1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

/

PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(k) and the Court’s Paperless Pretrial Order (ECF 32), Plaintiffs

submit the following proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Standing

1. To have Article III standing, Plaintiffs must demonstrate an injury-in-fact, 

causation, and redressability. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016).

2. ]e injury-in-fact in a racial gerrymandering case is the use of race to draw the 

districts: the fact that a plaintiff is classified based on their race. Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. 

Alabama (ALBC I), 575 U.S. 254, 263 (2015) (“]ose harms are personal. ]ey include being 

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

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

(cleaned up).

3. Causation is established by the City’s enactment and imposition of each challenged 

plan, each of which took effect shortly after it was enacted.

4. Plaintiffs’ injuries are redressed when they are no longer subject to a racial 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 1 of 59
2

classification—when they live in districts that are not drawn predominantly based on race, or where 

the use of race is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.

5. “Where a plaintiff resides in a racially gerrymandered district, [] the plaintiff has 

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

has standing to challenge the legislature’s action.” United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 744–45 

(1995) (cleaned up).

6. An organization has associational standing to assert racial gerrymandering claims 

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

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

requested requires individual[] members’ participation in the lawsuit.” ALBC I, 575 U.S. at 269 

(cleaned up).

7. When one plaintiff has demonstrated standing to sue, the Court need not inquire as 

to the standing of any other plaintiff. ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 

1177, 1195 (11th Cir. 2009). ]us, Plaintiffs need only demonstrate that a single Individual 

Plaintiff—or a single member of an Organizational Plaintiff—resides in each district. Plaintiffs 

made this showing.

B. Racial Gerrymandering

8. “]e Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State, without sufficient justification, from 

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

State Bd. of Elections (Bethune-Hill I), 580 U.S. 178, 187 (2017) (quoting Miller v. Johnson, 515 

U.S. 900, 911 (1995)). 

9. Racial gerrymandering claims involve “a two-step analysis.” Cooper v. Harris, 581 

U.S. 285, 291 (2017). First, plaintiffs must prove that “race was the predominant factor motivating 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 2 of 59
3

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

district,” and “that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles . . . to 

racial considerations,” Bethune-Hill I, 580 U.S. at 187 (quoting Miller, 515 U.S. at 916). 

10. ]ere is no “special evidentiary prerequisite” for proving racial predominance. 

Cooper, 581 U.S. at 318. Plaintiffs need not show actual conflict between district design and 

traditional race-neutral districting principles: “Race may predominate even when a 

reapportionment plan respects traditional principles.” Bethune-Hill I, 580 U.S. at 189. Moreover, 

the use of race “remains suspect even if race is meant to function as a proxy for other (including 

political) characteristics.” Cooper, 581 U.S. at 308 n.7.

11. To meet their burden, plaintiffs may rely on “‘direct evidence’ of legislative intent, 

‘circumstantial evidence of a district’s shape and demographics,’ or a mix of both.” Id. at 291 

(quoting Miller, 515 U.S. at 916).

12. Alternative district configurations that satisfy non-racial criteria can also be 

probative of racial predominance, but an alternative map is not required to prove racial 

predominance. Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 249 (2001); Cooper, 581 U.S. at 319 (“An 

alternative map is merely an evidentiary tool to show that such a substantive violation has 

occurred; neither its presence nor its absence can itself resolve a racial gerrymandering claim.”); 

see also Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama (ALBC II), 231 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1391 (M.D. Ala. 

2017) (rejected alternative plans constitute evidence of racial predominance). 

13. Splitting of neighborhoods and other subdivisions along racial lines “strongly 

suggests” racial predominance. Covington v. North Carolina (Covington I), 316 F.R.D. 117, 145, 

160 (M.D.N.C. 2016), aff’d, 581 U.S. 1015 (2017); Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections

(Bethune-Hill II), 326 F.Supp.3d 128, 148 (E.D. Va. 2018) (split subdivisions indicate racial 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 3 of 59
4

predominance). 

14. “Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district 

must withstand strict scrutiny. ]e burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of 

voters serves a ‘compelling interest’ and is ‘narrowly tailored’ to that end.” Cooper, 581 U.S. at 

292 (quoting Bethune-Hill I, 580 U.S. at 193). While courts assume VRA compliance is a 

compelling interest, “to meet the ‘narrow tailoring’ requirement,” the State must prove it “had ‘a 

strong basis in evidence’ for concluding that the [VRA] required its action.” Id. (citation omitted).

]is requires a “functional analysis of the electoral behavior within the particular . . . district,” 

Bethune-Hill I, 580 U.S. at 194, and the record must support “a strong showing of a pre-enactment 

analysis with justifiable conclusions.” Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2335 (2018).

C. Remedy and Special Elections

15. “Relief in redistricting cases is ‘fashioned in the light of well-known principles of 

equity.’ Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 585 (1964). A district court therefore must undertake an 

‘equitable weighing process’ to select a fitting remedy for the legal violations it has identified, 

NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm’n, 470 U. S. 166, 183, n.36 (1985), taking account of 

‘what is necessary, what is fair, and what is workable,’ New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 

125, 129 (1977).” North Carolina v. Covington (Covington II), 581 U.S. 486, 488 (2017).

16. “[I]ndividuals . . . whose constitutional rights have been injured by improper racial 

gerrymandering . . . are entitled to vote as soon as possible for their representatives under a 

constitutional apportionment plan.” Harris v. McCrory, 159 F. Supp. 3d 600, 627 (M.D.N.C. 2016) 

(cleaned up), aff’d sub nom. Cooper, 581 U.S. 285. “[I]t would be the unusual case in which a 

court would be justified in not taking appropriate action to insure that no further elections are 

conducted under” a map held to be constitutionally invalid. Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 4 of 59
5

17. “When a federal court declares an existing apportionment scheme unconstitutional, 

it is . . . appropriate . . . to afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to . . . adopt[ ] a 

substitute measure.” Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540 (1978).

18. When weighing whether special elections are warranted to remedy a racial 

gerrymander, courts consider “the severity and nature of the particular constitutional violation, the 

extent of the likely disruption to the ordinary processes of governance if early elections are 

imposed, and the need to act with proper judicial restraint when intruding on state sovereignty.” 

Covington II, 581 U.S. at 488.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Individual Plaintiffs

19. Plaintiff Cooper is a Black resident of District 2 under both the 2022 Plan and 2023 

Plan.1 Pls. Ex. 59.

20. Plaintiff Valdes is Latina, resided in District 2 under the 2022 Plan, and resides in 

District 5 under the 2023 Plan. Pls. Ex. 60.

21. Plaintiff Johnson is a Black resident of District 3 under both the 2022 Plan and 2023 

Plan. Pls. Ex. 61.

22. Plaintiff Miro is a Hispanic resident of District 3 under both the 2022 Plan and 2023 

Plan. Pls. Ex. 63.

23. Plaintiff Contreras is Latina and resided in District 4 under both the 2022 Plan and 

2023 Plan from the time this action was filed until about a month after the 2023 Plan was enacted, 

when she moved out of the City of Miami. Pls. Ex. 62.

1 “2022 Plan” refers to the redistricting plan adopted on March 24, 2022 by Resolution 22-

131. “2023 Plan” refers to the redistricting plan adopted on June 14, 2023 by Resolution 23-271.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 5 of 59
6

B. Organizational Plaintiffs

24. Plaintiff Engage Miami, Inc. is a 501(c)(4) membership organization founded in 

2015, whose mission is to advance justice, sustainability, and democracy by building a culture of 

civic participation for young people that is bold, local, and impactful. Pls. Ex. 55. Engage Miami 

fulfills this mission by focusing on increasing the civic engagement of young people through voter 

engagement—voter registration, civic education, leadership development, and advocacy related to 

this issues that its members priorities. Engage Miami advocates for issues including democracy 

and voting rights. Pls. Ex. 57, 58. Engage Miami has members who live in all five City Commission 

districts under both the 2022 and 2023 Plans.

25. Plaintiff GRACE (Grove Rights and Community Equity), Inc. is a 501(c)(3) 

membership organization whose mission is to advocate for equitable economic development while 

preserving the historic Black and Bahamian community, culture, and residents of Miami’s West 

Grove neighborhood, protecting vulnerable Black tenants and homeowners at risk of eviction and 

displacement, restoring the rights of the wrongfully displaced, and preserving the community, 

culture, and history of the West Grove and its people. Pls. Ex. 43. As part of its mission, GRACE 

has advocated for the voting rights of its members, African Americans, and other voters of color 

in Miami. Pls. Ex. 45, 46, 57, 58. GRACE and its constituent organizations have members who 

reside in Districts 2 and 4 under the 2022 Plan, and District 2 under the 2023 Plan.

26. ]e South Dade Branch of the NAACP and Miami-Dade Branch of the NAACP are 

affiliate branches of the Florida State Conference of Branches Florida State Conference of 

Branches and Youth Units of the NAACP, the oldest civil rights organization in Florida, formed 

in 1909. Pls. Ex. 47, 48. Their mission is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic 

equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination. Consistent with this 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 6 of 59
7

mission, the NAACP Branches advocate for the voting rights of African Americans and other 

voters of color in Miami, including their members. Pls. Ex. 49–54, 57, 58. The South Dade 

NAACP serves Miami-Dade County south of Flagler Street; the Miami-Dade NAACP serves 

Miami-Dade County north of Flagler Street. The South Dade NAACP has members residing in 

Districts 2, 3, and 4. ]e Miami-Dade NAACP has members residing in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5.

C. Overview of the City Commission and Its Elections

27. Defendant City of Miami is a Florida municipality. As a municipal corporation 

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

including establishing its Commission district boundaries, consistent with state law. ECF 148 (J. 

Stip.) ¶ 1.

28. Miami is governed by a five-member City Commission and a Mayor. J. Stip. ¶ 2.

29. Except where the Miami City Charter provides otherwise, municipal elections are 

conducted according to the state’s general election laws. J. Stip. ¶ 3.

30. Since 1997, commissioners have been elected from single-member districts. J. Stip. 

¶ 4.

31. Commissioners run on a nonpartisan basis and serve four-year staggered terms, 

with Districts 1, 2, and 4 last elected in 2023 and next up in 2027, and Districts 3 and 5 last elected 

in 2021 and next up in 2025. J. Stip. ¶ 5.

32. General municipal elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in 

November of odd-numbered years. J. Stip. ¶ 6.

33. Except for candidate qualifying, which is managed by the City Clerk, the MiamiDade County Elections Department administers Miami’s municipal elections. J. Stip. ¶ 7.

34. Commissioners are limited to two consecutive terms. J. Stip. ¶ 8.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 7 of 59
8

35. The current commissioners are Miguel Angel Gabela (District 1), Damian Pardo 

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

Stip. ¶ 9.

36. The 2021–22 redistricting process produced the 2022 Plan, enacted in Resolution 

R-22-131. J. Stip. ¶ 10.

37. The 2023 redistricting process produced the 2023 Plan, enacted in Resolution R23-271. J. Stip. ¶ 11.

38. The District 1 and 2 commissioners in office during the 2021–22 redistricting 

process were Alex Díaz de la Portilla and Ken Russell, respectively. J. Stip. ¶ 12.

39. The District 1 and 2 commissioners in office during the 2023 redistricting process 

were Alex Diaz de la Portilla and Sabina Covo, respectively. J. Stip. ¶ 13.

40. Díaz de la Portilla was first elected in 2019 and lost reelection in the November 

2023 election held under the 2023 Plan. J. Stip. ¶ 15.

41. King was first elected in 2021 and is eligible for reelection in 2025. J. Stip. ¶ 16.

42. Reyes was first elected in a 2017 special election, was reelected to his first full term 

in 2019, and was reelected again in the November 2023 election held under the 2023 Plan. J. Stip. 

¶ 17.

43. Carollo was first elected in 2017, was reelected in 2021 under the 2013 plan, and is 

ineligible for reelection when his current term ends in 2025. J. Stip. ¶ 18.

