1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-cr-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

Miami, Florida

March 29, 2023

9:31 a.m. to 3:19 p.m.

11th Floor - Atkins Building

(Pages 1 to 160)

EVIDENTIARY AND MOTION PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE LAUREN FLEISCHER LOUIS,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: NICHOLAS L. WARREN, ESQ.

ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.

336 East College Ave, Suite 203

Tallahassee, FL 32301

786-363-1769

nwarren@aclufl.org

DANIEL B. TILLEY, ESQ.

CAROLINE A. MCNAMARA, ESQ.

ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.

4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33134

786-363-2714

dtilley@aclufl.org

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

CHRISTOPHER J. MERKEN, ESQ.

Dechert LLP

Cira Centre

2929 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

215-994-2380

christopher.merken@dechert.com

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 1 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES CONTINUED:

FOR THE DEFENDANT: GEORGE T. LEVESQUE, ESQ.

GrayRobinson, P.A.

301 E Bronough Street, Suite 600

Tallahassee, FL 32301

850-577-9090

george.levesque@gray-robinson.com

CHRISTOPHER N. JOHNSON, ESQ.

GrayRobinson P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200

Miami, FL 33131

305-416-6880

christopher.johnson@gray-robinson.com

REPORTED BY: STEPHANIE A. McCARN, RPR

Official Court Reporter

400 North Miami Avenue

Thirteenth Floor

Miami, Florida 33128

(305) 523-5518

Stephanie_McCarn@flsd.uscourts.gov

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 2 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

I N D E X

WITNESSES

WITNESSES FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Page

--

WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANT: Page

Miguel de Grandy

Direct Examination by Mr. Levesque 48

Cross-Examination by Ms. McNamara 71

EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE IDENTIFIED ADMITTED

Joint Exhibit No. 4 58 --

Joint Exhibit No. 10 59 --

Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 51 --

MISCELLANEOUS

Page

Proceedings....................................... 4

Opening Statement on behalf of the Plaintiffs..... 8

Opening Statement on behalf of the Defendant...... 43

Closing Argument on behalf of the Plaintiffs...... 89

Closing Argument on behalf of the Defendant....... 110

Rebuttal Argument on behalf of the Plaintiff...... 145

Court Reporter's Certificate...................... 160

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 3 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

48

you need to, but we can be back in five, okay? All right.

Thank you.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

(A recess was taken from 10:38 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

(Time 10:45 a.m.)

MIGUEL DE GRANDY,

a witness for Defendant, testified as follows:

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. Please be seated.

State your name. Can you spell your first and last name for

the record?

THE WITNESS: My name is Miguel de Grandy.

M-I-G-U-E-L. Last name D-E, G-R-A-N-D-Y.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. Mr. De Grandy, are you an attorney?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where are you admitted to practice?

A. I'm admitted in the State of Florida, I'm admitted in the

Southern District Federal Court, I'm admitted in the United

States Supreme Court.

Q. And can you describe for the Court your experience in

redistricting?

A. I started as a member of the legislature. I was on the

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 4 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

49

redistricting committee. I ended up suing my own legislature

for violation of Voting Rights Act; that was de Grandy vs.

Wetherell, I believe. I was lead plaintiff and also cocounsel.

In 1998, I believe, I was appointed by Speaker Thrasher to

be lead counsel on the case of Fouts v. Mortham, a

redistricting case that had been filed against the legislature.

I have done Palm Beach School Board. I have done the City of

Miami three times now. I have consulted with various elected

officials on redistricting issues. That's pretty much it.

Q. And at some time during this most recent cycle, were you

engaged by the City to provide advice and counsel for the

current redistricting cycle?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. After you were engaged by the City, what did you do?

A. Well, we first -- we were awaiting the census data, the PLA

data, which was delayed. We tried to spend our time officially

in doing preliminary work to determine applicability of the

Voting Rights Act. My coconsultant, Steve Cody, conducted that

analysis, advised me that he did see patterns of politically

cohesive voting, he did see patterns of block voting and

polarized voting and that, therefore, in his opinion, the --

the Voting Rights Act provisions would apply.

Q. Okay. In which districts did the Voting Rights Act apply

to for the City of Miami?

A. District 5, District 1, District 3 and District 4.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 5 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

50

Q. And how many districts are there in the City of Miami

districts?

A. There's five districts.

Q. And did you also prepare a report for the City commission?

A. I prepared an initial, what I call a primer, which is meant

to educate lay people on the basics of redistricting law and

redistricting processes.

Q. Did that primer also inform the City of their need to

redistrict?

A. Yes, sir. We had done the preliminary analysis and

determined that the overall deviation of the then current map

was above 42 percent. District 2 was highly overpopulated.

District 3 was the lowest population. Put together, the

percentage over and the percentage under is how you calculate

overall deviation and, therefore, we were of the opinion that

you could not use that plan for further elections.

Q. And how many districts were overpopulated in that manner?

A. I recall District 2 was the -- the huge one that was

overpopulated.

