policy choices, it cannot defer 

to a plan that is “[in]consistent with constitutional norms and is [] itself vulnerable to legal 

challenge.” LULAC, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 986 F.2d 728, 763 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting 

White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 791 (1973)). Lis Court may defer to legislative judgments only 

insofar as they “do[] not detract from the requirements of the Federal Constitution.” Upham v. 

Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 41 (1982). Le Court must not, “in the name of [legislative] policy, refrain 

from providing remedies fully adequate to redress constitutional violations which have been 

adjudicated and must be rectified.” Jacksonville II, at *11 (quoting White, 412 U.S. at 795).

Additionally, the Court must ensure Res. 23-271 complies with other federal requirements,

“consider[ing] whether the proffered remedial plan is legally unacceptable because it violates anew 

constitutional or statutory voting rights—that is, whether it fails to meet the same standards 

applicable to an original challenge of a legislative plan in place”—including the VRA. Id. (quoting 

McGhee v. Granville Cnty., 860 F.2d 110, 115 (4th Cir. 1988)); Personhuballah, 155 F. Supp. 3d 

at 564. Upon a “finding of a constitutional or statutory violation,” the Court cannot defer “to the 

legislative judgment the plan[] reflect[s].” Upham, 456 U.S. at 40–41.

If the Court determines that Res. 23-271 is not a suitable remedy, it must order one of its 

own. In doing so, the Court “should be guided by the legislative policies underlying the existing 

plan, to the extent [they] do not lead to violations of the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act of 

1965.” Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 79 (1997). But the Court should not adhere to legislative 

policies closely correlated with the underlying violation, see Covington I, 283 F. Supp. 3d at 422, 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 7 of 32
8

“partisan or political objectives, even when the state redistricting body expressly adopted such 

objectives,” id. at 452, or any legislative policies that stand in the way of “so far as possible 

eliminat[ing] the discriminatory effects of the racial gerrymander,” id. at 435 (citation omitted); 

see also Personhuballah, 155 F. Supp. 3d at 564.

Le above-described remedial procedure, in which the judiciary gives the legislature an

opportunity to redraw an enjoined map, then reviews the legislature’s submission to ensure it 

conforms to the court’s order and all relevant legal requirements, is part of the federal redistricting 

caselaw basics. See, e.g., Whitest v. Crisp Cnty. Sch. Dist., 601 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (M.D. Ga. 2022) 

(reviewing government’s proposed map enacted to be permanent map); Harris v. McCrory, 2016 

WL 3129213 (M.D.N.C. June 2, 2016) (same), aff’d sub nom. Harris v. Cooper, 138 S. Ct. 2711 

(2018); Johnson v. Mortham, 1996 WL 297280 (N.D. Fla. May 31, 1996) (same); James v. City of 

Sarasota, 611 F. Supp. 25 (M.D. Fla. 1985) (same); Sobel v. Adams, 214 F. Supp. 811 (S.D. Fla. 

1963) (same and approving map), rev’d sub nom. Swann v. Adams, 378 U.S. 553 (1964) (rejecting 

map). Lis framework is supported by “well-known principles of equity,” Covington I, 581 U.S. 

at 488 (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964), and makes good sense. Otherwise, 

the government could evade review by replacing an enjoined plan with an identical or similar one 

and demanding plaintiffs file a new case seeking a new injunction, inviting judicial whack-a-mole.

THE CITY’S MAP REMAINS RACIALLY GERRYMANDERED

I. Res. 23-271 Was Motivated by the Same Racial Considerations as the Enjoined Plan

In its latest motion to dismiss, the City argues this case is nothing like Covington. ECF 80 

at 6–8. In fact, this case is very similar to Covington, and its holdings squarely apply. But the 

City’s remedial process diverged from Covington’s in one critical way—here, the remedial 

mapmakers did consider race. Le Commission started the process by voting to “bunch together [] 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 8 of 32
9

ethnic borders in order to be able to have Afro American . . . and non-Hispanic white . . . in 

representing the city of Miami.” 5/11 Tr. 6:8–10. Individual commissioners reiterated their racebased motivations. Le Commission use racial data to develop its plan and reject alternatives that 

did not yield the desired racial balance. Le only place where race apparently did not factor into 

the Commission’s analysis is the only place where it should have: ensuring VRA compliance.

A. Commissioners Remained Motivated by Neir Original Goal of Racial Separation

From the outset of their process, multiple 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. 5/11 Tr. 4:16–20, 5:13, 5:20, 6:4–13, 7:18–20, 

8:11–13, 13:8–15, 16:21–23. Le 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. Id. 17:14–17, 17:21–19:4, 4:20, 6:9–10, 7:20, 13:13.

A key commissioner—King—reiterated the City’s commitment to dividing Miamians by 

race on the eve of Res. 23-271’s passage. She asserted in a June 13 news article, “Le Supreme 

Court ruling [in Allen v. Milligan, 143 S.Ct. 1487 (2023)] proves that our original redistricting was 

constitutional and in the best interest of our community.” ECF 82-16 at 2. 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.” Id. Taken together, commissioners’ statements before De Grandy even publicized his 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 9 of 32
10

B. Adopting Res. 23-271 is Tantamount to Ignoring the Court’s Injunction Altogether

Res. 23-271 is 94.1% the same as the Enjoined Plan. McCartan Rep. 8. Only 5.9% of 

Miamians are moved into a different district. Id. 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—because of their 

race—remain there in Res. 23-271. Id. Lese are staggeringly high core-retention rates. See In re 

SJR 1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 662, 665, 669 (Fla. 2012) (describing 82.6% retention as “overwhelming” 

and 69.7% as “high”); Jacksonville II, 2022 WL 17751416, at *13; see also Robert Yablon, 

Gerrylaundering, 97 N.Y.U. L. REV. 985, 1005–07, 1038–39 (2022) (describing core retention); 

id. at 994 n.36 (using 80% core-retention as threshold).

