Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Katrina Morris-Redistricting of Miami Public Meeting TimelineSubmitted into the public record or it rn(s) on ,g City Clerk REDISTRICTING OF MIAMI PUBLIC MEETING TIMELINE 11/18/21: First draft submitted into public record by Miguel De Grandy of Holland and Knight Discussion item DI-1 at hour 5 of the Commission Meeting on 11/18/21 - Lasted for 1:18. De Grandy provided the Commission with a report prepared by himself and Steve D Cody the week before. He stated he did not want to bore the Commissioners with case law that was submitted in the report. Where is the report? Why was it not submitted into public record? DeGrandy stated that the purpose of the discussion was to receive policy guidance from the Commissioners. What was the policy guidance based on? DeGrandy stated that the consultant's job was to follow the Commission's policy directives in a constitutionally compliant plan. How is this constitutionally compliant? He spoke several times about the goals the Commission Body has set out. Does De Grandy's redistricting plan reflects policy goals, or community need as directed by the constitution? DeGrandy spoke of competing principles. Why was breaking up the Grove chosen as the prevailing principle? Steps DeGrandy took to arrive at the recommendation were as follows: 1. Determine ideal population for each district a. What was the population deviation for each district with the last census? 2. Determine whether black and white voters prefer different candidates. a. In the analysis, did the white voters of Coconut Grove prefer the same candidates as the black voters? b. Race cannot be the overriding factor 3. Prime directives a. Traditional redistricting criteria b. Why does De Grandy state that the Commission can direct the use of any criteria, so long as it does not violate the Constitution. What is the reasoning for the need for additional criteria not covered by traditional redistricting criteria? What is the rational or important city interest being addressed? c. Why did De Grandy ask the Commission to provide criteria to be emphasized more than others? 4. De Grandy requested guidance on the timing of public hearings a. He stated that the census was delayed and so we wouldn't be able to have many public meetings b. Raleigh, INC with a population of 464,485 as of 2019, started the process with the same census on November 2, 2021, offered three options to residents, had at least two public Study Groups and four community meetings regarding the plan, all by February 23, 2022. c. De Grandy stated that the public will have an opportunity to comment "when a plan is presented" in "A" (singular) public hearing and if those comments result in the Commission issuing directives to make modifications to the plan, they will do so and present the final plan in a subsequent final hearing. Ana rbruus Submitted into the pu record or i m(s) on itY Clem d. The plan was not presented until February 7, 2022, two weeks before the stated deadline for the County precinct designations. e. He stated that he wouldn't have anything to show the residents in public meetings. Why? The city of Raleigh offered three map options within one month of the release of the census. Generally, a districting plan "with a maximum population deviation under 10% will not, by itself, support an equal protection claim." ... Rather, plaintiffs in such cases "must show that it is more probable than not that a deviation of less than 10% reflects the predominance of illegitimate reapportionment factors rather than" legitimate considerations such as compactness or the integrity of political subdivisions. Harris v. Ariz._lndep, Redistricting Comm'n, 13.6 S. Ct. 1301, at 1307. https-//redistrictingonline.ore/wp-content/upioads/2020110/The-Only-Clear-limitation-on-1 mproper-Districting- Practices-Us.odf "Governments," the Declaration of Independence states, "deriv[e] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,' Commissioners' Questions and Directives: Commissioner Diaz de la Portilla: Concerned about deadline and cost — why was ❑e Grandy not directed to bring back the first draft at the earliest possible date? ❑e Grandy asked Ms White *ONCE* in a phone call, not in writing how much the penalty would be and she returned his call and said she couldn't say. Why was this not followed up on in the three months since this meeting? De Grandy suggested ONE TOTAL HEARING at City Hall (5:21 on the feed) and then one more if there are any changes. Why? He specifically said there was no constitutional requirement to have any public hearings. Why was this emphasized? Several questions were asked about the legal ramifications of not having public hearings. Commissioner Carollo did suggest public hearings throughout the districts. Said that we have to protect the 'Core Constituencies' of each district, to which Carollo emphatically replied "Absolutely" and De Grandy replied, "If that's what you direct me, that's what I do." At 5:24, De Grandy said, "Let me be clear, because the record is very important for any future actions." Is he expecting future actions? To which Diaz de la Portilla replied, "That's why I'm trying to ask you the right way." Also at 5:24, Diaz de la Portilla said "But you can dilute... hypothetically, to be clear, hypothetically though, a white population." He then said we could potentially be eliminating an anglo seat. When De Grandy said there was no anglo