44. Russell ran for United States Congress in the 2022 election and resigned on 

December 29, 2022. J. Stip. ¶ 19.

45. Covo was elected in a February 2023 special election held under the 2022 Plan and 

lost reelection in the November 2023 election held under the 2023 Plan. J. Stip. ¶ 20.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 8 of 59
9

46. Damian Pardo was first elected in the November 2023 election held under the 2023 

Plan. J. Stip. ¶ 21.

47. Miguel Gabela was first elected in the November 2023 election held under the 2023 

Plan. J. Stip. ¶ 22.

48. Díaz de la Portilla, Carollo, Reyes, and Gabela are Hispanic and Cuban American. 

Covo and Pardo are Hispanic. King is Black and not Hispanic. Russell is White and Japanese 

American and not Hispanic. J. Stip. ¶ 14.

D. Miami Redistricting History

49. Before 1997, the Commission was elected at-large, citywide. Pls. Ex. 95; ECF 143 

(2nd Am. Compl.) ¶ 56; ECF 150 (Answer) ¶ 56.

50. Carollo served as Mayor when single-member districts were instituted in 1997. ]at 

same year, he appointed a blue-ribbon panel to recommend a single-member district map for the 

Commission, in response to a VRA lawsuit brought of behalf of Black voters. Pls. Ex. 97, 100;

2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 57; Answer ¶ 57.

51. Among the members of the blue-ribbon panel were Reyes and Miguel De Grandy.

Pls. Ex. 100; 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 58; Answer ¶ 58.

52. ]e blue-ribbon panel made recommendations to the Commission, which

developed a map (the “1997 Plan”). Pls. Ex. 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112; 2nd Am. 

Compl. ¶¶ 59–60; Answer ¶¶ 59–60.

53. In September 1997, the voters adopted a charter amendment adopting singlemember district elections. ]e 1997 Plan was implemented for the November 1997 elections. Pls. 

Ex. 116, 117, 118; 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 61; Answer ¶ 61.

54. As part of the decennial redistricting process, the Commission revised the City 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 9 of 59
10

Commission map in 2003 and 2013 through Resolutions 03-448 and 13-208 (the “2003 Plan” and 

“2013 Plan”). 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 62; Answer ¶ 62.

55. De Grandy and Stephen M. Cody served as the city’s redistricting consultants for 

the 2003 and 2013 processes. 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 63; Answer ¶ 63.

56. Race played a central role in the drawing of the 1997, 2003, and 2013 Plans.

57. In 1997, the plan was drawn to “give[] representation to all the main groups . . . 

three districts for Hispanics, one district that will certainly have an African-American 

representative, and one . . . Anglo American representative.” Pls. Ex. 112 (quoting then-Mayor 

Carollo).

58. ]e one Anglo commissioner in 1997, J.L. Plummer, successfully advocated for a 

five-district map that provided the greatest concentration of Anglo residents in one district.

Plummer sought to have Anglo residents concentrated in one district because, “In the same way 

this lawsuit is demanding guaranteed representation of the blacks, Anglos have the same right to 

demand representation . . . . It is inconceivable we would not have representation on this 

commission.” Pls. Ex. 107 (quoting Plummer).

59. One Hispanic commissioner, Humberto Hernandez, advocated for a five-district 

plan over a six-district plan because six districts would result in “overrepresentation” of Black 

residents. Pls. Ex. 107 (quoting Hernandez). Instead, Hernandez favored a map that moved fewer 

Hispanic voters into Black-majority districts, criticizing the alternative as “disenfranchising those 

Hispanics who have no common interest with the rest of the district.” Pls. Ex. 107 (quoting 

Hernandez); see also Pls. Ex. 114 (Hernandez “had voiced his fear that . . . that if Jose Marti Park 

were to fall within a black district, its name might be changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Park.”).

60. All five districts were drawn primarily to sort voters along racial lines in 1997, as 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 10 of 59
11

reflected in the City’s demographics and contemporaneous statements of commissioners.

61. ]e 2003 and 2013 Plans made minimal changes to the districts to equalize 

population.

62. In 2013, the Commission’s consultants conducted a study of racially polarized 

voting (RPV) in the City and concluded that the voting was racially polarized between Black and 

non-Black voters such that the preconditions the Supreme Court outlined in Qornburg v. Gingles, 

478 U.S. 30 (1986) (the “Gingles preconditions”) were present. Pls. Ex. 92.

63. ]e Commission’s consultants advised that the VRA compliance required the City

to maintain a district with a Black voting age population majority. Pls. Ex. 92.

64. ]e Commission adopted a 65% Black voting-age population (BVAP) target for 

District 5, and rejected alternative plans that reduced District 5’s BVAP below 60%. Pls. Ex. 90.

65. In addition to the 65% BVAP target for District 5, the Commission was focused on 

maintaining the high concentration of Anglo voting-age population in District 2. Pls. Ex. 90, 92, 

94.

66. ]e Commission was also attentive to the Hispanic populations in Districts 1, 3, 

and 4 in 2013. Pls. Ex. 92, 94.

67. Race predominated in the drawing of all five districts during the 1997–2013 cycles.

E. 2021–22 Redistricting Cycle

68. Following the 2020 Census, the Commission began its redistricting process. 2nd 

Am. Compl. ¶ 64; Answer ¶ 64.

69. ]e process began in 2021 and resulted in the passage of the 2022 Plan.

70. ]e mapmaking process proceeded through six Commission meetings and was 

driven by racial considerations at every turn. Pls. Ex. 1–8; 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 66; Answer ¶ 66.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 11 of 59
12

71. ]e Commission again hired De Grandy and Cody as its redistricting consultants. 

2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 65; Answer ¶ 65. ]ey first met with the Commission on November 18, 2021.

At that meeting, De Grandy presented an initial report on redistricting considerations and the 2020 

Census demographics of the districts under the 2013 Plan. Pls. Ex. 12–14; 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 68; 

Answer ¶ 68.

72. De Grandy shared that redistricting was needed to bring the districts within the 

allowable population range, to have no greater than 10% difference between the smallest and 

largest district. Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 4:1–12).

73. Analyzing the 2013 Plan, Districts 1, 3, 4, and 5 were each under the ideal 

population and needed to gain population. District 2, the district in which Anglo residents were 

concentrated, was significantly overpopulated and needed to shed population. 2nd Am. Compl. 

¶ 71–72; Answer ¶ 71–72.

74. Under the 2013 Plan, Districts 1, 3, and 4 were majority Hispanic, with Hispanic 

voting-age populations (HVAPs) of 91.0, 88.5, and 91.6%, and Hispanic citizen voting-age 

populations (HCVAPs) of 86.6, 86.8, and 90.1%. J. Stip. ¶ 24; 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 73; Answer ¶ 73.

75. District 5 was majority Black, with a Black voting-age population (BVAP) of 

52.9% and a Black citizen voting-age population (BCVAP) of 59.4%. J. Stip. ¶ 24; 2nd Am. 

Compl. ¶ 74; Answer ¶ 74.

76. District 2 under the 2013 Plan had the highest non-Hispanic white (“white” or 

“Anglo”) population of the five districts, at 34.5% white voting-age population (WVAP) and 38.1% 

white citizen voting-age population (WCVAP). J. Stip. ¶ 24; 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 75; Answer ¶ 75.

77. At the November 18, 2021 meeting, De Grandy told commissioners that “we can 

consider race as one of several factors that we will be conscious of in crafting a plan,” Pls. Ex. 1 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 12 of 59
13

(11/18/21 Tr. 6:23), but that race “cannot be the overriding factor,” Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 7:6). 

Despite this warning, race predominated in the drawing of the Commission’s maps as the process 

unfolded.

78. ]e Commission gave De Grandy four ranked directives for map-drafting: (1) 

achieve substantial equality of population between districts, rather than precise mathematical 

equality; (2) “maintain the core constituencies of the districts;” (3) apart from what the VRA 

required, “the minority voters must be politically cohesive;” and (4) avoid splitting traditional 

communities and neighborhoods when feasible. Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 4:5–11, 17:19–20, 18:15–

22, 19:22–23, 33:4–11, 35:21, 36:1–11). 

79. As to the second directive, the Commission made it clear throughout the process 

that it sought to maintain existing districts both to carry the 2013 Plan’s existing racial divisions 

forward. In addition, the Commission sought to exacerbate those racial divisions through further 

changes. 

80. With respect to the third directive, the phrase “political cohesion” was subsequently 

used throughout the process as shorthand for keeping racially homogenous areas together. See, 

e.g., Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 28:20–21 (Carollo: “minority voters will be politically cohesive within 

these districts”)); Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 9:7–8 (De Grandy: “this area has a high percentage of 

Hispanics and greater voter cohesion with D1 residents”), 10:7–8 (“we tried to find adjacent areas 

with similar demographics in order to maintain voter cohesion”)); Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 8:3–

4 (same), 7:6–7 (“we felt this movement was needed because Hispanics in this area constitute 

roughly 70% of the population. Thus, they have greater voter cohesion”)); Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 

67:1 (Carollo discussing District 3 going into West Brickell as “not cohesive anymore” because 

the racial demographics change)). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 13 of 59
14

81. The Commission abandoned the fourth-ranked directive whenever it interfered with 

the Commission’s race-based goals, splitting communities across the city along racial lines.

82. Carollo explained at the November 18, 2021 meeting that each district would have 

to change to carry forward that “the original idea” of districts: “that minority voters will be 

politically cohesive within these districts” “to assure that there would be an African American 

sitting in this Commission and there would be an Anglo,” and “to make sure that there were three 

Hispanic districts.” Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 28:7–10, 28:15–29:3). 

83. ]e Commission next met on December 9, 2021, with De Grandy recapping his 

instructions and commissioners discussing what areas might be moved between districts. 

84. Some of the key elements of the 2022 Plan’s racial gerrymander originated at this 

meeting, including the idea to remove parts of Coconut Grove from District 2 to maintain the plan’s 

racial balance and avoid “jeopardiz[ing] the ethnic integrity of [the] districts,” and to redraw 

District 5 to minimize reductions to its Black population. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 9:4–10:10, 13:15–

22). 

85. De Grandy also reiterated the Commission’s four directives at this meeting and 

confirmed that drawing compact districts—a traditional redistricting principle—would jeopardize 

the Commission’s racial goals. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 28:23–29:20). 

86. ]e Commission could not reach a consensus on using major manmade and natural 

boundaries as a factor. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 18:23–19:21). 

87. De Grandy agreed to take the Commission’s directives, meet individually with each 

commissioner, and develop a draft plan. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 33:18–35:14).

88. On February 7, 2022, De Grandy returned with his draft plan (the “Feb. 7 Draft”). 

Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 5:16–12:11); Pls. Ex. 15 at 40; Pls. Ex. 68. Walking through each draft 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 14 of 59
15

district’s racial demographics, De Grandy noted the many race-based decisions he made in 

developing them. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 7:5–13, 8:4–12:11); Pls. Ex. 16, 17. 

89. Commissioners debated the draft, focusing especially on the decision to move part 

of the historically Black West Grove neighborhood from District 2 into District 4, extending 

District 4 across US Route 1. ]is proposal prompted intense public criticism from Miamians who 

objected to dividing a cohesive neighborhood and excising it from District 2. See, e.g., Pls. Ex. 3 

(2/7/22 Tr. 25:9–26:7, 30:12–31:14). 

90. De Grandy defended the choice in racialized terms. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 41:23–

42:11, 42:21–43:6). ]e Commission voted 4-1 to direct De Grandy to consider going south of US 

1 into District 2 to “obtain voter consistency” and balance population. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 95:15–

16, 99:9–20).

91. De Grandy shared a new draft on February 22, 2022 (the “Feb. 22 Draft” or the 

“Base Plan”) and presented it at the February 25 meeting. Pls. Ex. 18, 19, 69. ]is map

incorporated certain feedback shared in earlier Commission meetings and during private meetings 

De Grandy had with individual commissioners. Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 4:5–10:2). 