Le makeup of the 5.9% of Miamians moved confirms the map’s continued race-based 

nature. 5,125 residents were moved into D2 and D5 from the three packed Hispanic districts, but 

those residents are disproportionately less Hispanic (59% HVAP compared to the enjoined 

districts’ 88–90%). 2nd Abott Rep. 8–9. Le 4,735 residents moved out of the enjoined D5 are just 

16.6% Black, compared to the enjoined D5’s 50.3% BVAP. Id. Meanwhile, 90% HVAP areas are 

shuffled among D1, D3, and D4, creating the illusion they changed while maintaining their

demographics. Id. Lese figures point to continued racial predominance, with Black residents 

packed in D5 (still 50.3% BVAP), D2 retaining an intentionally large Anglo concentration, and 

the Hispanic populations of D1, D3, and D4 deliberately “balanced” at an artificially high level.

R&R at 67–71; see Jacksonville II, 2022 WL 17751416, at *13 (rejecting new map because Black

voters “shuffled among—but not out of—the Packed Districts”); Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of 

Elections (“Bethune-Hill II”), 326 F. Supp. 3d 128, 173 (E.D. Va. 2018) (relevant question is 

“which voters the legislature decides to choose” in redrawing; disproportionate racial shifts 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 10 of 32
11

support predominance); Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407 (7th Cir. 1984) (disproportionate 

movement of one racial group out of districts is “strong evidence of intentional discrimination”).

Lus, Res. 23-271 is not “a full and adequate remedy” that “completely remedies the 

identified constitutional violation” and its effects. Osceola Cnty., 474 F. Supp. 2d at 1256;

Covington I, 283 F. Supp. 3d at 424, 435. Le City’s policy of hewing to the enjoined (and 2013) 

districts—a policy apparent on the map’s face as well as in the words and actions of commissioners 

who sought to claw back aspects of the unconstitutional districts out of V12—cannot stand. 

“[W]here a government opts to preserve district cores to maintain the race-based lines created in 

previous redistricting cycles, ‘[t]he Supreme Court has been equally clear that this is not a 

legitimate objective.’” R&R 71 (quoting Jacksonville Branch of NAACP v. City of Jacksonville 

(“Jacksonville I”), 2022 WL 16754389, at *3 (11th Cir. Nov. 7, 2022)); see also ECF 39 at 3–5 

(citing cases). Just as in their initial process, “Commissioners directed the redistricting consultant 

to preserve the cores of the existing districts reflecting th[e] racial composition” they wanted to 

see on the dais. R&R 77–78. “And the racial demographic data for the resulting 2022 Enacted Plan 

reflect that the Commission succeeded in preserving the racial breakdowns of the prior 

redistricting.” Id. at 78; see 2nd Abott Rep. 1–2, 14–15.

C. Ne Requested Changes to Version 12 Walked Back Closer to the Enjoined Plan

Le City’s remedial mapmaking process began with the Commission’s directive to De 

Grandy to preserve the categorical racial divisions in the Enjoined Plan. From there, De Grandy 

operated in the shadows before emerging with V12—the first version shared publicly—during the 

June 14 Commission meeting. It is unsurprising that V12 reaffirms the Commission’s original 

handiwork, but even De Grandy’s proposal was not enough for commissioners. Ley made several 

changes to claw back even more elements of the Enjoined Plan that V12 had altered.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 11 of 32
12

1. $e D2/D3 Border in the North Grove and Brickell: Carollo homed in on an area of the 

North Grove between 22nd and 27th Avenues which V12 added to D3 (Area 21 in ECF 82-32). 6/14 

Tr. 40:12–41:11. At Carollo’s request, Area 21 was returned to D2. 6/14 Tr. 65:6–7. Lis 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 Hispanic-rich “sirloin” areas 

elsewhere. Tr. 3 101:11–14, 102:2–3, 102:10–12, 103:11–12, 105:2–3; 2nd Abott Rep. 19; see PI 

Mot. 20–21. To compensate for the lost population, Carollo requested that D3 add a pluralityHVAP area along South Miami Avenue to Brickell (Area 24). 6/14 Tr. 38:8–39:9; 77:6–9; 2nd

Abott Rep. 19. Somehow, an additional area of Brickell (Area 25) was moved into D2, forming 

an irregular finger along the Miami River. Lat movement was never requested or explained 

publicly. Area 25 is plurality-white. 2nd Abott Rep. 19.

2. $e D3/D4 Border: Carollo’s only other requested change was along the D3/D4 border. 

V12 shifted the border three blocks eastward in Shenandoah and Silver Bluff, from 17th Avenue

under the 2013 and Enjoined Plans, to 14th Avenue. Lis united all of Silver Bluff in D4 for the 

first time, and meant most of Shenandoah—all but two-block-wide slice from 12th to 14th

Avenues—was united in D4 as well. 6/14 Tr. 15:2–9, 15:13–14. 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.” Id. 35:11–15, 37:1–23, 53:4.

As for the 17th Avenue/Coral Way restoration, after City Attorney Méndez recast 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.” Id. 41:12–13, 53:9–10. But earlier, he stated the park was 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 12 of 32
13

still on the D4 side of the line. 35:23. Indeed, the park is five blocks from the line, on the far side 

of 22nd Avenue. Silver Bluff Dog Run Park, CITY OF MIA., https://bit.ly/silverbluffdogrunpark.

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

back into D3. 2nd Abott Rep. 19. In response, “to equalize population,” De Grandy moved from 

D3 to D4 an area in Auburndale/Little Havana—most of which had been in D4 under the 2013 

Plan. 65:13–14. Lus, the D3/D4 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. Tr. 3 52:5–14, Tr. 6 38:9–16, 79:19–20.

3. Morningside: V12 proposed moving part of Morningside between 55th Terrace and 61st

Street out of D2 and into D5. At 11.8% BVAP and 41.9% WVAP, the area (Area 26) has a much 

lower Black population and much higher white population than D5. 2nd Abott Rep. 19. And indeed, 

V12’s D5 BVAP drops from the Enjoined Plan’s 50.3% to 50.0%. Covo objected to Morningside 

being split, but acknowledged that parts of the 2013 D2 would have to be moved out to equalize 

population. 6/14 Tr. 42:14, 42:18–21, 45:1–6.2 Realizing that part of Morningside had moved into 

D5, King objected. Id. 43:15–22. De Grandy asked if she preferred to keep the neighborhood whole 

by including all of it into D5, but King said, “No, I don’t think that any of Morningside should go 

to my district. Wouldn’t that be splitting up neighborhoods?” Id. 44:2–3. King requested De 

Grandy bring back a revision with all of Morningside restored to D2. Id. 45:13–15. The two then 

had a mostly-inaudible sidebar. Id. 46:1–12; video at 1:32:21–50. 