Q. In fact, that was the only one that was overpopulated,

correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, at some point did you have a public meeting with the

City commission?

A. We had several public meetings; I believe in November,

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 6 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

51

December, February and March.

Q. And at the November 18th public meeting, did the City give

you directions to guide your work?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And were those directions given in open meetings?

A. Yes. And they were, I think, later on redacted in the form

of a resolution.

Q. And what were those directions?

A. The prime directive was comply with the constitution of the

Voting Rights Act. They wanted to maintain the core existing

districts to minimize voter confusion. They wanted to maintain

mathematical -- excuse me, substantial equality as opposed to

mathematical equality. They wanted me to concentrate further

on voter cohesion, and they also wanted me to preserve

traditional neighborhoods, if feasible.

Q. If you could take a quick look at Defendant's Exhibit 1,

and let me know if that is the resolution that you just

referenced.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 was identified.)

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. Now, I want to talk about some of these criteria that they

provided to you.

First, did the ordering of the criteria matter to you?

A. Yes, it did.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 7 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

52

Q. How did it matter to you?

A. Well, some of these things become mutually exclusive. If,

for example, you are trying to preserve the court of existing

districts, it may not be feasible to maintain communities of

interest. And so because some of them can conflict with each

other, I ask them to give me a hierarchy, if you will, of which

ones they wanted to emphasize more and an order of preference.

Q. So they placed compliance with the United States

Constitution and the Voting Rights Act at the top, correct?

A. That was always the prime directive.

Q. And the least important directive was maintaining

community -- communities of interest, correct?

A. Where feasible, yes.

Q. How did you interpret maintaining the core of the districts

to avoid voter confusion?

A. I mean, that -- that is a principle that is very popular

among elected officials. It is also incumbent protection, but

it's -- you know, you invest in, as a commissioner, in getting

funds for a local road, a park, etc., you make those people

happy. You expect those people are going to vote for you, so

you want to maintain that constituency within your district.

Q. And in the course of the meetings and your map drawing

activities, did the commissioners ever indicate that there were

constituencies -- and I use that term loosely -- surrounding

the geography, such as a park, that were important that they

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 8 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

53

wanted to keep in their district?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you maybe provide an example or two to that end?

A. That would violate attorney/client privilege.

Q. Okay.

Now, one of the criteria also included factoring in voter

cohesion?

A. That's correct.

Q. How did you interpret that criteria?

A. Well, voter cohesion, I mean, you've got to understand

that -- let me give you an example. The Hispanic community.

The Hispanic community is not monolithic. So, for example, you

have people that would elect a Commissioner Reyes in District

4, will not elect that same commissioner in District 2.

You have, for example, a commissioner that just got elected

in District 2 which is Hispanic, Sabina Covo, who is liberal,

who is a democrat; that person -- there is cohesion among the

communities in District 2 to elect that type of politician,

whereas District 3, 4 and 1 are very much more conservative,

old guard, you know, a lot of Cuban Americans that vote a

certain way and like a certain type of politician.

Q. And you used District 2, and you referred to it as a

Hispanic district. How did the commissioners refer to that

district?

A. They refer to it as an Anglo district, and I told them at

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 9 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

54

one point, I actually said, Fun fact, there is no Anglo

district. And that was just proven in this last election where

Ms. Sabina Covo was elected in District 2. She is Colombian

American. Actually, the first three vote getters in District

2, Sabina Covo, Reyes and Torres, all Hispanic sir names,

totaled 66 percent of the vote that was cast. So I never

believed it to be an Anglo district.

Q. And the criteria that the commission provided to you, was

that the criteria that you utilized in drawing the lines?

A. To the best of my ability, yes.

Q. Now, after the commission gave you that criteria, what did

you do?

A. We started -- I mean, the prime directive was obviously

comply with the law and Voting Rights Act. Once you drill down

into the principles that they asked us to employ, maintaining

the core of existing districts, seriously hampers what else you

could do with the plan. You have to basically play around the

edges to comply with that requirement.

So we started looking at the areas adjacent to the

different districts that could be moved. You know, we found

between 2 and 5, there was a lot of movement, I think over

10,000 folks that we were able to move. And I had to also

figure out around the edges of 3 and 4 what, if anything, I

could move from District 2. But I also had to ripple up to the

other districts then to equalize their population.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 10 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

55

Q. And in terms of maintaining the core of the existing

districts, that would require you to, as much as you could, to

spread out that additional population that you needed to shed

from district 2; would that be fair?

A. That's fair.

Q. At some point did you come up with at least a draft map for

the City's consideration?

A. We did.

Q. Was there a commission meeting on February 7th that you

presented that map?

A. There was.

Q. In drawing that map, did you concern yourself with precinct

boundaries?

A. No; precinct boundaries were irrelevant because -- well,

let me take a step back. One of the preliminary things that we

did was interact with the Department of Elections to

understand, you know, their timing, when they needed a plan,

etc., etc.