92. Except for three unpopulated census blocks later moved from District 1 to District 

5, the Feb. 22 Draft became the 2022 Plan. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 7:12–14, 86:17–18). 

93. Russell sketched out his suggestion for the District 2 border at this meeting, which 

kept all of Coconut Grove in District 2. Pls. Ex. 5 (2/25/22 PM Tr. 12:7–14:21); Pls. Ex. 70. 

94. ]e Commission voted 4-1 to make the Feb. 22 Draft the “Base Plan” for future 

changes. Pls. Ex. 5 (2/25/22 PM Tr. 37:6–11, 39:2, 42:9–23).

95. On March 11, 2022, the Commission discussed two suggested changes to the Base 

Plan: an unrealized suggestion of King’s—whose racial impacts De Grandy noted—and the “Initial 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 15 of 59
16

Russell Plan,” which sought to unify Coconut Grove. Pls. Ex. 21.

96. De Grandy also addressed “allegations of racism” in the Base Plan and defended 

the map with race-based logic. Pls. Ex. 5 (2/25/22 PM Tr. 37:18–40:16, 47:20–23); Pls. Ex. 20, at 

6–13. Russell and members of the public disagreed with De Grandy by explaining all the raceneutral reasons why Coconut Grove should be unified in one district. See, e.g., Pls. Ex. 6 (3/11/22 

AM Tr. 45:18–46:1, 47:1–8, 64:13–65:9). ]e meeting closed with the commissioners directing 

De Grandy to meet with them individually and craft different options accommodating each 

commissioner’s wishes. Pls. Ex. 7 (3/11/22 PM Tr. 40:5–22).

97. ]e Commission reconvened for its final meeting on March 24, 2022, with De 

Grandy presenting the options each commissioner directed him to develop. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 

5:14–8:19); Pls. Ex. 22. King proposed a small, unpopulated change between Districts 1 and 5; 

Díaz de la Portilla suggested moving one condo tower from District 1 into District 5; Russell 

proposed the “Revised Russell Plan,” which made changes to Districts 2, 3, and 4 to keep Coconut 

Grove whole; and Reyes had his own plan (the “Reyes Plan”) which altered those same three 

districts to remove a portion of Coconut Grove from District 4. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 5:14–8:19); 

Pls. Ex. 22, at 5–11; Pls. Ex. 72, 73. 

98. ]e Commission debated and eventually adopted the Base Plan with King’s small 

change on a 3-2 vote. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 86:15–18, 89:20–22). King, Díaz de la Portilla, and 

Carollo voted in favor of the 2022 Plan; Reyes and Russell voted against. J. Stip. ¶ 43.

F. District-by-District Analysis of the 2022 Plan

99. ]e Commission’s explicit, overriding goal was to separate Hispanic from Black 

from Anglo voters into separate districts as much as possible, with the aim to have commissioners 

of particular races and ethnic backgrounds elected.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 16 of 59
17

100. ]is objective drove the Commission’s entire redistricting process. See, e.g., Pls. 

Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 13:13–14 (Carollo urging mapmaking “in a way that the balance is not really 

shifted” after De Grandy and Díaz de la Portilla discussed racial demographics)); Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22

Tr. 51:10–14 (Carollo: districts were established “to assure” a particular racial composition), 

100:13–17 (Carollo’s “goals:” “to have guaranteed Anglo representation, and to have three districts 

that were Hispanic”)); Pls. Ex. 5 (2/25/22 PM Tr. 22:14–15 (Reyes: “Yes, we are gerrymandering 

to preserve those seats”)); Pls. Ex. 7 (3/11/22 PM Tr. 8:14–16 (Díaz de la Portilla)); Pls. Ex. 8 

(3/24/22 Tr. 68:14–17 (Carollo: “I do not want to change the District 3 voting patterns, the types 

of people that are there with different people. I don’t want to do that to District 4, nor to District 1. 

Just like I want to be able to leave District 2 where it could still elect a guy like you [Russell] . . . . 

District 5 [] will be a majority-African American district.”)).

1. Creating an “Anglo Access” District 2

101. ]roughout the process, the Commission acknowledged that District 2 was

historically drawn to elect an Anglo commissioner and sought to maintain it as such. 

102. Carollo explained that District 2 originally “was gerrymandered but it was a legal 

gerrymander so that you would have an Anglo elected commissioner.” Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 51:18–

19). 

103. ]at remained his goal—a goal others shared. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. at 56:16–18 

(Carollo: “We’re gonna have to keep one district that you can get an Anglo, whether they’re an 

Anglo that’s Japanese or an Anglo that’s Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, Polish, English, French, they 

can get elected.”), 68:15–16 (Carollo: “I want to be able to leave District 2 where it could still elect 

a guy like you [Russell], if they want to.”), 39:9–11 (Reyes: “What we want to achieve now is” 

that “the probabilities of electing an Anglo . . . are great”)); Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 68:7–9 (Reyes 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 17 of 59
18

asking De Grandy if the Feb. 7 Draft is “the best you can do to protect . . . the Anglo seat”)); Pls. 

Ex. 5 (2/25/22 PM Tr. 19:21–20:4 (Reyes confirming with De Grandy that “the so-called Anglo 

district will . . . stand the test of time” and “the probability of electing . . . an Anglo” is “very 

probable”)); Pls. Ex. 7 (3/11/22 PM Tr. 8:14–16 (Díaz de la Portilla: “Our goal here is to have . . . 

a white district”)).

104. De Grandy confirmed that District 2 had a high probability of electing an Anglo 

commissioner. Pls. Ex. 5 (2/25/22 PM Tr. 20:11–12).

105. District 2 has the highest Anglo population of the five districts, at 37.4% WVAP, 

41.5% WCVAP, and 43.4% white voter registration—higher even than under the 2013 Plan.

2. Attaining a 50% BVAP Quota in District 5

106. Race predominated in the drawing of District 5.

107. In District 5, the Commission’s overriding goal was to keep the Black population 

as high as possible by establishing a 50% BVAP target.

108. From the outset, De Grandy and the Commission were sensitive to maintaining 

District 5’s Black share, with a particular reluctance to make changes to the District 2/5 boundary 

that would decrease District 5’s Black population. See, e.g., Pls. Es. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 23:6–10).

109. In De Grandy’s initial Feb. 7 Draft, District 5 was 51.7% Black by total population 

(BPOP), 49.8% BVAP, and 58.7% BCVAP. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 8:17); Pls. Ex. 68.

110. De Grandy explained that he deliberately underpopulated District 5, “because 

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

American population percentage.” Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 8:13–15). 

111. He set the boundary “wall” between Districts 2 and 5, explaining “we could not 

move further east without affecting the African American population’s ability to elect a candidate 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 18 of 59
19

of its choice in D5.” Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 9:19–20).

112. As De Grandy explained, this caused him to turn to District 2’s southern end to 

equalize its population, resulting in moving areas of District 2 into Districts 3 and 4 in Coconut 

Grove. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 9:20–21). 

113. Adherence to a Black population target also impacted District 1. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 

Tr. 70:21).

114. In exchange for moving the “wall” east into less-Black areas of Downtown and 

Edgewater, De Grandy “rebalance[d] the ethnic and racial population” by removing 

“overwhelmingly Hispanic” areas along the Miami River from District 5 and moving them into 

District 1. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 43:1–3; 11:17–20); Pls. Ex. 68, at 3.

115. ]e Commission reacted to De Grandy’s Feb. 7 Draft—and its District 5 with a 

BVAP under 50%—with skepticism. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 68:7–8 (Reyes: “is this the best you can 

do to protect the African American seat?”), 71:22–23 (King likewise “concerned . . . that District 

5 is 51% African American.”).

116. De Grandy interpreted this and other feedback as a “directive” to “increase[] D5’s 

Black voting age population above 50%,” which he did in his Feb. 22 Draft, “by reconfiguring 

areas around the boundaries” of the district. Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 7:1–2, 9:15, 9:17, 5:13–

15). 

117. De Grandy again deliberately underpopulated District 5 to increase its Black share. 

Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 6:15–16). 

118. Maintaining the minimum-50% BVAP quota remained a priority through all the 

redistricting meeting. See, e.g., Pls. Ex. 6 (3/11/22 AM Tr. 37:5–9 (De Grandy explaining King 

proposal would “lower the Black VAP to 49%, but this could be remedied by making additional 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 19 of 59
20

changes to . . . increase D5’s Black voting age population”)); Pls. Ex. 20 at 4 (describing same 

proposal as a “deficiency”); Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 8:7–9 (De Grandy “recommend[ing] additional 

tweaks to the plan to bring the Black voting age population back above 50%”), 56:12–16 (Carollo: 

“]e only reason [King] doesn’t take the rest [of Downtown] is . . . we have to keep one district 

that is going to have a majority of African Americans.”), 64:23–65:2 (De Grandy: “I cannot put 

one more resident into Commissioner King’s district. . . . [G]oing further east would dilute the 

Black majority.”), 68:16–17 (Carollo: “In District 5, that will be a majority-African American 

district.”), 70:21 (Díaz de la Portilla: “I can’t go north, because if I go north I jeopardize the African 

American seat.”)).

119. One of the areas moved into District 5 to achieve the 50% BVAP target included 

FDC-Miami, a federal detention center with a disproportionately high Black population, but where 

detainees do not vote.

120. District 5 in the 2022 Plan has a BVAP of 50.3%. 

121. ]e 50% BVAP target is unsupported by voting patterns in the City of Miami. 

Analyses of racially polarized voting show that Black voters can usually elect candidates of their 

choice even when the Black share of registered voters and VAP is much lower than 50%.

122. ]e Commission and Mayor were on notice that its 50% BVAP target was 

unsupported by voting patterns in the City. ]e ACLU of Florida and others raised concerns during 

the legislative process regarding the arbitrary 50% BVAP floor and overconcentrating Black voters 

in District 5. Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 34:4–23); Pls Ex. 23, 24.

3. Districts 1, 3, and 4

123. Race likewise predominated in the drawing of Districts 1, 3, and 4.

124. ]e Commission’s overriding goal for these districts was to balance their Hispanic 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 20 of 59
21

populations to be as consistently high as possible.

125. Carollo set the tone before any maps were drafted: “My main interest in my district 

and [Districts 1 and 4] is that I’m sure that we’re going to keep the balance of the Hispanic 

population where we’re going to be getting Hispanics elected there.” Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 23:4–

7).

126. ]at goal pervaded the Commission’s attitude toward these three districts. See, e.g.,

Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 14:8–9 (Carollo discussing relative “purity” of Hispanic percentages in the 

three districts)); Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 103:18–21 (Carollo expressing desire to “keep the same type 

of last names, faces” in the districts), 107:13–14 (Reyes agreeing to “working out in a way that we 

can make it as Hispanic as you can”)); Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 56:19–20 (Carollo: “we have to keep 

three districts that are going to be majority-Hispanic”), 70:22–71:2 (Díaz de la Portilla expressing 

same views)).

a. District 1/5 Border

127. ]e District 1/5 border was drawn along racial lines, to put Hispanic residents in 

District 1 and strip them from District 5. Simultaneously, the border packed Black residents into 

District 5 and stripped them from District 1.

128. District 1, which under the 2013 Plan was underpopulated by about 7,000 residents, 

gained all its new population from District 5. 

129. From the outset, discussions of where District 1 could gain population focused 

almost exclusively on race, with Carollo highlighting both Wynwood and the north side of the 

Miami River as “logical” and “attractive” because they are “mainly Hispanic.” Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 

Tr. 3:12–17). 

130. Díaz de la Portilla reflected how he “really can’t go north” to gain population in 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 21 of 59
22

Allapattah or Liberty City, because “[i]t’s an African American area.” Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 4:19–

20). 

131. Carollo noted there might be an area by 36th Street (District 1’s northern border 

under the 2013 Plan) that District 1 might add, depending on how Hispanic the area was. Pls. Ex. 

2 (12/9/21 Tr. 5:6–8). 