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 

2 Covo had given De Grandy a plan that moved all of Morningside into D5. 6/14 Tr. 45:13–14.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 13 of 32
14

in her district. ECF 82-17 ¶ 13. Le only change from V12 made in King’s proposed alternative 

map, the D5 Alt., was returning that piece of Morningside to D2. 6/14 Tr. 64:21–65:1. Lat change 

was incorporated into Res. 23-271. Significantly, the Commission rejected at least four alternative 

plans that avoided “splitting up neighborhoods” in and around Morningside by adding the 

neighborhood to D5. ECF 82-26 (D1 Alt.); 82-34 to -36 (P1–P3). Res. 23-271 excludes from D5 

the low-BVAP neighborhoods south of the existing district boundary. See 2nd Abott Rep. 20 (entire 

Morningside/Bay Point area is 10.6% BVAP; southern part King declined adding from V12 to 

make Morningside whole in D5 is 10.1% BVAP).

4. Defining Overtown Along Racial Lines: Le only other change to V12 impacting D5 

was in Overtown. Overtown is significant, not only as a historic and culturally rich part of the city, 

but for the controversy it generated in the Commission’s process. King and the Overtown CRA 

sharply criticized Plaintiffs for moving part of Overtown out of D5 in P1 and P2. ECF 82-14.

Responding to this criticism and mediation discussions, Plaintiffs submitted P3, which unites in 

D5 all parts of Overtown that had been in the Enjoined D5 (following the CRA boundary), plus 

reunited eleven HVAP-majority Overtown blocks that the Enjoined Plan had moved into D1 

(between NW 5th and 8th Streets, from I-95 to 7th Avenue. R&R 41-42 (part of Overtown moved 

from D5 in 2013 to D1 in Enjoined Plan); 6/14 Tr. 6:18–19, 17:14–15 (Plaintiffs explaining P3).

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 V12 “keeps 

historic Overtown intact in District 5” at King’s request. 6/14 Tr. 8:15, 10:2–5, :22–11:3, 12:20–

22. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 14 of 32
15

of Overtown,” V12 included all of it in D5. Id. 16:4–7. His presentation included slides with his 

definition of “Historic Overtown.” ECF 77 at 23, 26.

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. Id.; 2nd Abott Rep. 9–11 & n.3; Overtown, 

GOOGLE MAPS, https://www.google.com/maps/place/Overtown. Lose definitions are shared by 

the City’s Police Department (MPD) and the Convention & Visitors Bureau (GMCVB). 2nd Abott 

Rep. 9–10 & n.2–4. Le area De Grandy defined as Overtown is 60.5% BVAP. Id. at 21. Le parts 

of the Google/NET/MPD/GMCVB definition De Grandy excluded are disproportionately nonBlack (63.7% HVAP, 26.2% BVAP). Id. Further, the City Code has an official definition of 

Overtown that is even broader than Google/NET/MPD/GMCVB. City Code § 2-1051. Le parts 

of the City Code definition De Grandy excluded from his neighborhood boundary are less Black, 

and more Hispanic. 2nd Abott Rep. 21. In other words, “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 shor[ing] up the existing racial composition of District 5 and . . . the Hispanic 

supermajority in District 1.” Id. 11. No commissioner objected to his definition of Overtown to 

surgically exclude Hispanic-majority areas, and Res. 23-271 tracks this division.

Le Commission did object, however, to one small part of V12’s boundary in Overtown. 

Leir discussion is illuminating. King requested adding to D5 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. 6/14 Tr. 69:22, 70:9–10. Díaz de la Portilla 

consented to the change—stressing only the restaurant should move, nothing more—and the 

restaurant moved into D5 in the D3 Alt. Map v.2. Id. 70:11, 71:14–72:17; ECF 77 at 42. But De 

Grandy and counsel Chris Johnson incurred too much into the Hispanic-majority part of Overtown 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 15 of 32
16

for Díaz de la Portilla’s taste, moving four whole city blocks between NW 7th and 8th Streets. 6/14 

Tr. 78:5–6, 80:16–19, 2nd Abott Rep. 21. Díaz de la Portilla directed De Grandy and Johnson to 

restore to D1 all but the single block with the restaurant, which they did in the final map. 6/14 Tr. 

81:6–15. Le three blocks returned to D1 are over 70% Hispanic. 2nd Abott Rep. 21. Adding just 

the restaurant block deviates as little as possible from the Enjoined Plan in this area. See ECF 82-

33 (Overtown Maps). Le block’s 10 residents are two-thirds Black. 2nd Abott Rep. 19.

In sum, the Commission objected to removing Overtown from D5, but ignored P3’s efforts 

to do so. Le Commission ratified a definition of Overtown that defined it along racial lines, 

excluding majority-Hispanic areas, contrary to the official city definition and the sources De 

Grandy cited for his proposal. Le Commission then adopted a map that followed the raciallydefined boundary they set. In doing so, they strenuously ensured that none of the majority-Hispanic 

parts of the area would move out of D1. Leir final product tracks the Enjoined Plan’s boundary 

along NW 8th Street in that part of the neighborhood, deviating only to add one small majorityBlack block. Lus, the line between D1 and D5 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. 

Le Commission split Overtown along racial lines, trying to cover its tracks by starting with a racebased definition of the neighborhood. See ECF 82-15 (comment of Gerald Reed Jr.).

D. Ne Parts of Version 12 the Commission Chose to Accept Were Race-Based, Too

Le portions of V12 the Commission chose not to alter were principally driven by racial 

considerations as well. Some specific features unaltered from V12 are particularly enlightening.