district, Diaz de la Portilla replied, "I know the percentages, but it's also Coconut Grove centric, as an example." Is the intent to break up the Coconut Grove voting block? At 5:28 Diaz de la Portilla mentions that Coconut Grove has a larger voter turnout. Is the directive to dilute that vote? If so, why? Commissioner Reyes: Made the distinction between what the law requires regarding registered voters vs residents He wanted to maintain the core of the district to ensure continuity. He requested that the districts remain as they are as possible. S' 'AfMf$fbd into the public recar t i 0tfi[�l = _ on ity Clerk De Grandy mentioned that District 2 was originally developed as a coastal, high density and enviro mentally sensitive district. At 5:35, Commissioner Diaz de la Portilla said that we want to maintain traditional communities. He mentioned Alapattah, Flagami, Wynwood, dvertown. He says, "What you don't want to do, is you don't want to split them." Why is Coconut Grove not considered one of those communities? Motion to maintain core constituencies. At 5:38, De Grandy clarified that Commissioner Carollo wanted to look at how traditional communities vote, and if they vote cohesively, try to keep them together. How did Coconut Grove as a whole community vote in the last five elections? Was it cohesive? At 5:39, Commissioner Reyes says "This is the starting point and he's going to come back and the big argument is going to come when we see the map." Why are they expecting a big argument? Commissioner King: Was concerned about voter confusion At 5:41 stated that we should be aiming toward substantial equality — added to the motion Commissioner Carollo: At 5:42 stated that there were only two areas that the changes will be coming from — the Grove or Brickell. He stated that downtown isn't going anywhere. Commissioner Carollo mentioned meeting with De Grandy At 5:43, De Grandy goes over what he thinks he needs to do to maintain minority voting percentages and Diaz de la Portilla emphasized 'the Southern part` and ❑e Grandy says, "Unless you tell me, start from scratch." Are we to understand that breaking up the Grove and starting from scratch are the only two options? Also, at 5:43, Diaz de la Portilla says "It's interesting, because the white seat, for lack of a better term, is not a protected class, you can in fact move some of those people North." He states that other areas of the city have a more cohesive constituency than "they do 'in Coconut Grove, as an example," What studies is he basing this assumption on? At 5:45, Steve D. Cody stated that "While we didn't include how voter turnout or the vote result was in the present district, because it's not really relevant as to whether there is a violation, we do have the data from the last 20 years for voter registration and voter turnout by ethnicities and also we have the data for all of the Statewide races. We don't have Countywide races, because our software vendor didn't have that." Why did they not request it from another software vendor? The reasoning that was given was that it would cost $100k to add that data. Diaz de la Portilla challenged that cost. At 5:48 Commissioner King added that this was the second time she had heard about the costs and she said she wouldn't want De Grandy to prepare this trying to save money. She said, "I think this is important enough and affects so many lives, that the financing of this should not be a consideration." Diaz de la Portilla said that data is critical. Why was this data not gathered? St;!bltlltted WO the p rereeor M-(S) I>- itY Clerk Commissioner King stated that she did not want to rush the process to save money to have it done by February 2022. She wants it done right so that the constituency is well -served. Commissioner Reyes agreed that they want to do it right and should not be constrained by cost. At 5:53 Commissioner Carollo stated that "I want to be clear, that while the core of our districts is going to be preserved, the only one that is going to be effected by that is district 2. He stated that the goal is that minority voters would be cohesive. Again, did the minority voters in Coconut Grove vote cohesively with the rest of Coconut Grove? At 5:54, Carollo stated that "there's not a single one of us here that's going to be able to keep all of the sirloin and the gravy then go to some other districts." Are the constituents of Coconut Grove considered sirloin? What is the purpose of redistricting? To distribute choice populations? He then reiterated that the cuts will have to come from the South of district 2, le Coconut Grove. Why? Commissioner Russell: At 5:55 Commissioner Russell stated that "I will follow the will of this body and potentially the voters." Russell asked if Mr De Grandy knew of any city our size with the number of commissioners we have. De Grandy used Atlanta, with over a dozen councilmembers and Tampa, with seven members as examples. Russell said that he did some research on cities over 400,000 and none of them had fewer than seven members. Commissioner Carollo interjected that he would be opposed to adding more elected officials. Reyes and Diaz de la Portilla also objected. At 5:58, Diaz de la Portilla suggested that they have one more meeting on December 5 and then have a beautiful Christmas and then come back maybe in February. He said he wasn't "there yet." At 5:58 Carollo said "What I would say for myself is, I would like to see new