132. Díaz de la Portilla agreed the line might extend north to 40th Street, but not past 

State Road 112, because “north of 112 we are entering into African American neighborhoods—

and we can’t touch that area.” Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 5:14–19).

133. De Grandy’s Feb. 7 Draft added to District 1 the riverside areas Carollo suggested. 

De Grandy explained he did so “because this area has a high percentage of Hispanics and greater 

voter cohesion with D1 residents.” Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 9:7–8). 

134. ]e Base Plan moved a small portion of that riverside area around the Miami 

Riverside Center back into District 5. In exchange, the plan moved another eight city blocks into 

District 1. De Grandy explained, “[a]gain, we felt this movement was needed because Hispanics 

in this area constitute roughly 70% of the population. ]us, they have greater voter cohesion” with 

the rest of District 1. Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 7:6–8).

135. Besides the changes Downtown, the 2022 Plan also moved territory between 

Districts 1 and 5 in Allapattah. ]ese areas were moved to increase District 1’s Hispanic share, 

decrease its Black share, and do the opposite for District 5. See, e.g., Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 

6:23–7:2).

b. District 2/3 Border

136. ]e Commission also drew the District 2/3 border along racial lines, to pack 

Hispanic residents into District 3 and strip them from District 2. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 22 of 59
23

137. Díaz de la Portilla first suggested moving areas “where Hispanic voters live” from 

District 2 and into Districts 3 and 4 at the second redistricting meeting, mentioning Coconut Grove 

and Bay Heights specifically. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 7:16–17). 

138. De Grandy incorporated this suggestion into his Feb. 7 Draft, moving portions of 

District 2 into District 3, stretching from SW 15th Road in the north to SW 17th Avenue in the 

south, over to South Miami Avenue. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 9:21–23). 

139. After Russell questioned why De Grandy moved this area from District 2 rather 

than parts of Brickell/Downtown further north, De Grandy said he did so “because the 

demographics were dissimilar” further north. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 90:10).

140. Walking through the Base Plan, De Grandy reiterated he “did not feel it was 

appropriate to move east” into Brickell “because of dissimilar demographics.” Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 

AM Tr. 7:22–23; Tr. 5B 36:17–37:2 (De Grandy explaining he didn’t move parts of Brickell into 

District 3 because its Hispanic population was “in the 40’s, whereas District 3 is in the 80’s”)); Pls. 

Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 75:11–13 (reiterating same point)). 

141. Commissioners supported this reasoning, which compelled District 3 to pick up 

part of Coconut Grove instead. Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 7:6–8 (Carollo)); Pls. Ex. 5 (2/25/22 

PM Tr. 41:13–19 (Carollo: “throw[ing] District 3 into Brickell” is “truly going to change the whole 

component of one district” with “a domino effect” for other districts’ demographic compositions), 

9:15–17 (Díaz de la Portilla agreeing that the Grove is “the only place to go” to remove population 

from District 2)).

142. ]e Commission rejected alternatives for the 2/3 border that did not so starkly 

separate areas along racial lines.

143. ]e Initial Russell Plan proposed extending District 3’s eastern boundary one block 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 23 of 59
24

east to South Miami Avenue, to allow all of Coconut Grove to be united in District 2. Pls. Ex. 21, 

71.

144. De Grandy advised the proposal complied with the VRA, Pls. Ex. 6 (3/11/22 AM 

Tr. 52:12–13), but other commissioners objected to moving a less-Hispanic area into District 3. 

Pls. Ex. 7 (3/11/22 PM Tr. 32:11–13 (Reyes: “I don’t agree with it because [] there is a lot of 

Anglos in that area”), 32:10 (Díaz de la Portilla)).

145. ]e Revised Russell Plan again united Coconut Grove in District 2 while moving 

even less of the Brickell area into District 3. Pls. Ex. 72.

146. ]e area moved—44.6% HVAP, 39% WVAP—would have decreased District 3’s 

HVAP. 

147. De Grandy again advised that the proposal complied with the VRA, Pls. Ex. 8 

(3/24/22 Tr. at 8:6–7), and it met the criteria the Commission originally adopted, Id. (3/24/22 Tr. 

at 61:10–62:8), but the Commission rejected it because it decreased District 3’s Hispanic 

population. Id. (3/24/22 Tr. at 64:10–13, 74:2–10 (Reyes explaining why he rejected Russell 

plans), 70:15–18, 71:7–16, 72:1–3 (Díaz de la Portilla)).

148. ]e Reyes Plan made even smaller changes to the 2/3 border, restoring the West 

Grove sliver to District 2 while moving a bare-HVAP-majority area from District 2 into 3 (51% 

HVAP). Id. (3/24/22 Tr. at 77:6–7); Pls. Ex. 73. 

149. Even though De Grandy advised the Reyes Plan complied with the VRA, Pls. Ex. 

8 (3/24/22 Tr. at 8:6–7), the Commission rejected it for the same reasons as Russell’s proposals. 

Id. (3/24/22 Tr. at 66:14–18, 67:1–5, 68:13–15, 70:13). 

150. De Grandy summed up the perceived benefit of his District 3 versus Russell’s or 

Reyes’ proposals: “Is it [a] stronger Hispanic district under the base plan, absolutely.” Id. (3/24/22 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 24 of 59
25

Tr. 75:21); see also id. (3/24/22 Tr. at 78:3–18).

151. Under the Revised Russell Plan, District 3 was 86.6% HVAP and 84.8% HCVAP. 

Pls. Ex. 72.

152. Under the Reyes Plan, it was 87.3% HVAP and 86.0% HCVAP. Pls. Ex. 73.

153. In the Base Plan and 2022 Plan, it is 88.3% HVAP and 86.9% HCVAP.

c. District 2/4 Border

154. ]e Commission also drew the line between Districts 2 and 4 to pack Hispanic 

residents into the majority-Hispanic district and strip them from the “Anglo-access” district. 

155. ]is border was shaped by two major decisions: (1) moving a supermajorityHispanic area of Golden Pines north of US 1 around Douglas Park into District 4, and (2) moving 

areas south of US 1 in Coconut Grove into District 4 as well. Pls. Ex. 69 at 6. 

156. Díaz de la Portilla and Carollo discussed the “very Hispanic area” around Douglas 

Park in District 2 as one that “probably doesn’t belong there” because it has “more commonalities” 

in terms of “political cohesion” (i.e., racial demographics) with District 4 than the rest of District 

2. Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 24:1–4, 24:14–16); Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 19:22–20:2). 

157. ]is area, which is 81.8% HVAP, was moved into District 4 in all drafts the 

Commission considered.

158. ]e second area moved into District 4, a piece of Coconut Grove, followed Díaz de 

la Portilla’s early suggestion to move areas “where the Hispanic voters live” given the “ethnic 

diversity in Coconut Grove.” Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 7:16–17). 

159. ]e area moved is a 59.2%-HVAP triangle bounded by US 1, Day Avenue, and SW 

27th Avenue. 

160. ]at triangle was not as Hispanic as the rest of District 4, but because the 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 25 of 59
26

Commission considered District 4 to be the “purest” Hispanic district already, it was acceptable 

for it to add “only” “a slice, sliver” of less-Hispanic “bone.” Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 14:5–6); Pls. 

Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 103:18, 104:4–7). 

161. Eventually, Reyes accepted adding part of Coconut Grove because he thought it 

was needed to maintain District 5’s racial balance. Pls. Ex. 6 (3/11/22 AM Tr. 50:13–14).

162. Rejected proposals for District 4 clarify the Commission’s intent to “balance” its 

Hispanic population. 

163. On February 7, De Grandy proposed giving District 4 a chunk of the North Grove 

between 22nd and 27th Avenues. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 101:11–14, 102:2–3). 

164. To convince Reyes to take this 55% WVAP area, Carollo reminded him he has “the 

most Hispanic” and “Cuban district,” and that the Feb. 7 Draft already gave him “a huge Hispanic 

area on the other side of US 1”—the Douglas Park area. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 102:10–12, 103:11–

12, 105:2–3); see also Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 103:16 (Reyes welcoming the Douglas Park area: “I’ll 

take it.”)). 

165. Comparing that 82% HVAP Douglas Park addition to his 55% WVAP North Grove 

proposal, Carollo explained Reyes cannot “get[] all the sirloin but none of the bone.” Pls. Ex. 3 

(2/7/22 Tr. 103:18). 

166. In the end, the Hispanic-rich “sirloin” was moved into the packed Hispanicmajority District 4, while most of the majority-white “bone” remained in District 2. 

167. District 4 in the 2022 Plan is 89.5% HVAP and 88.2% HCVAP. 

d. Internal Borders of Districts 1, 3, and 4

168. ]e borders that Districts 1, 3, and 4 share were also drawn to facilitate the 2022

Plan’s packing of Hispanic voters into these districts and, more generally, to accomplish the 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 26 of 59
27

tripartite racial separation throughout the map. 

169. ]e Commission treated Hispanic voters on the borders of these districts as fungible 

because these areas are all predominantly Hispanic. See, e.g., Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 33:14–16 

(Díaz de la Portilla explaining it did not matter whether Flagami was in District 1 or 4 because 

those residents “will elect the same kind of representative”)). 

170. As commissioners recounted multiple times, Hispanic neighborhoods like Flagami 

and Little Havana were split between Districts 1, 3, and 4 to effectuate the policy of maximum 

racial separation. See, e.g., Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 52:5–53:2 (Carollo)); Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 39:2–

12 (Reyes), 79:19–20 (Díaz de la Portilla)).

171. De Grandy followed the Commission’s direction in his Feb. 7 Draft, shifting parts 

of Little Havana between Districts 3 and 4 because they were “adjacent areas with similar 

demographics.” Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 10:7–8). 

172. Workshopping that map and following his comments about District 4 not keeping 

all the “sirloin,” Carollo suggested moving into District 3 a different portion of Little Havana, 

between SW 27th and 32nd Avenues. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 104:21–23).

173. When Reyes objected, Carollo explained why it was necessary to add that territory 

to District 3: “you’re getting more than two squares here,” referring to the Douglas Park area, “in 

prime Hispanic area, and you’re diluting the Hispanic vote.” Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 105:1–3).

174. “]ere has to be a balance,” Carollo continued, and in exchange for getting “a huge 

chunk of rich Hispanic voters” around Douglas Park, District 4 needed to balance its Hispanic 

population out with District 3. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 106:3–23). 

175. Reyes agreed to “working out in a way that we can make it as Hispanic as you can.” 

Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 107:13–14). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 27 of 59
28

176. ]e area Carollo wanted to move into District 3 was indeed moved in the 2022 Plan. 

177. De Grandy explained the change: “we tried to find adjacent areas with similar 

demographics in order to maintain voter cohesion.” Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 8:3–4).

178. ]e area is 96.2% HVAP.

4. Ae Commission Subordinated Traditional Redistricting Criteria to Race

179. ]roughout the map, the Commission “subordinated traditional race-neutral 

districting principles . . . to racial considerations.” Bethune-Hill I, 580 U.S. at 187 (quoting Miller, 

515 U.S. at 916).

a. Neighborhoods

180. From the start, the Commission wanted to split certain neighborhoods to pack and 

crack voters based on their race. Díaz de la Portilla noted that some neighborhoods like Flagami 

could be divided between districts if they “will elect the same kind of representative.” Pls. Ex. 1 

(11/18/21 Tr. 33:14–16). But putting part of (predominantly Black) Overtown or Liberty City in 

his district was unacceptable. Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 33:16–17).

181. At the second redistricting meeting on December 9, 2021, Díaz de la Portilla 

suggested splitting another neighborhood: Coconut Grove. He noted that “there’s ethnic diversity 

in Coconut Grove” and splitting the area between Districts 3 and 4 “based on where the Hispanic 

voters live” to maintain the districts’ “ethnic integrity.” Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 7:15–16, 13:15–17). 