1. Avoiding “Packing Hispanics”: 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 D4. 6/14 Tr. 9:9–10, see also 14:21–22 (“the plaintiffs’ 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 16 of 32
17

plan was designed to concentrate the most conservative voters into D4. And you see it right there,” 

showing slide noting 95.03 and 95.55% HVAP in P1/P2); ECF 77 at 34; video at 31:09–17); see 

also infra 20–22. Lis was a race-based objection to a naturally occurring compact district unifying

neighborhoods in Miami’s west—an area the Commission deliberately split to “balance” the 

Hispanic populations of D1, D3, and D4, and to maintain the desired racial balance of D2 and D5.

R&R 67–71, 75. To explain the “problem,” De Grandy emphasized D4’s HVAP under P1/P2 and 

showed slides featuring those figures. 6/14 Tr. 9:10–12; ECF 77 at 22, 34.

To fix the “packing” of Hispanics, V12 “restored [D1’s] connection to . . . the western part 

of the city” where “the great majority of Hispanic voters live.” 6/14 Tr. 13:5–6, 14:17–18; video 

at 30:19–46. Except for a single block, D1’s boundary is identical to the Enjoined (and 2013) Plan 

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

3 Satisfied by the “restoration” of the Enjoined 

Plan’s optimal division of Hispanic residents, the Commission left this line untouched on June 14.

As the City eventually conceded at the preliminary injunction hearing, Section 2’s effects 

test does not protect Miami’s Hispanic voters from vote dilution. Hr’g Tr. 135:8–14; see R&R 86–

87; PI Mot. 32–33. But given the City’s initial position that D1, D3, and D4 are protected by 

Section 2, id. 44:18–45:3; De Grandy’s testimony that the VRA protects them, and that Miami’s 

Hispanic voters satisfy the Gingles preconditions, id. 49:23–25, 76:20–22; and the Commission’s 

initial direction to ensure the three racial groups were “properly represented,” it is no surprise that 

Res. 23-271 was drawn to optimally balance the Hispanic population among D1, D3, and D4 in a 

manner akin to the Enjoined Plan. See 2nd Abott Rep. 14–16 (enjoined districts’ HVAPs ranging 

3 Le fewer than 1,000 people moved between D1, D3, and D4 along the D1 border swapped 

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

“balance” the plan achieved. 2nd Abott Rep 5, 7, 8.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 17 of 32
18

from 88.3–89.5%, compared to 84.5–90.0% in Res. 23-271, but 70.1–95.6% in Plaintiffs’ plans).

2. Adding Back an Area “Where the Hispanic Voters Live” to District 3: V12 made one 

notable change from the Enjoined Plan along the D2/D3 border, which the Commission chose to 

accept on June 14. De Grandy proposed moving the Bay Heights region of Coconut Grove from 

D2 into D3. 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 D3 and D4 because “there’s ethnic diversity in Coconut Grove too.” Tr. 2 

7:15–17. Following this direction, De Grandy’s Feb. 7, 2022 draft moved Bay Heights into D3. 

ECF 24-84; Tr. 3 9:21–23, 10:6–12 (De Grandy describing “find[ing] adjacent areas with similar 

demographics” to add to D3). After Russell objected, Tr. 2 26:15–16; Tr. 3 65:9–13, De Grandy 

restored Bay Heights to D2 in the Feb. 22, 2022 Base Plan, instead adding to D3 another 

“ethnically diverse” part of the Grove “with similar demographics” around Natoma Manors, 

ensuring D3’s HVAP dropped only a tenth of a point. Tr. 4A 5:9–11, 6:7–8, 7:22–8:4, 9:18–19; 

ECF 24-31 (1st Abott Rep.) 23; R&R at 36, 41.

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

and Carollo even expressed interest in adding the area back to D3 and “tak[ing] it all the way down 

to Simpson Park” northward. Tr. 4B 7:21–22; Tr. 5B 36:5–37:14 (De Grandy explaining that 

Natoma and Bay Heights have more similar demographics to D3 than whiter areas that he excluded 

from D3); Tr. 6 74:9–10 (Reyes stating his proposed addition to D3, including Bay Heights, is 

majority Hispanic), 75:11–16 (De Grandy explaining he added Bay Heights to D3 in Feb. 7 Draft 

rather than adding less-Hispanic areas further north), 77:5–7 (De Grandy explaining Reyes Plan 

added majority-Hispanic area from Bay Heights to Simpson Park, in contrast to moving D3 straight 

east in just Brickell), 78:1–18 (Díaz de la Portilla noting Brickell’s “predominantly Anglo” 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 18 of 32
19

population and confirming De Grandy chose to add Bay Heights “because there are more people 

in Bay Heights that are more similar to the people that live behind Casola’s Pizza [in D3] . . . [t]han 

to the people that live at Brickell”). But the Enjoined Plan kept Bay Heights in D2.

Back to June 2023: De Grandy again moved Bay Heights—and its 62% HVAP—into D3. 

2nd Abott Rep. 20. 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 Res. 23-271. 6/14 Tr. 38:15–20. (As 

in the Enjoined Plan, the whitest and northernmost parts of Brickell were kept out of D3, see supra 

pp. 11–12.) Lree 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 D2—questioned why Bay Heights had to be 

moved and asked if keeping it in D2 would “make a real difference in the numbers” for population 

equality. Id. 76:14–77:2, 89:14–16. De Grandy’s response: “It would make a difference,” 

suggesting it would “increase the deviation” and cause ripple effects. Id. 89:17. But that was false. 

Simply moving Bay Heights’ 604 residents from D3 to D2 would better equalize D3’s population 

(going from +746 to +142 from ideal) and raise the plan’s overall range to just 4.2%—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%. Id. 66:18–21, 79:20–23; 2nd Abott Rep. 14.4

4 De Grandy suggested Bay Heights couldn’t move to D2 without cutting off Natoma Manors 

from the rest of D3. 6/14 Tr. 89:22–90:1. Lis was false. Covo pointed out that the Enjoined D3 

followed the same boundary she suggested—coming down to US 1 along 17th Avenue, grabbing 

Natoma west of Alatka Street, but avoiding Bay Heights. Id. 90:2–3. Pointing at the map (which 

Johnson had zoomed into this area), De Grandy falsely claimed the boundary was now different 

north of US 1, so it wasn’t possible. Id. 90:4–9; video at 2:25:09–27:00. In fact, D3 continued to 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 19 of 32
20

Lus, the Commission adopted Res. 23-271 with Natoma (and its “similar demographics”)

retained in D3, plus the 62%-HVAP Bay Heights—“where the Hispanic voters live” added too.