Now, what the elections department told us is, you know,

because the county was going to be redistributed, the school

board was going to be redistricted, the City of Miami, maybe

other communities within Miami-Dade county, they were going to

re-precinct the entire county. So to me, precincts were

irrelevant. I concentrated on street boundaries rather than

precincts.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 11 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

56

Q. So when you were actually drawing the lines, you didn't

look at precinct lines, you looked at street boundaries; did

I --

A. We never even had a precinct map because it was irrelevant.

Q. Now, one of the things that has been brought up in this

litigation is the percentage in District 5 of black voting age

population.

Did you have a specific target that you were looking for in

drawing?

A. No. I wanted to keep it above 50 percent, and I will tell

you why. If you look at each redistricting cycle since 1997,

the black community has reduced both in relative and absolute

terms. I'm not drawing a plan for a snapshot in time. I'm not

drawing a plan for the 2023 election. I'm drawing a plan for a

decade. I have to focus, and I believe the case law says you

have to focus on local conditions. That area is gentrified.

And so you can see it statistically in each decade of

redistricting how the black percentage has gone down

significantly.

In my assessment, a 50.3 percent black district, which

would have 52 and change percent voter -- black voters was a

district that could perform the entire decade.

Q. And the 52 percent figure that you referenced, that's not

actually citizen voting age population?

A. It's registered voters.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 12 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

57

THE COURT: Wait, say that again. Sorry.

THE WITNESS: It's registered voters.

THE COURT: I know, but the first part of the question

was, the distinction you just drew, I missed it, I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: And your question?

MR. JOHNSON: Citizen voting age population.

MR. LEVESQUE: Yeah, the distinction between citizen

voting age population and black registered voters. So black

citizen voting age population and registered voters.

THE WITNESS: I believe citizen voting age population

was 58, somewhere in that percentage. Voting -- registered

voter population was 52 and change.

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. And why would there be a delta in those two numbers?

A. Well, you have Haitian community, you have individuals that

simply don't register to vote. But you have -- you know,

within that area, you have a black immigrant community that is

a noncitizen community.

Q. Is there also a federal prison in that community where they

would be citizens but would not be eligible to register to

vote?

A. I believe so, yes.

THE COURT: What federal prison, FDAC?

MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: FDC is part of District 5?

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 13 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

58

MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's across the street.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Go ahead.

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. And in that February 7th meeting, did the commission give

you directions on your draft map?

A. I'm trying to recall if they refined the direction. There

was discussion about whether to move south of U.S. 1. I don't

know if it was that meeting, but there was that discussion.

Q. Now, in that meeting, in your draft map, had you already

moved south of U.S. 1?

A. I don't recall that map. Can I see that map?

Q. Absolutely. Probably that would be captured in your slide

presentation that would be Joint Exhibit 4.

(Joint Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Ah, yes, that would be the version where

I had taken a sliver of District 2 into District 3, and I am

looking at, just for the record -- it's Exhibit 4 and it says

Page 25 of 40. There was a sliver of District 2 that I brought

up to District 3 that was, you know, I thought more

esthetically acceptable.

There were objections at that meeting that that

included the area of Bay Heights, and that those objections,

ah, strenuously came from some of the public, as well as

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 14 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

59

vehemently by the commissioner of the district and Bay Heights

should not be separated from District 2. So there was pushback

on that movement.

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. And was there direction for you to also look at moving the

Miami River Center back into District 5?

A. The MRC, yes.

Q. And was there also directions to restore some areas from

D-1 to D-4?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, after the February 7th hearing, what did you do?

A. I tried to make changes to the maps in compliance with the

instructions that I had been given, and being sensitive to the

community presentations that I had seen.

Q. If I could ask you to turn to Joint Exhibit 10,

specifically Page 4.

(Joint Exhibit No. 10 was marked for identification.)

THE COURT: Did you say Exhibit 10?

MR. LEVESQUE: Yes, Your Honor, Joint Exhibit 10.

THE COURT: But not this? My Exhibit 10 is a one-page

map.

MR. LEVESQUE: Do we have a copy of this?

THE COURT: Oh, did you mean ECF 24-10?

MR. LEVESQUE: Yes, ECF -- yes.

THE COURT: Oh, sorry. Thank you.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 15 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

60

MR. LEVESQUE: I apologize, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I thought you were referring to your own

exhibit. But I got it. Okay, slide 3, I have it.

MR. JOHNSON: I think that would be ECF 24-4, Your

Honor. February 7th presentation? It's No. 10 in the Joint

Exhibits, and No. 10 in the Joint Exhibit -- oh, excuse me, it

is 24-10, sorry.

THE COURT: All right. I got it up.

THE WITNESS: I'm at Page 4.

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. And does that reflect the -- the map that ultimately was

adopted by the commission?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And I know it is going to be hard to see and -- if I could

just ask you to -- there are several areas on there where you

indicate there are movement in changes.

In your words, can you just walk us through each of those

changes, describing it for the record and then talking about

why you moved that and how that complied with the directions

from the commission?