]e decision to split the Grove stemmed also from the desire to avoid “touching the racial integrity 

of District 5.” Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 13:17–18). ]e District 2/5 “wall” that prevented District 5 

from dropping below the arbitrary 50% BVAP threshold compelled the Commission to remove 

population from overpopulated District 2’s southern end instead. See, e.g., Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 

9:4–7); Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 42:21–43:6).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 28 of 59
29

182. De Grandy’s Feb. 7 Draft followed the Commission’s direction, going into the 

Grove to move population from District 2 into 4. Responding to public comment opposing splitting 

parts of the historically Black West Grove, De Grandy justified his choice in racial terms. Pls. Ex. 

3 (2/7/22 Tr. 41:23–42:11 (“put[ting] into conte[x]t what we’re moving into, a majority-Hispanic 

district” and noting statistics of the area moved, indicating it is nearly majority-Hispanic)).

183. Carollo’s defense for dividing this neighborhood was explicit: splitting Coconut 

Grove was required to keep racial “balance and having a balance in the Hispanic districts.” Pls. 

Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 54:5–9). Further, he objected to claims that by moving a portion of “the Black 

part of Coconut Grove to a district that’s Hispanic, this disenfranchises them”—but “leav[ing] it 

in an Anglo area” would be fine. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr3 18:2–6). He pointed out that no African 

Americans had ever been elected to District 2, implying that, since District 2 was the “Anglo seat” 

and District 4 was a “Hispanic seat,” Black Groveites had no grounds to complain about being 

moved from one to the other. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 18:7–11).

184. Remarkably, the only reasons De Grandy and the Commission majority ever gave 

for splitting Coconut Grove and moving portions into Districts 3 and 4 were race-based. In 

contrast, members of the public, including Plaintiffs, repeatedly implored the Commission to 

consider the numerous race-neutral reasons for keeping the neighborhood together in District 2, 

and the ways in which Coconut Grove constituted a “communit[y] defined by actual shared 

interests” rather than by race. ALBC I, 575 U.S. at 272 (quoting Miller, 515 U.S. at 916); see, e.g., 

Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 24:17–26:7, 30:12–31:14); Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 13:23–14:13, 16:10–

20, 27:19–28:18); Pls. Ex. 6 (3/11/22 AM Tr. 63:17–64:3, 64:13–65:9, 71:6–18, 77:23–78:14, 

80:9–81:4); Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 22:13–23). Russell made similar appeals. Pls. Ex. 5 (2/25/22 

PM Tr. 18:20–19:2 (citing area’s distinctive interests)); Pls. Ex. 6 (3/11/22 AM Tr. 45:18–46:1 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 29 of 59
30

(“they’re looking for not a Black commissioner, but they’re looking for someone to solve those 

issues”), 47:1–8, 48:4–6, 49:13–18 (responding to De Grandy’s point that more Black residents 

were moved out of District 2 in Golden Pines than in the West Grove, by noting the neighborhoods’ 

Black residents face different issues)).

185. ]e Commission split many other neighborhoods to achieve their preferred racial 

divisions, harming these communities as a result. Little Havana straddles all three majorityHispanic districts; Silver Bluff and Shenandoah (“distinct” and “historical” communities) are 

divided between Districts 3 and 4; and Flagami is split between 1 and 4. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 

52:5–7, 52:8–14, 52:16–17). Allapattah and Overtown (“traditional communities”) cross Districts 

1 and 5, with more-Hispanic portions going to District 1 and less-Hispanic parts going to District 

5. Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 17:20–22); Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 60:16). ]e Commission “cut up 

communities” like these to facilitate racial separation: “to make sure that there’s gonna be an 

African American . . . to make sure there’s an Anglo American” and “that in the rest of the districts 

that are majority Hispanic, that they stayed that way.” Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 52:18–23); see also

Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 38:9–16 (Carollo explaining why they split Little Havana, Shenandoah, 

Silver Bluff, Flagami), 38:23–39:20 (Reyes agreeing that splitting “real established communities” 

“has to be done in order to keep diversity”), 79:19–20 (Díaz de la Portilla: Carollo “broke up 

Hispanic neighborhood after Hispanic neighborhood cause he had to for the greater good.”)).

b. Compactness

186. ]e Commission rejected drawing geographically compact districts early in the 

process, subordinating this traditional criterion to race. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 29:10–16). Díaz de 

la Portilla noted that “if you want to have an African American district and you want to have an 

Anglo district, it’s almost impossible to emphasize compactness,” so it’s “a foregone conclusion” 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 30 of 59
31

that districts would not be compact. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 28:23–29:3). De Grandy concurred. 

Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 29:2–6); see also Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 18:9–11 (Reyes stating only one 

district is compact), 18:4–5 (Russell: District 2 “the least compact as a district”), 2:10–11 (De 

Grandy: “Compactness, quite frankly, in this plan would be extremely difficult to achieve.”), 17:20 

(“Compactness, again, I don’t think compactness is a feasible alternative.”), 18:7–8 (“I mean look 

at the districts the way they are drawn, they are not compact.”), 29:2–6 (“[Y]our plan is not really 

a plan of compact districts.”)).

187. ]e districts are indeed visibly non-compact, featuring “irregular contours,” 

“bizarre designs,” and “unnecessary appendage[s].” Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 939; In re Senate Joint 

Resol. 1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 634 (Fla. 2012).

188. District 3 gains an irregular appendage south of US 1 into Coconut Grove, to pick 

up a more ethnically diverse, Hispanic area. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 7:16–17). 

189. District 2 features a spur in Downtown, scooping out six less-Black city blocks 

from District 5. 

190. District 1 snakes along the north side of the Miami River to Flagler Street, an 

appendage designed to move more-Hispanic areas into District 1 from District 5. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 

Tr. 9:5–8); Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 7:3–8). 

191. Districts 1 and 4 feature long tails stretching west to divide Flagami for racial 

purposes. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 38:9–15, 39:3–12). 

c. Respecting Major Manmade and Natural Boundaries

192. Drawing districts to respect major manmade and natural boundaries is another 

traditional redistricting principle the Commission subordinated to race. De Grandy suggested the 

Commission consider using such boundaries as a factor, but there was no consensus to ratify it as 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 31 of 59
32

a priority. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 18:23–19:21). ]is debate largely focused on whether US 1 was 

a boundary that should be respected as the border of District 2, or whether Districts 3 and/or 4 

should cross US 1 into Coconut Grove. Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 19:5–21). Ultimately, the 

Commission opted to cross US 1 “where the Hispanic voters live” to maintain Districts 3 and 4’s 

“ethnic integrity.” Pls. Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 7:17, 7:3).

193. ]e 2022 Plan deviates from major geographic boundaries for racial reasons 

elsewhere. ]e District 1/4 border in Flagami winds along two-lane residential streets. See Pls. Ex. 

2 (12/9/21 Tr. 4:15–17 (De Grandy explaining major boundaries include section-line roads as 

opposed to local streets)). ]e piece of Allapattah moved into District 5 is bounded by two-lane 

streets, rather than I-95 and a federal highway as in the 2013 Plan. Further south, the District 1/5 

border again deviates from I-95 to ensure a 61% BVAP tract stays in District 5. Downtown, the 

District 2/5 border departs from NE 2nd Avenue to scoop out an irregular, 14.2% BVAP six-block 

area. ]e border strays from 2nd Avenue again just before the river to ensure a 5.5% BVAP tract 

stays on the District 2 side of the 2/5 “wall.”

5. Circumstantial Evidence Further Demonstrates Racial Predominance

194. Circumstantial evidence points to race predominating in the design of the 2022 

Plan’s districts as well.

195. ]e districts’ shapes and demographics explain both the overall shapes of the 2022

Plan’s districts, as well as the changes made from the 2013 Plan. ]e map exhibits patterns of 

splitting precincts along racial lines, suggesting the lines were drawn to achieve racial separation.

196. Circumstantial evidence about alternative rejected configurations and the evolution 

of draft plans further illuminates the race-based decisions behind the 2022 Plan. ]ese include 

several key changes between the Feb. 7 Draft and the Feb. 22 Draft/Base Plan that served to better 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 32 of 59
33

separate Anglo from Black from Hispanic residents into their designated districts:

• ]e Base Plan moved less of Coconut Grove into District 4. ]e portion moved now 

had a higher Hispanic population—59.2% HVAP versus 49.1%. 

• A 76.6% HVAP area in Allapattah was moved into District 1 from 5, and a 66.7% 

HVAP area was moved out of District 1 into 5 in exchange. ]is swap increased 

District 1’s Hispanic share while increasing District 5’s Black share. 

• District 5 gained a small, 40.4% BVAP area of Downtown from District 1. In 

exchange, District 1 gained a 72.1% HVAP area west of I-95. ]is change increased 

District 1’s Hispanic share and increased District 5’s Black share. 

• Areas were swapped along the District 2/5 “wall”: Two 13% BVAP blocks moved 

into District 2; and a 32.1% BVAP area moved into District 5.

197. Each of these changes increased the dominant racial group’s population share in 

each district, exacerbating the racial packing and stripping already present in the Feb. 7 Draft. 

Indeed, the Base Plan managed to increase the dominant-group VAP in Districts 1, 4, and 5. Of the 

three majority-Hispanic districts, the HVAP of the least-Hispanic district increased. ]e average 

HVAP of those three districts also increased.

198. ]ree other abandoned changes are probative as well.

199. First, King requested restoring to District 5 part of the riverfront area that the Base 

Plan moved to District 1. Pls. Ex. 6 (3/11/22 AM Tr. 37:5–6). De Grandy noted the request would 

lower District 5’s BVAP to 49% and suggested “remedying” this to increase the BVAP. Pls. Ex. 6 

(3/11/22 AM Tr. 37:6–9). After consulting with King, this change was abandoned in favor of 

moving just the unpopulated Wharf into District 5, which did not impact the district’s BVAP. Pls. 

Ex. 7 (3/11/22 PM Tr. 4:21–5:7); Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 7:12–14); Pls. Ex. 22 at 11.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 33 of 59
34

200. Second, at the final meeting, Díaz de la Portilla suggested moving into District 5 a 

single 73% HVAP city block with a total population of 510 residents—the Flagler on the River 

condo tower. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 6:12–15). De Grandy reported this change would lower District 

5’s BVAP to 49.97%—just below the 50% target. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 6:16–17). De Grandy 

acknowledged that BVAP would comply with the VRA, but still recommended changing the 

proposal to bring the BVAP above 50%. Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 8:6–9). ]e Commission rejected 

the proposal, making further changes unnecessary.

201. Aird, Carollo and De Grandy floated an alternative to moving the West Grove 

sliver into District 4: moving an area roughly between 22nd and 27th Avenues in the North Grove. 

Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 101:11–14, 102:2–3); Pls. Ex. 7 (3/11/22 PM Tr. 3:8–9). ]is area was even 

less Hispanic than the West Grove sliver—36.7% HVAP compared to 59.2%—and De Grandy 

never presented this option as a fully realized map.

202. Altogether, the evidence demonstrates adherence to “announced racial target[s] that 

subordinated other districting criteria and produced boundaries amplifying divisions between 

blacks[,] whites” and Hispanics. Cooper, 581 U.S. at 300–01.

G. 2023 Redistricting Cycle

203. After Magistrate Judge Louis issued her May 3, 2023 Report and Recommendation 

on the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion in this case (ECF 52), the Commission began 

developing a new map.

204. At the Commission’s May 11, 2023 meeting, 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.” Pls. Ex. 27 (5/11/23 Tr. 4:2–4). He 

doubled down on the Commission’s view that representation was racially categorical, and that 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 34 of 59
35

redistricting’s goal was to reserve one Anglo and one Black seat, and to avoid having five Hispanic 

commissioners. Id. (5/11/23 Tr. 4:16–20, 7:18–19). 

205. Reyes agreed. Id. (5/11/23 Tr. 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. (5/11/23 Tr. 17:9–13 (“We have to bunch together [] ethnic borders 

in order to be able to have Afro American . . . and non-Hispanic white . . . in representing the city 

of Miami.”)).

206. ]e two stressed that what the Commission did in the 2022 Plan was right. Id.