II. De Grandy’s Ham-Handed Attempt to Deploy Partisanship as a Talisman Fails

Despite De Grandy’s efforts to push partisanship to the fore, the record reflects 

commissioners were not motivated by partisan considerations. Le commissioners explicitly 

denied on the record any partisan motivations. Le City’s actual policymakers rejected their 

attorney-consultant’s attempt to invoke partisanship to shield their handiwork from scrutiny. In the 

first commissioner speech of the day, Carollo emphasized the Commission’s nonpartisan nature 

and disclaimed partisan motivations. 6/14 Tr. 32:13–20; see id. 30:15–17 (public comment he 

responded to). Covo agreed. Id. 45:6–8. No commissioner expressed a partisan motivation for any 

decision in Res. 23-271. See generally id. Dr. Abott’s analysis confirms: claims that the map was 

drawn to increase the Republican performance of D1 individually, or D1, D3, and D4 as a group, 

simply do not add up. 2nd Abott Rep. 11–13.

But to the extent the Commission used partisan data, it just embedded the effects of the 

constitutional violations. Race and party are correlated in Miami, with Black and Anglo voters 

usually preferring Democrats, and Hispanic voters often preferring Republican candidates (albeit 

at lower margins). ECF 24-32 (Moy Rep.) 5–41; 82-13 (Supp. Moy Rep.) 2–3. During the remedial 

process, De Grandy treated party and race interchangeably, criticizing P1 and P2 for packing

“conservative Hispanic voters.” 6/14 Tr. 9:9–10. Indeed, De Grandy accompanied his comparison 

of P1/P2’s and V12’s partisan impact with slides prominently showing the HVAP of D3 and D4 

in P1 and P2—which De Grandy criticized as too high. ECF 77 at 22, 33–34; 6/14 Tr. 9:10–12; 

meet US 1 at 17th, because Carollo had just requested the line snap back to the enjoined boundary 

along 17th. 6/14 Tr. 27:16–28:19, 33:7–34:10, 37:4–21, 53:9–11, 65:11–12.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 20 of 32
21

see also ECF 80 at 8 n.4 (single-spaced footnote accusing “Plaintiffs’ plans [of] pack[ing] 

Hispanics into District 4 at above a 95% level”).

After criticizing P1/P2 for allegedly “packing conservative Hispanic voters” into D4, De 

Grandy explained how V12 “restored [D1’s] connection to [] the western part of the city, thereby 

distributing the more conservative voters in the west within two districts.” 6/14 Tr. 13:5–6. In other 

words, P1/P2 were unacceptable because they made D4 too Hispanic (95.0 or 95.6% HVAP), 

disrupting “the balance of the Hispanic population” with D1 (70.1 or 86.6% HVAP). Tr. 2 23:6; 

ECF 77 at 22; 2nd Abott Rep. 16. So De Grandy “restored” the exact same line between D1 and 

D4—moving just a single city block—slicing “down the middle” through Flagami, a “cohesive” 

and “distinct” “Hispanic neighborhood” the Commission originally split “for the greater good” to 

achieve their desired racial division. Tr. 3 52:16–53:2, 60:7–10, 91:11–13; Tr. 4B 5:5–6, 21:21–

22:4; Tr. 6 38:13–15, 39:3–18, 79:19–20; see R&R 75. As a result, Res. 23-271’s D1, D3, and D4 

have HVAPs between 84.5 and 90.0%. 2nd Abott Rep. 15.

To the extent partisanship motivated the Commission’s decision to adopt a near-identical 

map, “the consideration of political data” was inappropriate because it “carr[ied] forward the 

discriminatory effect of the original violation.” Covington I, 283 F. Supp. 3d at 433. Le City 

cannot “seek[] to ensure incumbents will prevail in their remedial districts—if doing so would 

prevent it from completely remedying the identified constitutional violation.” Id. at 435 (rejecting 

legislature’s attempt to justify redrawn map on partisan, incumbent-protection, and corepreservation grounds, even though legislature did not consider race at all, because proposed map

bore features of the enjoined plan that suggested racial predominance); see also Personhuballah, 

155 F. Supp. 3d at 564 (rejecting need to maintain partisan balance in curing racial gerrymander, 

because “at some point political concerns must give way when there is a constitutional violation 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 21 of 32
22

that needs to be remedied”); Covington II, 138 S.Ct. at 2553 (“Le defendants’ insistence that the 

[] legislature did not look at racial data in drawing remedial districts does little to undermine the 

District Court’s conclusion—based on evidence concerning the shape and demographics of those 

districts—that the districts unconstitutionally sort voters on the basis of race.”). Nor can the City 

“rel[y] on redistricting criteria closely correlated with race”—such as partisanship—“in its pursuit 

of the far more suspect goal of seeking to ensure that incumbents elected in a racially 

gerrymandered district prevail in their remedial district.” Covington I, 283 F. Supp. 3d at 433; see 

also Jeffers, 756 F. Supp. at 1199–1200.

III.A District-by-District Analysis Shows Continued Hallmarks of Racial Predominance

A district-by-district analysis reveals that the Commission perpetuated, rather than 

remedied, the Enjoined Plan’s racial gerrymandering. As described above, the Commission began 

from an already-flawed starting point: V12. Le Commission then made several key decisions to 

claw back even more features of the Enjoined Plan to fine-tune racial divisions between Hispanic, 

Black, and Anglo Miamians. As a result, districts continue to have strange shapes and split 

communities. As this Court noted, bizarre shapes, irregular features, noncompactness, and the 

splitting of neighborhoods are hallmarks of racially gerrymandered districts; the subordination of 

traditional criteria is strong circumstantial evidence of racial predominance in the design of those 

districts. R&R at 61, 71– 75, 77–78; see also Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections (“BethuneHill I”), 580 U.S. 178, 190 (2017); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 913 (1995).