plans, one, frankly all of them to keep the fourth as we voted upon." Were there draft plans already drawn and voted on by the Commissioners? Why were they not provided to the public? Why did the first draft available to the public take until Feb 7? He continued, "But in one, you're going to try to see how you take more into the remaining districts from district 2, the one with the biggest population by far." And "But, on the other one you are going to have to do it. But that is where you will have more wiggle room to move existing precincts around without affecting the core of the district or affecting the least to make it a legally sound plan.' What does this mean? De Grandy said that they would be looping at registered voters by ethnicity as well. At 5:01 De Grandy clarified the directives: Maintain the core of the districts Address voter political voter cohesion Substantial equality as opposed to mathematical He asked if there was an interest in maintaining traditional neighborhoods together "when feasible". The Commissioners said, yes and Carollo and Diaz de la Portilla reiterated "When feasible." sUbt �ttetif itito the pub reed on Carollo stated that the other directive is that they get at feast two potential maps, one of which would be "no holds barred" with the most changes possible without affecting the core. Why? What purpose does that serve? He reiterated that he would like two to three maps to look at, and Russell stated, "And one with seven districts." King and Carollo stated, "No." Why? What is the reasoning not to consider that option? At 6:05 De Grandy asked for the hierarchy of the above directives. Substantial equality was at the top for flexibility. The Commission then chose Core, then Politically Cohesive, and then Traditional Neighborhoods "Where Feasible." He asked for a consensus and the body confirmed the consensus. Diaz de la Portilla said that De Grandy would come back on Dec 9, and they may have additional directions they want to go. He said he hadn't been able to meet with ❑e Grandy, that he had had to cancel several times but that they should "do it soon." 6:De Grandy and Diaz de la Portilla agreed that the prime directive should be making it constitutionally compliant. Diaz de la Portilla wanted to see "how far [De Grandy] could go and still defend it in a courtroom." What does this mean? Hector Silva, a resident of district 2 spoke in favor of adding seats to the commission DECEMBER 9, 2021 COMMISSION MEETING Discussion Item 3 starts at 3:07 and lasts until 4:01 on the recording of the Commission Meeting Mr De Grandy starts by summarizing the directives and adds that compactness is not possible in this plan, He also said another consideration was the use of natural and man-made boundaries. He spoke with the Dade -County Supervisor of Elections and the cost to extend the redistricting process past March 1" 2022 would be approximately $135,000. Then he said that was all the information he had now and the purpose of this meeting was to have the Commissioners give him additional criteria. Why were the three map options Commissioner Carollo requested not produced in the subsequent 3 weeks? At 3:10, Commissioner Carollo mentioned that it was not enough money to "break the bank" but that he would like every effort to be made to meet the deadline. If so, why were the three requested plans not produced? Carollo recommended De Grandy come back in January and then have one public hearing. Why wait until January to have a meeting regarding the maps? At 3:12 Diaz de la Portilla mentions 195 and US1 as man-made boundaries. He said that he could not go North of his district because it's an African American area. Why can district 4 subsume the black area of the Grove? He says the logical thing is for him to go South. At 3:16 Diaz de la Portilla asked "Is there a problem with splitting Coconut Grove up?" De Grandy rephrased the question to "Is there a legal impediment?" and he said there was no problem with breaking up any community of Submitted into the public record for i em(s) on., City Clerk interest. How so? Doesn't that go against the traditional redistricting criteria? Why the focus on breaking up any Coconut Grove. He also states that all of the other districts are in the middle and that district 2 runs all the way around. How so? De Grandy states that he has to get the overpopulation from the South portion. What is the reason? Why are we not being shown alternatives? THE ITEM WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA ON JANUARY 13 JANUARY 27 COMMISSION MEETING Discussion Item 1 was on the agenda, but the meeting did not have a quorum. Commissioner Reyes and Commissioner Diaz de la Portilla did not attend. The entire agenda was deferred to February 10, 2022 meeting. Commissioner Carollo requested that the redistricting item be taken separately in a special meeting. FEBRUARY 7, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING Mr De Grandy presented the map, which as directed by the Commissioners in the subsequent meetings, separated out sections of Coconut Grove into Districts 4 and 5 by crossing US1, a man-made boundary. Members of the public spoke from 0:27 until 1:27 (an hour of public comment at 2 minutes each), the overwhelming majority urging the Commission to keep Coconut Grove in district 2. After three hours of discussion, the Commission, excluding Commissioner Russell held to its desire to draw the overpopulation from Coconut Grave.