(5/11/23 Tr. 8:12–16, 13:8–14, 16:17-20). Concluding the discussion, the Commission voted 

unanimously (with Carollo absent) 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.” Id. (5/11/23 Tr. 17:10-13, 17:14–21, 18:15–23).

207. ]e Court issued its injunction on May 23, 2023 (ECF 60). ]at night, Plaintiffs 

submitted two proposed maps (labeled P1 and P2) to the Commission, along with a letter 

explaining them. Pls. Ex. 33 at 46–51; Pls. Ex. 36 at 2–3. On June 9, Plaintiffs shared supplemental 

information on P1 and P2’s compliance with the VRA. Pls. Ex. 34; Pls. Ex. 36 at 2. Plaintiffs 

followed that up with Dr. Bryant Moy’s full analysis on June 12. Pls. Ex. 35; Pls. Ex. 36 at 1. 

Plaintiffs later submitted a third map (P3) on June 13. Pls. Ex. 33 at 53; Pls. Ex. 34 at 1.

208. King reiterated the City’s commitment to dividing Miamians by race on June 13. 

She gave a reporter a written statement: “]e 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 35 of 59
36

our community.” Pls. Ex. 40. 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.

209. On June 14, 2023, the Commission met. Pls. Ex. 31. De Grandy publicly presented 

his “draft plan proposal,” named Version 12 (“V12”). Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 8:3–16:13); Pls. Ex. 

29, 30, 77. De Grandy developed V12 after individual private meetings with commissioners to 

amalgamate their input. ]e Commission debated proposed changes to V12 and then took a recess 

after 103 minutes in session. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 31:22–56:5). During the recess, De Grandy 

met privately with commissioners and drew alternative maps at each commissioner’s request. Pls. 

Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 64:5–14).

210. 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, Pls. Ex. 78; Covo, Carollo, and King 

each proposed maps of their own based on V12 (the D2, D3, and D5 Alt. Maps), Pls. Ex. 79, 80, 

82; and Reyes stood by the original V12. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 59:5–12). After some discussion,

De Grandy and the City’s retained outside counsel Christopher N. Johnson modified the D3 Alt. 

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

la Portilla, resulting in “D3 Alt. v.2.” Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 70:9–72:12); Pls. Ex. 81. After Díaz 

de la Portilla objected to the change going too far, some territory was moved back into D1, yielding 

“D3 Alt. v.3.” Pls. Ex. 28 (6/24/23 Tr. 80:16–19, 81:6–15, 87:1–9). ]e Commission approved that 

plan on a 4-1 vote, and it was later memorialized in writing as Res. 23-271. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/24/23 

Tr. 91:9–19); Pls. Ex. 32, 76.

211. ]e 2023 Plan is 94.1% the same as the 2022 Plan. Only 5.9% of Miamians are 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 36 of 59
37

moved into a different district.

212. 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.

213. ]e makeup of the 5.9% of Miamians moved suggests continued racial 

predominance. 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 

2022 districts’ 88–90%). 

214. ]e 4,735 residents moved out of the 2022 Plan D5 are just 16.6% Black, compared 

to the 2022 Plan D5’s 50.3% BVAP. Meanwhile, 90% HVAP areas are shuffled among D1, D3, 

and D4, creating the illusion they changed while maintaining their demographics. 

215. ]ese 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.

1. Ae Evolution of the 2023 Plan Suggests Racial Predominance

216. ]e City’s remedial mapmaking process began with the Commission’s directive to 

De Grandy to preserve the categorical racial divisions in the 2022 Plan. ]e first version shared 

publicly was V12, during the June 14 Commission meeting. ]en, the Commission made several 

changes to claw back even more elements of the 2022 Plan that V12 had altered.

217. Ae 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. Pls. Ex. 84 (Area 

21); Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 40:12–41:11). At Carollo’s request, Area 21 was returned to D2. Pls. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 37 of 59
38

Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 65:6–7). ]is area is one of the whitest in the city (54.8% WVAP, 35.9% 

HVAP), and is the exact same area Carollo previously compared to the bone in a steak, in contrast 

to Hispanic-rich “sirloin” areas elsewhere. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 101:11–14, 102:2–3, 102:10–12, 

103:11–12, 105:2–3). To compensate for the lost population, Carollo requested that D3 add a 

plurality-HVAP area along South Miami Avenue to Brickell (Area 24). Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 

38:8–39:9; 77:6–9). Without explanation, an additional area of Brickell (Area 25) was moved into 

D2, forming an irregular finger along the Miami River. Area 25 is plurality-white.

218. Ae 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 2022 Plans, to 14th Avenue. ]is 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. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 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 2022 boundary, “keeping it in District 3 like it was.” Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 

35:11–15, 37:1–23, 53:4).

219. 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.” Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 41:12–13, 53:9–10). But 

earlier, he stated the park was still on the D4 side of the line. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 35:23).

220. Carollo’s request moved nearly 2,000 people between 14th and 17th Avenues back 

into D3. In response, “to equalize population,” De Grandy moved from D3 to D4 an area in 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 38 of 59
39

Auburndale/Little Havana—most of which had been in D4 under the 2013 Plan. Pls. Ex. 28 

(6/14/23 Tr. 65:13–14). ]us, the D3/D4 border walked back closer to the 2022 (and 2013) Plan at 

commissioners’ requests, continuing the division of Shenandoah, Silver Bluff, and Little Havana 

that commissioners had kept divided in the 2022 Plan to balance Hispanic populations and 

facilitate racial separation. Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 52:5–14), Pls. Ex. 8 3/24/22 Tr. 38:9–16, 79:19–

20).

221. 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. And indeed, V12’s D5 

BVAP drops from the 2022 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. Pls. 

Ex. 8 (6/14/23 Tr. 42:14, 42:18–21, 45:1–6). Realizing that part of Morningside had moved into 

D5, King objected. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 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?” Pls. Ex. 

28 (6/14/23 Tr. 44:2–3). King requested De Grandy bring back a revision with all of Morningside 

restored to D2. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 45:13–15).

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

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

in her district. ]e only change from V12 made in King’s proposed alternative map, the D5 Alt., 

was returning that piece of Morningside to D2. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 64:21–65:1). ]at change 

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 39 of 59
40

the neighborhood to D5. Res. 23-271 excludes from D5 the low-BVAP neighborhoods south of the 

existing district boundary.

223. Defining Overtown Along Racial Lines: ]e only other change to V12 impacting 

D5 was in Overtown. King and the Overtown Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) sharply 

criticized Plaintiffs for moving part of Overtown out of D5 in P1 and P2. In response, Plaintiffs 

submitted P3, which unites in D5 all parts of Overtown that had been in the 2022 Plan D5 

(following the CRA boundary), plus reunited 11 HVAP-majority Overtown blocks that the 2022

Plan had moved into D1 (between NW 5th and 8th Streets, from I-95 to 7th Avenue.

224. Neither De Grandy nor the 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. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 8:15, 10:2–

5, :22–11:3, 12:20–22). Contrasting Plaintiffs’ “own impression of where Overtown is,” De 

Grandy explained how maps he found on Google and the City’s now-defunct Neighborhood 

Enhancement Team (NET) “shows a configuration consistent with our understanding” and how, 

“as [he] understand[s] the community of Overtown,” V12 included all of it in D5. Pls. Ex. 28 

(6/14/23 16:4–7). His presentation included slides with his definition of “Historic Overtown.” Pls. 

Ex. 29 at 23, 26.

225. 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. ]ose definitions are shared by the 

City’s Police Department (MPD) and the Convention & Visitors Bureau (GMCVB). ]e area De 

Grandy defined as Overtown is 60.5% BVAP. ]e parts of the Google/NET/MPD/GMCVB 

definition De Grandy excluded are disproportionately non-Black (63.7% HVAP, 26.2% BVAP). 

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

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 40 of 59
41

Google/NET/MPD/GMCVB. City Code § 2-1051. ]e parts of the City Code definition De Grandy 

excluded from his neighborhood boundary are less Black, and more Hispanic. De Grandy defined 

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

on the basis of race, with his definition shoring up the existing racial composition of District 5 and 

. . . the Hispanic supermajority in District 1.

226. ]e Commission objected to one small part of V12’s boundary in Overtown. 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. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 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. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr.70:11, 71:14–72:17). But De Grandy and 

retained outside counsel Christopher N. Johnson incurred too much into the Hispanic-majority part 

of Overtown for Díaz de la Portilla’s taste, moving four whole city blocks between NW 7th and 

8th Streets. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 78:5–6, 80:16–19). 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. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 81:6–15). ]e three blocks returned to D1 are more than 70% 

Hispanic. Adding just the restaurant block deviates as little as possible from the 2022 Plan in this 

area. ]e block’s 10 residents are two-thirds Black.

2. Parts of Version 12 the Commission Adopted Suggest Racial Predominance

227. ]e portions of V12 the Commission chose not to alter were principally driven by 

racial considerations as well.

228. Avoiding “Packing Hispanics”: One of the first criticisms of P1 and P2 lodged 

during the Commission’s meeting was how both plans “intentionally pack the more conservative 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 41 of 59
42

Hispanic voters in the western areas of the city” into D4. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 9:9–10), see also

Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 14:21–22 (“the plaintiffs’ 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)). ]is was a race-based objection to a compact district unifying neighborhoods in 

Miami’s west. To explain the “problem,” De Grandy emphasized D4’s HVAP under P1/P2 and 

showed slides featuring those figures. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 9:10–12).

229. 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.” Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23

Tr. 13:5–6, 14:17–18). Except for a single block, D1’s boundary is identical to the 2022 (and 2013) 

Plan from the city limit at 65th Avenue all the way to 22nd. ]e Commission left this line 

untouched on June 14.

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

one notable change from the 2022 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.” Pls. Ex. 

2 (12/9/21 Tr. 7:15–17). Following this direction, De Grandy’s Feb. 7, 2022 draft moved Bay 

Heights into D3. Pls. Ex. 68; Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 9:21–23, 10:6–12 (De Grandy describing 

“find[ing] adjacent areas with similar demographics” to add to D3)). After Russell objected, Pls. 

Ex. 2 (12/9/21 Tr. 26:15–16); Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 42 of 59
43

tenth of a point. Pls. Ex. 4 (2/25/22 AM Tr. 5:9–11, 6:7–8, 7:22–8:4, 9:18–19).

231. 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. Pls. Ex. 5 (2/25/22 PM Tr. 7:21–22); Pls. Ex. 7 

(3/11/22 PM Tr. 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)); Pls. Ex. 8 (3/24/22 Tr. 

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 majorityHispanic 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” 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 2022 Plan kept Bay Heights in D2.

232. In 2023, De Grandy again moved Bay Heights—and its 62% HVAP—into D3. 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. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 38:15–20).

233. ]us, 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.

H. District-by-District Analysis of 2023 Plan

1. District 5

234. Race predominated in the drawing of District 5.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 43 of 59
44

235. Res. 23-271’s D5 is driven by a decision to define every distant corner of the 2022 

Plan D5 as part of a common “community of interests,” thereby attempting to lock in place the 

unconstitutional borders from the get-go. King prepared a non-negotiable list of neighborhoods to 

ensure the replication of the 2022 Plan D5’s boundaries—including Overtown (itself racially 

defined), Liberty City, Little Haiti, Wynwood, and the Upper East Side. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 

12:15–22). Together, these areas constitute every corner of the 2022 Plan 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 2022 Plan), while carefully avoiding less-Black areas like 

“Condo Canyon” and Overtown south of NW 8th Street that the 2022 Plan D5 excluded. Pls. Ex. 

28 (6/14/23 Tr. 12:23–13:2). 

236. Indeed, Res. 23-271 moves from D5 to D2 an area around Omni (which the 2022

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%). 

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. ]e Commission 

rejected adding adjacent areas like Morningside and Edgewater because of their whiter makeup. 

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 2022 Plan’s racially-motivated 

Morningside/Upper East Side border. ]e new D5 retains 94.7% of the 2022 Plan population, and 

is less compact than the 2022 Plan D5 across all metrics.