A. District 5

Res. 23-271’s D5 is driven by a decision to define every distant corner of the enjoined D5 

as part of a common “community of interests,” locking in place the unconstitutional borders from 

the get-go. King delineated a non-negotiable list of neighborhoods to ensure the replication of the 

enjoined D5’s boundaries—including Overtown (itself racially defined, see supra 14–16), Liberty 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 22 of 32
23

City, Little Haiti, Wynwood, and the Upper East Side. ECF 82-14; 6/14 Tr. 12:15–22. Together, 

these areas constitute every corner of the enjoined D5 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 D5 excluded. 6/14 Tr. 12:23–

13:2; Hr’g Tr. 67:1–68:8, 103:20–106:6; 2nd Abott Rep. 20 (Area 28); R&R at 72–73. 

Indeed, Res. 23-271 moves from D5 to D2 an area around Omni (which the Enjoined Plan 

moved from D2 to D5, 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%). 2nd

Abott Rep. 17; 1st Abott Rep. 28. D5’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. R&R at 74–75; 2nd Abott Rep. 5–6, 20 (Area 31). Le Commission rejected 

adding adjacent areas like Morningside and Edgewater because of their whiter makeup. ECF 82‐17 

¶ 13; 82–26 (D1 Alt.); 82-34 to -35 (P1–P2). Just as in 2022, the Commission rejected plans with 

sub-50% BVAPs, and inched the BVAP back up to 50.3%, from V12’s 50.0%, by restoring the 

Enjoined Plan’s racially-motivated Morningside/Upper East Side border. 2nd Abott Rep. 14–16; 

see infra 25–26. Le new D5 retains 94.7% of the enjoined population, and is less compact than 

the enjoined D5 across all metrics. McCartan Rep. 6–8.

B. District 2

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 72; see Tr. 1 16:21–17:1 (“District 2 was justified on the basis of being a 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 23 of 32
24

coastal district”); Tr. 3 41:19–22, 45:8–16, 50:11–54:19 (“[T]his [is] why we’ve had a coastal one. 

It was made that way. It was gerrymandered but it was a legal gerrymander so that you would have 

an Anglo elected commissioner. Even today, the only way that that could happen is if you have 

that whole coastal area. Lere’s no way that you can separate the Grove or that you can separate 

downtown or what’s left of the Upper East Side and create just a district for a District 2 so that 

someone Anglo could be elected.”) It is shaped by the Commission’s intent to reserve it as an 

“Anglo-access” seat, and surgically exclude more-Black or more-Hispanic areas on the north and 

south end, respectively. To the north, D2 retains “white affluent” Morningside, and adds a thin, 

low-BVAP adjacent strip. ECF 82-17 ¶ 14; 2nd Abott Rep. 17 (Area 18); R&R 72–73. Le 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 higherBVAP areas of Downtown kept in D5. 2nd Abott Rep. 17 (Area 19), 20 (Area 28).

To the south, “ethnically diverse” areas of the Grove “where the Hispanic voters live” are 

either kept in D3 (Natoma), or moved back in after having been returned to D2 under the Enjoined 

Plan for non-racial reasons (Bay Heights to Simpson Park). Whiter areas on Brickell’s north end 

remain excised from D3, achieved via an irregular finger. D2 retains 92.2% of its enjoined 

population, and its compactness scores are identical to the enjoined D2. McCartan Rep. 8.

C. Districts 1, 3, and 4

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

have staggeringly high core retention (90.6 to 98.2%). Jacksonville II, 2022 WL 17751416, at *10 

(rejecting redrawn map with collective 88.6% and 87.4% core retention among two sets of seven

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 24 of 32
25

districts). Le D1/D4 and D3/D4 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. 

D1 maintains the “staircase-like stepping pattern in its northeastern corner in Allapattah,” 

reconfigured slightly. R&R 74. 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. It excludes De Grandy’s racially-defined Overtown, while scooping up 

Overtown landmarks in majority-HVAP areas. See supra 14–16; ECF 82-15.

D3 becomes less compact, McCartan Rep. 6–7, even as it smooths 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.

IV.Ne Commission Failed to Conduct Any Narrow-Tailoring with Respect to District 5

Le City again failed to narrowly tailor its use of race in D5. “Le City’s determination of 

a minority population percentage for VRA compliance must . . . be well-supported.” R&R 82 

(citing Bethune-Hill I, 580 U.S. at 195). Since the City failed to conduct the required “functional 

analysis of the electoral behavior within the particular election district” required to “determin[e] 

what minority percentage will satisfy [the VRA’s] standard,” Plaintiffs did it for them. BethuneHill I, 580 U.S. at 194 (cleaned up). Dr. Moy’s initial report supplied the “evidentiary foundation” 

to support “[s]electing a BVAP figure.” Bethune-Hill II, 326 F. Supp. 3d at 176. He also analyzed 

P1 and P2, concluding that they “make it easier for Black voters to translate their preferences to 

higher vote totals for their preferred candidate[s],” who “received the vast majority of the top twocandidate vote share across both newly proposed districts.” ECF 82‐9 at 1; 82-8; 82-7 at 1–2.

Le City had other ideas. Ignoring Moy’s analysis, De Grandy concluded “plaintiffs’ plan 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 25 of 32
26

may also negatively impact the ability of Black voters to elect a candidate of choice throughout 

the decade in D5,” 6/14 Tr. 10:22–11:2, 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. ECF 82-9 at 3; see LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 

399, 428 (2006) (noting VRA is not a guarantee of electoral success). De Grandy then gave away 

the game: his VRA analysis boiled down to “keeping as many communities of interest”—King’s 

proxies for the enjoined D5—“together as feasible.” 6/14 Tr. 12:8–20. And tellingly, De Grandy 

advised that the D1 Alt.—which kept all of King’s proxies but had near-identical BVAP and 

BCVAP to P3—was VRA-compliant, even when he concluded Plaintiffs’ maps weren’t. Id. at 

50:4–9; 2nd Abott Rep. 14, 16. Lis is not the “pre-enactment analysis with justifiable conclusions” 

strict scrutiny demands. Abbott v. Perez, 138 S.Ct. 2305, 2335 (2018).