A. Okay.

THE COURT: Can I make sure, please, I am on the right

slide? I'm at ECF 24-10, Page 4 of 15 and the title is, The

base plan showing areas of movement, correct?

MR. LEVESQUE: That's correct.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 16 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

61

THE COURT: And this is your testimony that this is

the final plan as you presented it?

THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Okay. You're ready?

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I will start from the south to the north. The -- if you

look at the first highlighted in red, there were actually two

pieces to that. The piece that is north to U.S. 1, to me, was

a natural movement in terms of shedding population from

District 2; it would set, you know, a more stable boundary, if

you will. Ultimately, there was a triangle that was added to

the south of U.S. 1; again, that was purely to equalize

population.

I had actually done a bigger movement south of U.S. 1 that

was objected to by the folks in the Groves, and so I actually

narrowed that piece, I believe, from --

THE COURT: Mr. De Grandy, I am going to tell you that

you are losing me. So if you are going to describe your

reasons for moving pieces, I need you to stay on one at a time,

because -- I know that they are all very familiar to you, but I

was with you on one piece and then I think you are describing

another and I am lost.

THE WITNESS: Let me see if I can find slides, Your

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 17 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

62

Honor, that better express.

THE COURT: So I will tell you where you lost me. You

said this western most piece from the District 2 was a natural

piece to move.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I didn't think I got an explanation as to

why that was natural to you, but then I think you moved to

another piece.

THE WITNESS: Right. And if you look, Your Honor, if

I can draw Your Honor's attention to Page 10 of that exhibit,

the second piece that I was talking about is that little red

triangle. Your Honor sees that?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay. That little red triangle

initially was a larger triangle. There was a lot of opposition

regarding that, and what I did was reduce that, in other words,

move the line further north to reduce that triangle to address

the objections of the folks in the Grove to the effect that I

was dividing the traditional Grove. So that's why that

movement was reduced.

The area 13 that everybody talks about, previously in

my testimony I had talked about the movement that I made in

bringing in a portion of District 2 into District 3 that was

objected to. If Your Honor looks at that red box, people call

it an appendage, immediately north of that was the movement I

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 18 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

63

originally made. That was the movement that was objected to in

terms of not taking Bay Heights out of District 2. Bay Heights

is a walled-in community. The commissioner of the district

felt strongly it should remain in District 2. And so actually,

I deleted that movement and had it -- I went south, literally,

and the north boundary of that red square is the wall of Bay

Heights, and I went south instead of going north.

Again, that was to bring in more population to

District 3 and shed it from District 2.

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. And Mr. De Grandy, you referenced north in terms of the

area that was of concern, Bay Heights. If we were being more

precise, would that be northeast?

A. Yes, northeast. To the right of.

Going now, ah, moving north on District 2, I felt that the

two movements that we did to bring population from 2 to 5 were

natural movements. It's just simply moving east to capture

additional population. I think I moved north of 10,000 people

in that movement.

The river of movement, my -- my opinion was that it was

naturally more adept to District 1 than District 5 because

District 1 already had a huge part of the Miami River. The

Miami River has a very strong business constituency; they have

a river commission, they are very politically active, they want

to maintain the commercial uses of the river. So I thought it

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 19 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

64

would be good to have a commission that represented the vast

majority of the river, and to me, that was a natural movement

to move that into District 1.

THE COURT: And you are describing area 6?

THE WITNESS: Area -- I actually can't see it without

my glasses, Judge.

MR. LEVESQUE: Yes, Your Honor, I believe he is.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. And then the other two were just

swapped to equalize population between -- north between 1 and

5.

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. And those would be areas 7 and 8?

A. I can't see the numbers in this map, but I will take your

word for it. It is the two in the north between District 1 and

District 5.

Q. And the movements -- let me back up a little bit there.

The movement that --

A. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to describe one movement which was

the one where I took population from District 4 into District

3. Commissioner Carollo has taken a very, you know, strong

position regarding the 8th Street corridor and wants to, you

know, control as much of it as possible. To me, that was the

natural movement to, again, rebalance the population. Once I

moved folks from 2 to 4, I had to rebalance the population, and

it made sense to move that block of voters into District 3.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 20 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

65

THE COURT: That's areas 14 and 15?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. If we could just go down and go back through a couple of

those.

A. Sure.

Q. Area 13, that's one of those southern movements from

District 2 into District 3?

A. Area 13 is the one they call the appendage?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Okay.

Q. Am I correct that Commissioner Carollo has a residence that

is in the foot of that area 13, in the lower corner?

A. That is correct, sir. There was a lot of discussion about

that actually in commission meetings.

Q. And going up to areas 10 and 11 where District 2 shed

population to District 5, are there reasons why you picked

those areas to move into District 2 -- I'm sorry, District 5

versus other areas to move into District 5?

A. Well, in the last redistricting -- if you look at the most

northeast part of District 5, that used to be District 2. In

the last redistricting, there was a lot of controversy about

actually taking that district through the bay. A lot of the

constituents in that area said, Look, we are concerned with

coastal issues, we're concerned with sea rises, we're concerned

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 21 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

66

with a lot of issues that aren't necessarily issues of concern

in more inner city areas. We want to remain part of District

2. I recall the commissioner of the district made me do a

couple more hearings in that area to explain to them why I had

to move them based on a need to equalize population, etc.