237. Before the Commission adopted the 2023 Plan, Plaintiffs submitted an initial report 

from Dr. Moy regarding the Black population necessary for Black voters to usually elect candidates 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 44 of 59
45

of choice. Pls. Ex. 34. 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 two-candidate vote share across both newly proposed 

districts.” Pls. Ex. 35 at 1; Pls. Ex. 36 at 1–2.

238. ]e City ignored Dr. Moy’s analysis and did not analyze racially polarized voting 

or the Black VAP, CVAP, or share of registered voters necessary to comply with the VRA.

239. ]e Commission continued to adhere to a 50% BVAP quota in the 2023 Plan. 

Morningside was removed from V12’s D5, because it was too white. ]e Commission rejected 

proposals to solve the “splitting up neighborhoods” problem, Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 44:2–3), by 

uniting Morningside within D5. ]ose proposals would have yielded a sub-50% BVAP. And 

commissioners fastidiously ensured not one inch of Hispanic-majority parts of Overtown moved 

into D5. ]rough these changes, D5’s BVAP increased from 50.0 to 50.3%—the same as the 2022

Plan.

2. District 2

240. Race predominated in the drawing of District 2 in the 2023 Plan.

241. 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.” ECF 52 at 72; see Pls. Ex. 1 (11/18/21 Tr. 16:21–17:1 (“District 2 was 

justified on the basis of being a coastal district”)); Pls. Ex. 3 (2/7/22 Tr. 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. ]ere’s no way that you 

can separate the Grove or that you can separate downtown or what’s left of the Upper East Side 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 45 of 59
46

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. ]e border zig-zags from NE 

2nd Avenue, to the railroad tracks, back to 2nd, and back to the tracks to retain whiter Condo 

Canyon, add an additional lower-BVAP area around Omni, and separate higher-BVAP areas of 

Downtown kept in D5.

242. 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 

2022 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 2022

population, and its compactness scores are identical to the 2022 Plan D2.

3. Districts 1, 3, and 4

243. Race predominated in the drawing of Districts 1, 3, and 4 in the 2023 Plan.

244. ]e three predominantly Hispanic districts continue to be driven by a desire to 

optimally “balance” the Hispanic population at 84.5 to 90.0% HVAP rather than having a 95%+ 

HVAP district. Together, these districts are 97.8% the same as the 2022 Plan; individually, they 

still have staggeringly high core retention (90.6% to 98.2%). ]e 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.” ECF 52 at 75. 

245. D1 maintains the “staircase-like stepping pattern in its northeastern corner in 

Allapattah,” reconfigured slightly. ECF 52 at 74. It maintains “an appendage extending toward 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 46 of 59
47

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.

246. D3 becomes less compact, even as it smooths out its “ethnically diverse” Natoma 

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

minimizing additions from the whiter northern end of Brickell.

I. Te Role of Partisanship

247. Commissioners explicitly denied on the record any partisan motivations during the 

development of the 2023 Plan. 

248. Carollo emphasized the Commission’s nonpartisan nature and disclaimed partisan 

motivations. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 32:13–20). Covo agreed. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 45:6–8). No

commissioner expressed a partisan motivation for any decision in the 2023 Plan. Objective election 

data also contradict claims that the map was drawn to achieve a partisan outcome.

249. Race and party are correlated in Miami, with Black and Anglo voters usually 

preferring Democratic candidates, and Hispanic voters often preferring Republican candidates 

(albeit at lower margins). During the remedial process, De Grandy treated party and race 

interchangeably, criticizing P1 and P2 for packing “conservative Hispanic voters.” Pls. Ex. 28 

(6/14/23 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. Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 9:10–12). 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.” Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 Tr. 13:5–6).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 47 of 59
48

J. Covington II Factors Regarding Special Elections

250. Holding special elections would not negatively impact the ordinary operations of 

the City Commission—regardless of the number of commissioners who are up for election. Spring 

Dep. Tr. at 43:9–15. Having all five commissioners up for election at the same time would not 

negatively impact the City’s budgeting process, either. Id. at 43:16–20.

251. ]e City follows the election structure required by law. ]e City has never had any 

issues with executing an election structure mandated by law. Hannon Dep. Tr. at 37:12–20, 95:15–

23.

252. ]e City has held special elections in the past featuring tight timelines, and has not 

had problems complying with that timing. Id. at 58:10–59:16, 114:22–115:5.

253. In general, the City considers the cost of running an election to be “very 

insignificant” and “fairly minute.” Hannon Dep. Tr. at 51:24–52:3; Spring Dep. Tr. at 38:18–20, 

39:17–25. ]e City believes the cost it pays for the County to run elections is minimal compared 

to the services they receive in return. Hannon Dep. Tr. at 46:10–12, 51:3–7, 91:12–16.

254. It would be easy for the City to hold special Commission elections concurrent with

the regularly scheduled November 2024 election. Id. at 66:6–25. It would not be a burden on the 

City Clerk’s office or any other City office to hold a special citywide election concurrent with the 

November 2024 elections. Id. at 114:10–21. ]e City Clerk’s office would be prepared to hold a 

special citywide election in November 2024. Id. at 116:6–13.

255. It would not have much of an impact on the City Clerk’s office if a city election 

were held in November, but the City Clerk’s office could not start preparing for that election until 

April. Id. at 97:9–24, 112:24–113:14.

256. ]e cost of holding a special election concurrent with the regularly scheduled 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 48 of 59
49

November 2024 election would not be significant to the City. Id. at 66:15–25.

257. As long as the County Elections Department has the new City Commission map by 

March 31, 2024, it will be able to “seamlessly” prepare for special City Commission elections 

concurrent with the regular November 2024 election. White Dep. Tr. at 36:8–17, 65:18–24. As 

long as the County Elections Department’s deadlines are adhered to, it will not be a burden to hold 

special elections concurrent with the November 2024 elections. Id. at 67:13–19. ]e County 

Elections Department is confident it can effectively and properly administer special elections in 

those circumstances. Id. at 68:2–10.

258. If any runoffs are necessary after special City Commission elections in November 

2024, holding them four or five weeks later would be adequate for the County Elections 

Department. Id. at 66:5–22.

259. ]e County Elections Department estimates that it will cost $115,000 to hold a 

special City Commission elections concurrent with the November 2024 election. Id. at 45:6–18.

260. If all five Commission seats advance to runoffs after the November 2024 election, 

the citywide runoff election would cost about $507,000. Id. at 46:4–19. If fewer than all 

Commission races advance to a runoff, the cost would be less.

261. ]e County Elections Department passes all of the costs of running a municipal 

election onto the City. Id. at 37:7–11.

262. Separate from the costs of administering any special elections, the County Elections 

Department estimates that it will cost $154,000 implement a new redistricting map. ]e County 

plans to pass those costs onto the City. Id. at 57:3–15.

263. ]ere would be no additional burden to the County Elections Department to hold 

elections for all five City Commission districts in 2025, rather than just the two that will be 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 49 of 59
50

regularly up in that year. Id. at 97:2–6, 17–20. Holding elections for all five districts would not 

increase the cost of the 2025 election either, since it will already be a citywide election with the 

mayor’s race on the ballot. Id. at 97:17–20. In other words, there would be no cost to holding 

special elections in Districts 1, 2, and 4 concurrent with the regular municipal election in 2025.

Hannon Dep. Tr. at 65:24–66:5.

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Plaintiffs Have Standing to Sue

Plaintiff Cooper has standing to challenge District 2. Plaintiff Valdes has standing to 

challenge District 2 under the 2022 Plan and District 5 under the 2023 Plan. Plaintiffs Johnson and 

Miro have standing to challenge District 3. Plaintiff Contreras has standing to bring her nominaldamages claim against the City because she lived in District 4 under an unconstitutional racial 

gerrymander. Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792, 796 (2021).

]e Organizational Plaintiffs demonstrated their standing to sue on behalf of their members 

living in the challenged districts. ]e interests at stake in this suit are germane to each of the 

Organizational Plaintiffs’ purposes. Neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested requires 

individual members’ participation in the lawsuit. Engage Miami has standing to challenge all five 

districts. ]e South Dade NAACP has standing to challenge Districts 2, 3, and 4. ]e Miami-Dade 

NAACP has standing to challenge Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5. GRACE has standing to challenge 

Districts 2 and 4 under the 2022 Plan, and District 2 under the 2023 Plan. Independently of its 

standing to sue on behalf of its direct members, GRACE has standing to sue on behalf of the 

individual members of its constituent organizations. N.Y. State Club Ass’n v. City of New York, 487 

U.S. 1, 9–10 (1988) (holding that consortium organization has standing to sue on behalf of 

constituent organizations’ members, as long as those constituent organizations would have 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 50 of 59
51

standing to sue); Perez v. Abbott, 267 F. Supp. 3d 750, 791 n.51 (W.D. Tex. 2017), aff’d in relevant 

part, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018); Perez v. Abbott, 253 F. Supp. 3d 864, 931 n.82 (W.D. Tex. 2017) 

(collecting cases).

B. All Five Districts Fail Strict Scrutiny

Because the City concedes race predominated in District 5, and the facts demonstrate race 

predominated in each of the other districts, each district must survive strict scrutiny. ]e Parties 

stipulate that if race predominated in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4, then the use of race was not justified 

by a compelling state interest. J. Stip. at 21. ]ese four districts are therefore unconstitutional racial 

gerrymanders.

District 5 likewise fails strict scrutiny. “]e City’s determination of a minority population 

percentage for VRA compliance must . . . be well-supported.” ECF 52 at 82 (citing Bethune-Hill 

I, 580 U.S. at 195). But 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.” Bethune-Hill I, 580 U.S. at 194 (cleaned up). In the 2021–22 

process, the City adhered to an arbitrary 50% BVAP numerical quota not supported by any 

functional analysis. Despite their consultant advising that District 5 would perform for Black 

voters with lower BVAPs, commissioners insisted on increasing the BVAP above their arbitrary 

50% target. ]e City was on notice that Black voters could usually prevail in elections when they 

were not so packed. ]e City did not have “good reasons” to believe that this quota was necessary 

to comply with the VRA.

In 2023, the City likewise did not narrowly tailor its use of race in District 5. Dr. Moy’s 

initial report put the City on notice that its conclusions lacked the required “evidentiary 

foundation” needed to support “[s]electing a BVAP figure.” Bethune-Hill II, 326 F. Supp. 3d at 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 51 of 59
52

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 two-candidate vote share across both newly proposed districts.” Pls. Ex. 34; 

Pls. Ex. 35 at 1; Pls. Ex. 36 at 1–2.

]e City ignored Dr. Moy’s analysis, instead relying on De Grandy’s unsupported

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

candidate of choice throughout the decade in D5,” Pls. Ex. 28 (6/14/23 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 2022 Plan) to decline such that Black voters’ choice would fail usually to prevail. Pls. Ex. 

35 at 3. Without justification, the Commission rejected alternative configurations that did not have 

a sufficiently high Black population (based on their misunderstanding of how to comply with the 

VRA, which resulted in more Black voters than necessary being placed in the district, thus lacking 

the narrow tailoring required by strict scrutiny). For example, the Commission excluded 

Morningside from District 5 because it was a white area, despite their consultant advising that 

configurations that moved Morningside into District 5 would comply with the VRA. ]e final 

District 5 in the 2023 Plan adheres to the unsupported 50% BVAP quota. Strict scrutiny requires 

narrow tailoring and an accurate understanding of the law, not arbitrary quotas. Under these 

circumstances, the City’s use of race in drawing District 5 was not narrowly tailored.

C. Special Elections Are Warranted

“[I]ndividuals . . . whose constitutional rights have been injured by improper racial 

gerrymandering have suffered significant harm. ]ose citizens are entitled to vote as soon as 

possible for their representatives under a constitutional apportionment plan.” Harris v. McCrory, 

159 F. Supp. 3d 600, 627 (M.D.N.C. 2016) (cleaned up), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 52 of 59
53

Ct. 1455 (2017); accord Page v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, No. 3:13-cv-678, 2015 WL 3604029, 

at *18 (E.D. Va. June 5, 2015); Smith v. Beasley, 946 F. Supp. 1174, 1212 (D.S.C. 1996); Cosner 

v. Dalton, 522 F. Supp. 350, 364 (E.D. Va. 1981).