Even from this fatally flawed starting place, the Commission went downhill. V12’s D5 was 

too white for King, so Morningside was removed. Le Commission rejected proposals to solve the 

“splitting up neighborhoods” problem, 6/14 Tr. 44:2–3, by uniting Morningside within D5. Lose 

proposals would have yielded a sub-50% BVAP. 2nd Abott Rep. 14, 16. And commissioners 

fastidiously ensured not one inch of Hispanic-majority parts of Overtown moved into D5. See 

supra 14–16. Lrough these changes, D5’s BVAP increased from 50.0 to 50.3%—the same as the 

Enjoined Plan. 2nd Abott Rep. 14–15.

THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED PLAN (P4)

Plaintiffs present a plan, P4, that fully remedies the City’s constitutional violations while 

comporting with state and federal law and respecting the Commission’s legitimate policy choices. 

P4 stands in stark contrast to Res. 23-271’s failure to cure the substantially likely constitutional 

violations the Court identified in its Order and the R&R.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 26 of 32
27

P4 was drawn with communities in mind. It evolved from P2, which De Grandy claims 

formed the basis of his own V12, and P3, which Plaintiffs presented at mediation in response to 

mediation discussion, feedback from commissioners, and public input. P4 unites neighborhoods 

that the Commission divided along racial lines in either the original or remedial process, and avoids 

splitting other communities identified by commissioners or the public as closely united. In so 

doing, P4 features compact districts with smooth edges that adhere to traditional, race-neutral 

redistricting criteria and which respect, where possible, the Commission’s legitimate, non-racebased policy goals. P4 thus “reconcil[es] the requirements of the Constitution with the goals of 

state political policy.” Upham, 456 U.S. at 43 (quoting Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 414 (1977).

I. P4 Complies with the Commission’s Lawful Stated Objectives

A. Equal Population

P4 is within the population equality limits the Commission set in its proposed remedy. P4 

has a total population deviation of 2.4%, less than the City’s 3.6%, and far less than the Enjoined 

Plan (7.6%). 2nd Abott Rep. 14–16.

B. P4 Respects Communities of Interest and Neighborhoods

P4 respects traditional communities of interest that the Commission identified as worthy 

of recognition throughout its process. First, Overtown—all of it east of the Seybold Canal and 

south to NW 5th Street, the neighborhood’s southern boundary under the Google/GMCVB/NET/

MPD definition—is made whole within D5, except for one city block moved to better equalize 

population, and three unpopulated blocks east of I-95. Unlike Res. 23-271, which excised lessBlack portions from D5, Overtown in P4 is not divided along racial lines. Le other “part[s] of a 

larger community of interest” King listed are wholly within D5: Liberty City, Little Haiti, 

Wynwood, and the Upper East Side. ECF 82-14; see 6/14 Tr. 12:16–18. Adjacent Morningside 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 27 of 32
28

is also made whole within D5, rather than excluding it as a “white affluent” area.

Le West Grove or Little Bahamas is kept whole within D2. 6/14 Tr. 83:23–84:20; ECF

82-15. But unlike in Res. 23-271, the remainder of Coconut Grove is also kept whole, rather than 

having “ethnically diverse” portions “where the Hispanics live” like Natoma Manors and Bay 

Heights excised from the “Anglo” district. See infra at 17–19; R&R 36, 41. Edgewater continues 

to be kept whole in D2. See 6/14 Tr. 19:15–22. Grapeland Heights (a “traditional 

neighborhood”) continues to be kept whole. Id. at 13:15–16. P4 defers, to the extent possible, to 

the Commission’s decision “that there should be a district containing the bulk of the Miami 

riverfront.” 6/14 Tr. 13:7–10. In fact, P4 was able to accommodate this goal better than Res. 23-

271 once it unwound the Commission’s race-based goals, moving more of the riverfront into D1.

Certain other neighborhoods the Commission chose not to prioritize continue to be divided 

in P4, albeit not along racial lines or to otherwise facilitate the Commission’s desired racial 

makeup. P4 splits Brickell between D2 and D3, but the dividing line is the Metrorail rather than 

Res. 23-271’s jagged border that scoops whiter blocks into D2. P4 divides parts of Little Havana/

Auburndale along SW 4th and 8th Streets and 32nd Avenue, just like Res. 23-271 does. But iconic 

Domino Park remains in D3—a priority for the Commission. 6/14 Tr. 36:22–37:2, 52:18–23. 

Le Downtown/Omni area remains divided among three districts, but no longer surgically 

separates more-Hispanic, more-Anglo, and more-Black areas into D1, D2, and D5, respectively.

C. P4 Follows Boundaries the Commission Recognized as Significant

Where possible, P4 utilizes natural and manmade boundaries the Commission recognized

as “logical.” 6/14 Tr. 15:17. Expressways, interstates, and the Miami River form large portions 

of the borders. See id. at 13:4, :17–19, 15:16–17. In Auburndale and Little Havana, SW 4th and 

8th Streets and 32nd Avenue continue to form boundaries. Lines follow other major roads and 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 28 of 32
29

“section line roads” like SE/NE 2nd Avenue, 22nd Avenue, and US 1. Tr. 2 4:10–17.

II. P4 Complies with other Traditional Redistricting Criteria

In addition to deferring to any permissible legislative policy choices, courts tasked with 

redistricting often apply other “traditional redistricting criteria.” See, e.g., Favors v. Cuomo, 2012 

WL 928223, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012) (considering compactness, contiguity, respect for 

political subdivisions, and communities of interest); Essex v. Kobach, 874 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1094 

(D. Kan. 2012); Smith v. Hosemann, 852 F. Supp. 2d 757, 767 (S.D. Miss. 2011); De Grandy v. 

Wetherell, 794 F. Supp. 1076, 1084, 1086 (N.D. Fla. 1992) (contiguity, compactness, respect for 

political subdivisions, communities of interest, and partisan competitiveness); see also Allen v. 

Milligan, 143 S. Ct. 1487, 1503–04 (2023) (listing compactness and respect for political 

subdivisions as traditional criteria); Bethune-Hill I, 580 U.S. at 183 (compactness, contiguity of 

territory, and respect for communities of interest).