So, quite frankly, I didn't want to go through that drama

again, so I thought that taking more of the extreme north of

District 2 was infeasible. And again, there is more of a

community of interest in the coastal area that I wanted to

preserve, and so I moved from more the urban core from west to

east.

Q. And specifically for areas 10, 11 and 12 that we were just

talking about there, are there any -- can you describe the

populations and whether they would be more closely associated

with the populations in District 5 or District 2?

A. I believe they will be more cohesive with District 5.

The -- as you move further east, you know, waterfront becomes

more affluent area. Those folks, again, are concerned with

what I call first world issues, climate change, sea rise,

things of that nature, social justice equity.

People in the more inner core are concerned about potholes

in the street, whether they can pay the rent, whether they are

going to have a park in their neighborhood. So those issues

from the municipal perspective, it seemed to me that made more

sense to move those folks into District 5.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 22 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

67

Q. And in the presentation of their case, the Plaintiffs drew

some attention to the little gap that's in between area 10 and

11 and area 12. Can you describe what that gap is?

A. I call it the Condo Canyon. It's high density,

residential, more, you know, professional class affluent folks.

And I felt that they would be better served in District 2.

Q. If you were to move that particular piece into District 5,

what would that do to the ability of District 5 -- let me

rephrase that. What would that do to District 5's ability to

elect a representative of their choice?

A. I think they would still be able to do so.

Q. Would it dilute it?

A. It would dilute it, yes.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: What condos are there on 8th and 9th

Street, because there are condos also at 10th and 11th, aren't

there? What building are you describing in what you are

referring to there as the condo what?

THE WITNESS: Condo Canyon.

THE COURT: Condo Canyon, what are the -- what are the

buildings that are there?

THE WITNESS: If you look an aerial, Judge, you'll see

that basically that sliver has significance high-rise

condominiums.

THE COURT: But don't they continue up into 10th

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 23 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

68

Street?

THE WITNESS: They do. I mean, I don't have the

aerial, so I can't tell you for sure, but they very well may.

BY MR. LEVESQUE:

Q. And, Mr. De Grandy, why were you moving population from

District 2 into District 5 at all?

A. Because I had to shed thousands of people out of District

2.

Q. And was District 5 the most under-populated district on the

map?

A. No, it was District 3.

Q. And after redistricting, where did it rank, if you recall?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Now, after this map was presented -- let me back up.

At the February 25th meeting, did you present a map that

was substantially similar to this?

A. At the?

Q. February 25th meeting.

A. Yes.

Q. And did the commission adopt that February 25th map as the

base plan in which they would work from?

A. That's correct. I -- you know, I encouraged them to do

that because, you know, if you have five individuals giving you

five thoughts, you don't have, you know, a base to work from;

it is very hard to draw a map. So I asked them to, you know --

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 24 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

69

you know, coalesce on a base draft, if you will, and then I --

my charge was to make changes from those base plans. And

ultimately commissioners also created their own alternatives

from the base plan.

Q. And at some point did the commission consider a variety of

alternatives to that base plan?

A. They did.

Q. And were any of those alternatives ultimately adopted?

A. No. Well, there were slight, you know, tweaks, the MRC,

the -- there was an area called the Wharf which was joining the

river that the district commission in District 5 wanted to

keep, it is an entertainment venue. So that was moved back

into D-5, but there were no, you know, substantive changes made

otherwise.

Q. So other than that one little move for District 5 related

to the Wharf, there were no changes that would have been

reflected in this map?

A. Not to my recollection, no.

Q. Now, was there a Reyes alternative plan that was

considered?

A. There was.

Q. When you reviewed that plan, did you believe that plan was

also constitutionally compliant?

A. Yes.

Q. There was a Russell alternative plan, was there not?

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 25 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Direct Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

70

A. There were two. I think she had an initial one and then he

refined it to bring down the overall deviation.

Q. And at looking at both of those plans -- either of those

plans, were those plans constitutionally compliant in your --

A. I believe them to be.

Q. Were there any other plans that were presented?

A. There was the Reyes plan. There was.

Q. But at least in terms of all of those other alternatives,

those all would have been constitutionally compliant, correct?

A. I believe them to be, yes.

Q. Did any of them get a majority support?

A. No.

Q. If they had, they would be in the map, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, as the lead consultant working on these maps, what

were your goals?

A. My goal was to create a plan that was constitutional and in

compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Q. And your primary directives came from full commission,

correct?

A. That's correct. And I had told them on several occasions,

if you go through the transcripts, that -- and I believe in the

initial primer that I wrote, that I can't take directions from

any individual commissioner. I have to have, you know, a --

the body directs me as to how I need to move the plan.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 26 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

71

MR. LEVESQUE: If I could have one moment, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Okay.

(Pause in proceedings.)