Here, the Court should exercise its equitable power to order special elections for all five 

Commission districts, to be held concurrent with the November 2024 presidential election. 

Alternatively, Plaintiffs request all five Commission seats be up during the November 2025 

municipal elections. Because the Parties and the public would be served by knowing as early as 

possible when the next elections will occur, Plaintiffs request that the Court set special elections 

in its post-trial order, with the question of the remedial map being resolved subsequently in a posttrial remedy phase.

1. Plaintiffs Suffer a Severe Constitutional Violation

]e last elections for Districts 1, 2, and 4 were held in November 2023 under the 

unconstitutional 2023 Plan after the nearly identical 2022 Plan was enjoined and implementation 

of the Court’s interim remedial plan was stayed. ]e last elections for Districts 3 and 5 were held 

in November 2021 under the 2013 Plan, which was likewise impermissibly driven by race. In this 

case, plaintiffs are suffering immense constitutional harm. “Classifications of citizens on the basis 

of race ‘are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the 

doctrine of equality.’” Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 643 (1993) (quoting Hirabayashi v. United 

States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943)). Miami’s districting scheme sorts residents by race into separate 

districts, dividing communities along racial lines, and thus undermining the quality of 

representation for the people living in those communities and districts. 

]e harm is not limited to individual Plaintiffs or other voters, which is important because 

in determining equitable relief, the Court must engage in a “‘balancing of the individual and 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 53 of 59
54

collective interests’ at stake.” Covington II, 581 U.S. at 488 (quoting Swann v. Charlotte–

Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971) (emphasis added)). Beyond the harm to voters, the 

“elected representatives” of racially gerrymandered districts receive a “pernicious” message that 

will make them “more likely to believe that their primary obligation is to represent only the 

members of [one racial] group.” Shaw, 509 U.S. at 648. ]ese serious harms are “altogether 

antithetical to our system of representative democracy.” Id. Indeed, “[r]acial gerrymandering 

strikes at the heart of our democratic process, undermining the electorate’s confidence in its 

government as representative of a cohesive body politic in which all citizens are equal before the 

law.” ALBC I, 575 U.S. at 283 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

]e scope and duration of this grievous harm also underscore its severity. In evaluating the 

severity of the constitutional violations at issue, courts have weighed the geographic scope of the 

violation, the number of individuals harmed, and the duration of the harm. See, e.g., Covington v. 

North Carolina (Covington III), 270 F. Supp. 3d 881, 892 (M.D.N.C. 2017); Sumter Cnty., 361 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1305; League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Benson, 373 F. Supp. 3d 867, 959 (E.D. 

Mich.), vacated sub nom. Chatfield v. League of Women Voters of Mich., 140 S. Ct. 429 (2019).2

Here, the scope could not be broader: all five Miami City Commission districts are racially 

gerrymandered.

]e duration of Miami’s racial gerrymandering is nothing short of stunning. ]e evidence 

reflects a history of racial gerrymandering dating back to the first single-member district plan in 

2 Benson involved a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to alleged partisan gerrymandering.

The decision was vacated following the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, 

139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019), that partisan gerrymandering does not present a justiciable claim, but the 

court’s analysis of special elections can be instructive here.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 54 of 59
55

1997. In Covington III, the district court on remand found it significant that the “harms ha[d] 

persisted for over six years, tainting three separate election cycles.” 270 F. Supp. 3d at 894. ]e 

violations here lasted even longer. Navajo Nation v. San Juan County is also instructive. No. 2:12-

cv-39, 2017 WL 6547635 (D. Utah Dec. 21, 2017), aff’d, 929 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2019). ]ere, 

the court found that race was the predominant factor in choosing to maintain the lines of a majorityminority district “for decades.” Id. at *18–19 & n.150. Under those circumstances, the court found 

it clear that the violations were “severe and longstanding” enough to warrant special elections. Id.

at *18–19. Importantly, this holding was unaffected by the fact that the districts had not been 

challenged in the past—the court did not ignore the reality of what had occurred in prior decades. 

See id. at *18 & n.150. Likewise, in assessing the severity of Miami’s gerrymander, this Court 

need not ignore a history that is necessarily part of the “careful case-specific analysis” in which 

the Court must engage. Covington II, 581 U.S. at 489.

2. Ordering Special Elections Will Not Significantly Disrupt Governance

]e second Covington factor, “the extent of the likely disruption to the ordinary processes 

of governance if early elections are imposed,” also weighs in favor of ordering special elections. 

Covington II, 581 U.S. at 488. Plaintiffs seek special elections to be held concurrent with either 

the November 2024 presidential election, or the November 2025 citywide municipal election. 

Representatives from the City testified that such elections will have no negative impact on the 

ordinary operations of the City. ]e Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections likewise testified 

that the County Elections Department would be able to administer special elections with no trouble 

as long as certain deadlines are met. ]e cost of special elections will also be relatively modest in 

relation to the cost of administering elections, and not a significant concern for the City.

From the voters’ perspective, adding City Commission races to an existing election carries 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 55 of 59
56

little “risk of generating voter confusion [or] low voter turnout.” Sumter Cnty., 361 F. Supp. 3d at 

1305. Indeed, holding special elections concurrent with either the presidential or mayoral election 

will minimize voter confusion and increase turnout. See Navajo Nation, 2017 WL 6547635, at *18 

(“]e special elections will proceed under the regularly scheduled 2018 election deadlines and 

processes, thus minimizing their impact.”); Benson, 373 F. Supp. 3d at 959 (“Because the special 

Senate election would occur on a regular election day and at a regularly-scheduled interval, it 

would not result in any additional election being held during the calendar year.”).

Finally, Florida election administrators and voters are well-acquainted with truncated terms 

following redistricting. In the first election following each decennial redistricting, the entire 

Florida Senate is on the ballot to account for shifted district lines, with some senators elected to 

two-year terms instead of the ordinary four-year terms. FLA. CONST. art. III, § 15(a); In re SJR 

1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 658 (Fla. 2012). After litigation forced changes to the Senate map in 2015, 

the entire Senate stood for election in 2016. ]e same thing occurred in the 1960s. Swann v. Adams, 

263 F. Supp. 225, 227–28 (S.D. Fla. 1967) (truncating terms of all 165 state legislators and ordering 

special elections to be held in March 1967 to remedy equal protection violations). Moreover, the 

Legislature recently required certain county commission terms be truncated following 

redistricting. Fla. Stat. § 124.011(2)(a). ]is makes good sense. ]e combination of redistricting 

and staggered terms can disenfranchise many voters. ]at’s what has happened in Miami. Voters 

who live in Districts 3 and 5 last voted in 2021; in the ordinary course, they should next vote four 

years later, in 2025. But if a voter is moved from one of those districts to District 1, 2, or 4, they 

will not be able to vote for six years (when Districts 1, 2, and 4 are next up, in 2027).

Florida’s practice of truncating terms has been lauded as a model for states to follow to 

avoid one-person, one-vote concerns. See Margaret B. Weston, Comment, One Person, No Vote: 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 56 of 59
57

Staggered Elections, Redistricting, and Disenfranchisement, 121 YALE L.J. 2013, 2018–25 (2012). 

Several other states have similar systems. Id. at 2018–19. Florida’s statewide practice reflects two 

important points for the Court to consider. First, the fact that Florida law requires truncated postredistricting terms for the state legislature and county commissions demonstrates a strong 

statewide policy on how to handle post-redistricting elections; granting Plaintiffs’ request against 

this backdrop would be significantly less intrusive to governance. See In re Apportionment Law, 

SJR 1E, 414 So. 2d 1040, 1049 (Fla. 1982) (]e truncation requirement “was intended as a means 

to implement a fair reapportionment plan at the earliest possible date.”). Second, because Miami’s

voters are already used to voting for truncated State Senate terms after redistricting, there is less 

chance of confusion; that, too, makes special elections less intrusive.

Ordering special elections will reduce confusion and is particularly appropriate in this case

because the scope of the changes between the 2023 Plan and a posttrial remedy is likely to be 

significant. See Navajo Nation, 2017 WL 6547635, at *18 (ordering “elections in all districts 

because the boundaries of the present districts and recommended districts overlap” and otherwise,

“if an election was not held in all districts it would create confusion as to which representative 

represented which voters” (internal marks omitted)).

3. Ordering Special Elections Will Not Unduly Intrude on State Sovereignty

Ordering special elections as a remedy is consistent with judicial restraint. Sovereignty is 

evaluated from the standpoint of the electorate—not the elected officials sitting in 

unconstitutionally drawn districts. See Benson, 373 F. Supp. 3d at 958 (“[B]ecause sovereignty is 

vested in the people, by preventing the people . . . from fairly and effectively exercising their 

franchise, the [challenged plan] infringes on state sovereignty, further exacerbating its 

constitutional harm.” (citation omitted)); Covington III, 270 F. Supp. 3d at 897 (“By unjustifiably 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 57 of 59
58

relying on race to distort dozens of legislative district lines, and thereby potentially distort the 

outcome of elections and the composition and responsiveness of the legislature, the districting 

plans interfered with the very mechanism by which the people confer their sovereignty on the 

General Assembly.”). ]e City cannot invoke sovereignty to deprive voters of the right to choose 

their elected officials; to the contrary, sovereignty provides a reason for special elections. 

Any inconvenience of a new election to commissioners is no reason to let serious 

constitutional harm persist, especially when it deprives voters of their right to representation. A 

special election is necessary to remedy the widespread and serious constitutional harm arising from 

the City’s racial gerrymander—as such, the principle of judicial restraint does not militate against 

intervention. See Navajo Nation, 2017 WL 6547635, at *19 (finding Covington’s judicial restraint 

factor satisfied where special elections were “specifically aimed at remedying constitutional 

violations that have affected . . . voters for decades”). Miami’s racial gerrymander is severe not 

just in duration, but also in scope and number of voters affected. Accordingly, the City’s actions 

not only permit but also necessitate court intervention. 

Finally, to the extent there are burdens on the City, they do not rise to the level of undue 

intrusions on sovereignty. ]e additional costs of holding such elections are “insignificant” to the 

City. Even so, any administrative costs are significantly outweighed by the interests of voters in 

constitutional representation. Proper representation, rather than administrative convenience, is the 

primary concern of the third Covington factor, see Covington III, 270 F. Supp. 3d at 895; Benson, 

373 F. Supp. 3d at 959. Ordering special elections does not offend the principles of sovereignty 

and judicial restraint.

“[I]n cases involving unconstitutional . . . racial gerrymandering, numerous courts—

including the Supreme Court—have concluded that shortening the terms of elected officials and 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 58 of 59
59

ordering a special election does not unduly intrude on state sovereignty, particularly when the 

constitutional violation is widespread or serious.” Covington III, 270 F. Supp. 3d. at 896 (collecting 

cases). ]is case is no different. Miami’s residents have the right to vote in constitutional districts, 

and that right should be effectuated as quickly as practicable through special elections.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of January, 2024,

/s/ Nicholas L.V. Warren

Nicholas L.V. Warren (FBN 1019018)

ACLU Foundation of Florida

1809 Art Museum Drive, Suite 203

Jacksonville, FL 32207

(786) 363-1769

nwarren@aclufl.org

Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882)

Caroline A. McNamara (FBN 1038312)

Janine M. Lopez (FBN 1038560)

ACLU Foundation of Florida

4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

dtilley@aclufl.org

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

Gregory P. Luib*

Dechert LLP

1900 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 261-3413

gregory.luib@dechert.com

Neil A. Steiner*

Julia Markham-Cameron*

Dechert LLP

]ree Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 698-3822

neil.steiner@dechert.com

julia.markham-cameron@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 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 59 of 59