A. P4’s Districts are Compact

P4’s districts are compact, with an average Polsby-Popper score of 39.6, Reock of 35.4, 

convex hull of 77.0, and an edge-cut score of 237. McCartan Rep. 6–7. In contrast, Res. 23-271

has worse average compactness scores across all four metrics, at 26.4, 30.2, 60.8, and 398. Id. And 

visually, P4 is much more compact than the City’s plan.

B. P4 Otherwise Respects Other Communities of Interest

P4 keeps neighborhoods the Commission identified as “distinct,” “traditional,” 

“historical,” or “cohesive” communities, but which Res. 23-271 splits to effectuate racial divisions. 

Lese include Silver Bluff, Shenandoah, Flagami, West Flagler, and Allapattah. R&R 75; Tr. 3 

52:5–7, 52:8–14, 52:16–17; Tr. 1 17:20–22; Tr. 3 60:16; 6/14 Tr. 13:15–16, 15:11, 35:13, 36:4.

III.P4 Complies with Applicable Federal and State Law

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 29 of 32
30

A. P4 Complies with Fla. Stat. § 166.0321

Federal courts tasked with redistricting must adhere to all relevant state legal requirements, 

to the extent not preempted by federal law. Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388, 394 (2012); White, 412 

U.S. at 794; Baldus v. Members of Wis. Gov’t Accountability Bd., 862 F. Supp. 2d 860, 861 (E.D. 

Wis. 2012). Le only state legal requirement is newly enacted Fla. Stat. § 166.0321, which 

prohibits municipal districts from “be[ing] drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a candidate 

. . . or an incumbent . . . based on the candidate’s or incumbent’s residential address.” ECF 82-21.

Tracking the language of Florida’s Fair Districts Amendments for legislative and congressional 

redistricting, FLA. CONST. art. III, §§ 20–21, the statute prohibits mapmakers from considering the 

residences of incumbents or candidates. See In re SJR 1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 670 & n.50 (Fla. 2012).

P4 has no irregular appendages or bizarre lines “that serve as objective indicators of intent” 

to favor or disfavor a candidate or incumbent. Id. at 617. Nor is there any indication in the record 

that the City, commissioners, or the public have even accused Plaintiffs of drawing P4’s 

predecessors, P1–P3, with malintent in violation of § 166.0321. Instead, P4’s districts were drawn 

to unite neighborhoods, follow major roads and other geographic boundaries, and result in 

compact, logical shapes. P4 fully complies with § 166.0321.

B. P4 Complies with Section 2 of the VRA

Le City admits (as it must) that Section 2 of the VRA protects Black Miamians from vote 

dilution. PI 9; ECF 77 at 6, 28. Yet, as discussed above, the City declined to conduct a VRA 

analysis during the remedial process, and ignored Plaintiffs’ functional analysis. Plaintiffs 

therefore offer Dr. Moy’s report to show that P4 complies with Section 2. Experts commonly assess 

VRA compliance by conducting a reconstituted election analysis. See, e.g., LULAC, 548 U.S. at 

488 (Souter, J., concurring) (citing Bernard Grofman et al., Drawing Effective Minority Districts: 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 30 of 32
31

A Conceptual Framework and Some Empirical Evidence, 79 N.C. L. REV. 1383 (2001). Lat 

involves re-aggregating historical election results in the newly drawn districts and counting how 

many votes would have been cast for the various candidates in the elections. If a district would 

usually elect the minority community’s candidate of choice, then it is considered an opportunity 

(or performing) district. See, e.g, id. While minority voters need not be guaranteed to elect their 

preferred candidates in every election, see LULAC, 548 U.S. at 428, they should at least regularly 

be able to do so. See, e.g., Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759, 799–800 (M.D. La. 2022), 

cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 2023 WL 4163160 (U.S. June 26, 2023).

Dr. Moy performed a reconstituted elections analysis for P4’s D5. (He did so for P1 and 

P2 as well, ECF 82-9.) His results confirm that this new district would usually allow Black voters 

to elect their preferred candidates. In fact, he finds that Black-preferred candidates in 11 racially 

polarized statewide and local contests from 2020 and 2022 would always prevail in P4’s D5,

garnering between 56.0 and 81.6% of the vote (compared to 55.9–80.6% in Res. 23-271 and 52.2–

76.8% in the Enjoined Plan). Supp. Moy Rep. 4. Lerefore, P4 includes a reasonably compact 

Black opportunity district, ensuring VRA compliance.5

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should reject Res. 23-271 and adopt P4 as the interim 

remedial plan for the Miami City Commission until entry of final judgment in this case.

5 P4 uses race narrowly to ensure VRA compliance, resulting in the unpacking Black voters 

compared to the Enjoined Plan and Res. 23-271. Lose plans impose the arbitrary 50% BVAP 

quote, while the BVAP of P4 ends up at 48.4%. Lis naturally means Black voters will now have 

greater influence in surrounding districts that they are no longer artificially stripped from. See 2nd

Abott Rep. 15–16 (D1 BCVAP of 11.9% in P4 compared to 8.3% in Res. 23-271).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 31 of 32
32

REQUEST FOR HEARING

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(2), Plaintiffs request oral argument on their objections to the 

City’s proposed interim remedy to more fully explain the evidentiary and legal issues raised in the 

briefing. Plaintiffs do not request an evidentiary hearing, but wish to reserve the right to call 

witnesses at a hearing should the City do so, or should the City submit additional written evidence 

with its reply. Plaintiffs would also seek to depose any witnesses the City plans to call at a hearing, 

to ensure an efficient hearing and narrow the scope of cross examination.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of July, 2023,

/s/ Nicholas L.V. Warren

Nicholas L.V. Warren (FBN 1019018)

ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.

336 East College Avenue, Suite 203

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(786) 363-1769

nwarren@aclufl.org

Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882)

Caroline A. McNamara (FBN 1038312)

ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.

4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

dtilley@aclufl.org

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

Neil A. Steiner*

Dechert LLP

Lree Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 698-3822

neil.steiner@dechert.com

Christopher J. Merken*

Dechert LLP

Cira Centre

2929 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

(215) 994-2380

christopher.merken@dechert.com

* Admitted pro hac vice

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 32 of 32