MR. LEVESQUE: No further question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: Do you mind repeating your last name for

me, please?

MS. MCNAMARA: Caroline McNamara on behalf of --

THE COURT: McNamara.

MS. MCNAMARA: McNamara, yes.

THE COURT: Okay. I wanted to make sure the court

reporter had it as well.

MS. MCNAMARA: And I'm on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

THE COURT: Okay.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. MCNAMARA:

Q. Now, Mr. de Grandy, you stated that you're the consultant

and you're hired by the City, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the City, the commissioners are the ones who made the

policy decisions about what would go into the map?

A. They provided the policy directives, yes.

Q. And that's like those five numbered that we went through in

Defendant's Exhibit 1?

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 27 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

72

A. That's correct.

Q. And did you have any input into how they chose those five?

A. I put them out there to them. I suggested others that they

didn't include, but I put them all out there for them.

Q. You raised the possibility to them that they could, quote,

start from scratch if they wanted to?

A. I did, yes.

Q. But they instead wanted to preserve the cores and that's

why after the Voting Rights Act, that's the next priority on

the list?

A. That's correct.

Q. And -- and you briefly testified here that that decision

constrained the further decisions you would make?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were required to follow those instructions?

A. Yes.

Q. And because, you know, we test -- you testified that

because of the focus on maintaining the cores, that the final

priority about the neighborhoods was not something you could

substantially achieve?

A. No. And actually, that hadn't been achieved in the -- in

the plan that I was revising. And there were multiple

neighborhoods already that were divided.

Q. The district plan as the Benchmark from 2013 as it came to

you already had, say, Flagami, and some of the other districts

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 28 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

73

split up?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And over the process of this provision, the result was, you

know, the Grove and maybe a couple other neighborhoods that got

divided, in addition to the ones that had already been divided

that weren't really changed?

A. Yes, the Grove was -- well, was impacted. I wouldn't say

it was divided. The majority of the Grove is in tact.

Q. And there was some discussion about the goal of

compactness, and you agree that compactness was not a goal that

was assigned to you?

A. Compactness would be a very difficult goal when you look at

the boarders of the city; it would be challenging to draw a

compact plan.

Q. Are the boarders of the city the only reason it is

difficult to draw compact districts?

A. Other than the borders of the district, making it

challenging it, are you talking about once I got the

instructions?

Q. Um-hmm.

A. Yeah, once I got the instructions and maintained the core

of the existing districts, you can't draw compact districts.

Q. Now, the -- there is the -- Exhibit 1 that we have that has

the five listed ordered priorities. Once you presented the

plan and then there were some tweaks in the late February into

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 29 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

74

March area, the commission added the point about increasing the

black voter -- voting age population in District 5 over 50

percent?

A. That was never done by resolution.

Q. It wasn't done by --

A. There was discussion on that, yes.

Q. Did you feel -- you felt you were bound to do that for them

because they asked for it?

A. I felt I needed to do it regardless of whether they asked

me in order to maintain the ability of that community to elect

candidates of choice throughout that entire decade.

Q. With the initial plan that you submitted on February 7th

that had the black voting age population, I think 49.8 percent,

that was just below the 50 percent line, and that was when

Commissioners Reyes and King raised the concern that they

wanted to get it over 50. So you -- you indicated affirmative

in that?

A. Yes. To me, 49.8, 50.3, I mean, we are quibbling about a

couple dozen people.

Q. Yeah.

You don't think it makes -- you don't think it's a

significant difference between 49.8 and 50.3?

A. No. I mean, from an electoral perspective, listen, I'll

tell you, my first election I lost by one vote, so to me, every

vote is important. But, you know, statistically it is not that

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 30 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

75

significant.

Q. But Commissioners Reyes and King wanted the number to be

over 50 percent?

A. They felt that was important, yes.

Q. Okay. Did the change of the threshold from 49.8 to, say,

50.2 change the analysis of the Voting Rights Act compliance?

A. No.

Q. So overall would you say that the main -- you know, setting

aside the population equality, that once -- you are required to

do the population equality and balance the districts, and the

main driver beyond that was maintaining the cores?

A. The main driver after what, I'm sorry?

Q. The driver of how you made the map was driven by

maintaining the cores, that was the highest priority?

A. No. The highest priority was draft a constitutional plan

in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and the next priority

was maintaining the core districts.

Q. Now, you testified you did a racially polarizing voting

analysis of the city?

A. Steve did.

Q. Did you make a determination that the three Gingles

preconditions were met for the black community in the City of

Miami?

A. Mr. Cody did.

Q. Did he made a determination that the three Gingles

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 31 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

76

preconditions were met for the Hispanic population of the City

of Miami?

A. He did.

Q. Did he determine that the three --

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, can you --

THE COURT: You need to slow down.

THE COURT REPORTER: I need you to please repeat the

question slower.

MS. MCNAMARA: Do you want me to --

THE COURT: For me, yeah. I think the court reporter

needs it too. I couldn't keep up.

BY MS. MCNAMARA:

Q. Did you determine that the three Gingles preconditions were

met for the black population within the City of Miami?

THE COURT: Pause there.

Stephanie, G-I-N-G-L-E-S.

Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Cody did. C-O-D-Y.

BY MS. MCNAMARA:

Q. Did you determine that the three Gingles preconditions were

made for the Hispanic population for the City of Miami?

A. Mr. Cody did.

Q. Did you determine that the three Gingles preconditions were

met for the non-Hispanic white population for the City of

Miami?

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 32 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

77

A. There are not Gingles preconditions for white populations.

It's not considered a protected class in the VRA.

Q. During the February 25th hearing, Commissioner Reyes asked

you if the probability of District 2 electing a white,

non-white -- or a non-Hispanic white candidate was still high,

and you said it was a high probability?

A. And it still is.

Q. It's a competitive district, but there is a good chance

that a white candidate would win, even notwithstanding what has

happened in the -- the special election last month.

A. There is a good chance that a non-Hispanic white can win,

and there is a good chance that a Hispanic can win.

(Pause in proceedings.)

BY MS. MCNAMARA:

Q. Now, you testified about the concerns over gentrification

and the impact over the course of the next decade on the

population in District 5?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you perform any specific studies to assess the degree

of gentrification that's expected over the next decade?

A. No. We -- again, you have to look at local conditions. I

think one of the reasons that the City continued to retain me

throughout the cycles is because I grew up in this community.

I know this community very well. I can drive through and see

the condo buildings going up. The permitting activity is not

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 33 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

78

ceasing.

You know, my law firm, what I do normally other than, you

know, everyday redistricting is land use and governmental

procurement. So I am very aware of what is being permitted in

those areas, and I can see it -- you know, I can see those high

rises coming up and they will continue to come up and that area

will continue to gentrify.

Q. This is based on your experience in the past and what you

predict will happen in the future?

A. And having seen the demographic trends in the last three

decades, whereas the black population continues to decrease in

that area.

Q. Did you create any models that would predict the extent to

which it would decrease over the next ten years?

A. No.

Q. Did you present anything to the commission to quantify

that, saying this is how much more we need to protect the black

community in District 5 beyond what it already is?

A. No. I figured if those patterns continue, the 52.

something percent of registered black voters would be in the

40s by the end of the decade.

Q. Now, we --

THE COURT: Pause there for a second.

Did you communicate that to the commissioners, or is

that just something you've estimated?

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 34 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

79

THE WITNESS: I -- I communicated in terms of concerns

to keep the population above the 50 percent threshold, because

that would keep my voter population in the 50 to 52 percent

range.

THE COURT: It's specifically your opinion that by the

end of the decade, the black population, voting black

population would be in the upper 40s, you said?

THE WITNESS: Did I communicate that explicitly as I

did now, no.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MS. MCNAMARA:

Q. Okay. Now we talked a little bit about the federal

detention center and this sliver where this courthouse is

located that's --

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, let me qualify that, Your

Honor. I did not in public meetings.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I did have multiple discussions with

commissioners one-on-one.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to flesh that out for

me?

THE WITNESS: Without getting into attorney/client

privilege, but I gave them my thoughts.

THE COURT: I already know the sword and shield, so

you choose.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 35 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

80

THE WITNESS: I gave them my thoughts, Your Honor.

Can't go further than that.

BY MS. MCNAMARA:

Q. Coming back to the sliver that we are in currently that is

bound between Northeast and 2nd Avenue in Miami, right here

that this courthouse is in, that also includes the Federal

Detention Center, that's one of the districts that you talked

about on direct that moved from District 2 into District 5?

A. That's correct.

Q. When you were moving that block, did you assess the -- did

you assess how much of that population is incarcerated in the

Federal Detention Center?

A. Did I explicitly count them, no. No.

Q. You -- when you say -- are the people who reside within the

Federal Detention Center within the population that was added

to D-5 in your analysis?

A. In other words, were those counted as people? They were

counted by the census. They were counted as people, yes.

Q. Did you count them as to when you were measuring the

performance of the district, whether those inmates would affect

the performance of the voting in the district?

A. Did I do that insular analysis, no. I looked at citizen

voting age population and then citizen registered voter

population; there is a delta there. And I assume part of that

delta is the Federal Detention Center. Part of that delta is,

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 36 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

81

you know, people of African descent, like Haitians, that are

non-citizens.

Q. And this -- the move that you did, that was in response to

the reclassify commission to make sure it was over a 50 percent

eval?

A. Which move?

Q. The move -- this move of this sliver and -- plus the one a

little bit north of here from District 2 to District 5, that

happened after you had presented the 49.8 percent BVAP and then

some of the commissioners said, We really want to get that over

50, and you were looking for additional black population to get

in to District 5 in order to get the BVAP over 50 percent?

A. What specific movements are you talking about?

Q. I am talking about the -- the movement of the sliver that

we're standing in now that includes this courthouse and the

Federal Detention Center.

THE COURT: Area 12?

THE WITNESS: Area 12. Okay. What about area 12?

BY MS. MCNAMARA:

Q. That -- you did that after the February 7th hearing, when

you presented your original plan with the 49.8 percent BVAP for

District 5, and then the commissioners asked you to increase it

to 50?

A. I believe -- yeah, I believe that that was in the later

phases, yes.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 37 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

82

Q. Adding the sliver which included the prison population was

in the service of increasing the black population within the

district?

A. No. It was to equalize population and shed population from

District 2.

Q. But it didn't -- you -- you didn't consider the impact on

the black voting age population number when you made that?

A. I was always cognizant of what the percentages were.

Q. Okay.

THE COURT: Is that a yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

(Pause in proceedings.)

BY MS. MCNAMARA:

Q. Just one more question. Going back to the discussion of --

or discussions that you had with individual commissioners, and

the Court asked the question of, if you discussed the

gentrification models with individual commissioners.

Did you, in those individual discussions, discuss the --

you know, statistics about potential gentrification models with

those individual commissioners in those meetings?

A. I can't go into those details without violating

attorney/client. I can just tell you that I gave them my

thoughts.

MS. MCNAMARA: No more -- further questions.

THE COURT: All right.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 38 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

83

MR. LEVESQUE: Your Honor, we don't have any redirect.

THE COURT: Okay. I have a question.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: You have heard that the -- the explanation

and response by the Defendant, that the discussions by the

commissioners that focused explicitly and exclusively on race

were intended to be a proxy for political cohesiveness.

You were here in the courtroom for that discussion?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. I would like to know what your

understanding was and what it was based on when, for example --

I don't remember who said it, but someone pointed out in

District 2 there could still be a commissioner, like Ken

Russell, right, among other examples. But I would like to hear

what your understanding and what it's based on when the

commissioners addressed race explicitly and exclusively.

THE WITNESS: To me, the direction of voter confusion,

and I touched on it a little bit before, is, again, you start

with the fact, at least my experience, Your Honor, the Hispanic

community is not monolithic. You have --

THE COURT: That's a good point, and let me just ask

you to pause there, there isn't any distinction that I have

seen in the transcripts that I have reviewed, and I have

reviewed them all, so if you can point me to anything or you

can recall from your presence there if there was something

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 39 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

84

different. But the only discussions that I have been pointed

to that address Hispanic voters do treat them as a monolithic

voting group. So if even you could flesh that out, that would

be helpful.

THE WITNESS: That's -- that's why I believe they were

trying to emphasize voter cohesion, because, again, if you look

at the type of voters in a District 4 or a District 3, they are

older, more conservative voters, very anti-communist because of

their life experience, etc. You have the people in District 2

that just elected a Hispanic commissioner, are different, are

younger generation, more assimilated into the American

experience, more liberal. Whereas District 3, District 4, more

conservative.

So that's how I interpreted voter cohesion. It is not

only just look at, hey, how many Hispanics can I dump into a

place? What kind of voters are they? What -- what interests

them? What are their issues?

THE COURT: Can you direct me to any part of any

transcript that's consistent with that understanding that there

was a description of political or partisanship cohesiveness?

Do you remember any of the dates on which that discussion --

THE WITNESS: I can't -- I remember when one of the

commissioners asked to focus on that, and I -- I think my

response to them was pretty much the understanding that I have

conveyed to Your Honor. But other than that, I -- I don't have

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 40 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Cross-Examination - Miguel de Grandy

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et al., v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

85

any specific transcript references that I can point to.

THE COURT: Can you remember which commissioner you

think that that conversation occurred with?

THE WITNESS: If I had to guess, I would say Carollo.

THE COURT: Okay. And the generalized voting patterns

that you are describing, can -- is there anywhere in the record

of proceedings that support your conclusions that you relied on

or shared with commissioners?

THE WITNESS: To support my conclusions? Other than

the fact that, you know, a liberal Hispanic was elected to

District 2.

THE COURT: But who were the other candidates?

THE WITNESS: There was Martin Zilber, who was the

preferred candidate of the commissioners; they actually

endorsed him. He came in fourth. Again, I can't point you to

anything in the transcript. I could tell you what I understood

and how I acted based on what I understood.

THE COURT: Okay. If anyone has follow-up questions

to mine.

MR. WARREN: Not from us, Your Honor.

MR. LEVESQUE: Not from us, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for coming forward.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, ma'am.

THE COURT: Let me ask just a procedural and planning

question. There is no further evidence coming forth from the

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 41 of

42
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Court Reporter's Certificate

March 29, 2023

Grace, Inc., et. al v. City of Miami, 22-cr-24066-KMM

160

(The proceedings adjourned at 3:19 p.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

I hereby certify that the foregoing is an

accurate transcription of the proceedings in the

above-entitled matter.

_06/13/2023_

DATE STEPHANIE A. McCARN, RPR

Official United States Court Reporter

400 North Miami Avenue, Thirteenth Floor

Miami, Florida 33128

(305) 523-5518

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-28 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 42 of

42