HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-03-0447CITY OF MIAMI 15
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFIC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ma r e ber of Ci ommission
- . ��
FROM: an o >larell , City A orney
DATE: ril 18, 2003 ' ✓��
RE: 2000 Census prompted City Commission Redistricting Plan;
City Commission Redistricting Workshop; Special Legal
Counsel's Presentation on Redistricting; Regular City
Commission meeting of May 1, 2003 (possibly May 8, 2003)
In 1997 a voter approved City Charter amendment provided, inter alfa, for the
election of all City Commissioners from specifically defined districts drawn pursuant to
census -based demographic information. Subsequently, utilizing said demographic
information, the City Commission adopted Resolution 97-495, providing for the
jurisdictional boundaries of those newly created districts.
As a consequence of the 2000 Census, it is now necessary to officially reapportion the
current City Commission districts pursuant to the requirements of law. In order to
facilitate and fund this process, the City Commission, on June 13, 2002, adopted
Resolution 02-612. Additionally, also pursuant to Resolution 02-612, Miguel DeGrandy,
Esq., was retained as Special Legal Counsel and Advisor in connection with matters
relating to Commission Redistricting.
The referenced Public Workshop is requested to apprise the City Commission of the
Special Legal Counsel's findings and recommendations regarding implementation of the
2000 Census prompted modification of City Commission district boundaries, and receive
the Commission's input, recommendations and direction relative to such modification
and implementation.
This Workshop was previously scheduled for the April 24, 2003, City Commission
meeting, then, by Commission action, rescheduled for May 1, 2003. It is requested that
this Workshop, Public Meeting item be placed on the Commission's Agenda for a
10:00 a.m., "time certain."
AV:JEM:mmd
c: Joe Arriola, City Manager
Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk
Elvi G. Alonso, Agenda Coordinator
Miguel DeGrandy, Esq.
L:VEMaxwell\Memos\Draft for AV\Commission Redistricting Plan.doc
03- 44'7
CITY OF MIAMI
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
A workshop will be held by the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, on
May 8, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., at Miami City Hall, located at 3500 Pan American Drive,
Miami, Florida, for the purpose of discussing a proposed "Status Report on Redistricting
and Draft Concept Plan" which analyzes the present City Commission district plan and
make recommendations regarding any reapportionment, which may be necessary as a
result of the 2000 census, to bring its single -member districts within the confines of the
law. A copy of the proposed "Status Report on Redistricting and Draft Concept
Plan" is available for review at the City Clerks' Office, also located at Miami City
Hall, and on the City of Miami's website at www.ci.miami.fl.us.
All interested persons are invited to appear and may be heard concerning such proposed
redistricting report and plan. Should any person desire to appeal any decision of the City
Commission with respect to any matter considered at this hearing, that person shall
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, including all testimony and
evidence upon any appeal may be based.
(City Seal) Priscilla A. Thompson
(#11033 ) City Clerk
03- 447
City of Miami Single Member District Descriptions
District 2
Beginning at the intersection of SW 37 Avenue and SW 24 Street, run east along
the center line of SW 24 Street to SW 27 Avenue, then run south to South Dixie
Highway, then run east to I-95, then run northeast to SW 1 Avenue, then run northeast to
the center of the Metrorail line, then run north to NE 14 Street, then run west to NE 14
Street, then run north to NW 36 Street, then east to Federal Highway, then north to NE
55th Terrace, then northwest along NE 4th Court to NE 79th Street, then east to NE 5th
Avenue, then north to NE 81 s Street, then west to NE 4th Place, then north to NE 4th
Court, then north to the City of Miami boundary, then north, east, and south along the
City of Miami boundary.
Submitted Into the public
record in connectio i"h
iters Ir on
F�rist,ill� A, Thorne on
City Clerk
03- 447
City of Miami Single Member District Descriptions
District 5
Beginning at the intersection of NE 83 Street and the City of Miami boundary,
run west and south along the City of Miami boundary to the intersection of NW 19
Avenue and NW 36 Street, then run east to NW 7 Avenue, then run south to SR 836, then
run southeast to to the Miami River, then run southeast to the center of the Metrorail line,
then run north to NE 14 Street, then run west to NW 2nd Avenue, then run north to NW
36'h Street, then east to Biscayne Boulevard, then northeast to Federal Highway, then
north to NE 55th Terrace, then northwest along NE 4h Court to NE 79'x' Street, then east
to NE 5d' Avenue, then north to NE 81 't Street, then west to NE 4d' Place, then north to
NE 4d' Court, then north to NE 83 street.
ic
Submittedin'tohep �,3Fubii`h
record in tonne .,
r s on
0 -
item
Priscilla thorn °mon
City Clerk
03- 447
Amended Draft Concept Map
Statistical Analysis
May 8, 2003
Subm'tte.d limo the public
record con
in nectic W, Ih
item / 5_ on 69,P)403
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
03- 447
rb..— /-�.-1��� �---- ...... _ .... .
�,r.,��tls�l �°: 1ltlilNll'lllllNll jIIIIS
iby➢l�m.d:>c �r � Siwe', i+INTI{IIIIIIIIIR:INIIII`
t11111111pNlllllylpllf�
..•,.� uuun oulttttitllllll 1111
I
�ewmrl�.�ermCrtati4." xemm ory nmxe ��a1b
se.6w�3At��St" a
WNW
'` 'one
i�r�■-��,I it 1'■� ..,
IMn_fi v
.a taTtlA:,38e�.e�19{.��w��"'• �� �,{ii_M •.i '�F ■��.. �`� `�
Mot
_ �.w ■ �� ir�r
�_ _ ��_ �..—�� rear! lw� ■�
W{, ..w soar. ■�'"' '� �_—��. - .,w __.
Deviation Analysis: Amended Plan
District
Population
Deviation from Ideal
% Deviation from Ideal
1
71,552
-942
-1.30%
2
72,573
79
0.11%
3
73,608
1,114
1.54%
4
73,889
1,395
1.92%
5
70,848
-1,646
-2.27%
Total
362,470
3,041
4.19%
Submitted Into the public
record in connectio With
item --Ls"--on s p ns
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
03- 447
5/8/2003
12:13:35PM
District Statistics Report: Amended Plan Paqe 1 of 11
1 71,552
Ponulation (2000 Censusl
Votina Aae Pon (2000 Censusl
District
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
1 71,552
6.81%
6.81%
5.46%
79.93%
0.99%
55,323
4.72%
5.89%
5.50%
82.92%
0.97%
2 72,573
30.96%
19.77%
2.38%
44.63%
2.26%
59,920
32.53%
17.05%
2.46%
45.67%
2.29%
3 73,608
7.99%
1.24%
2.91%
87.11%
0.75%
58,080
5.64%
1.07%
3.07%
89.53%
0.69%
4 73,889
9.48%
0.33%
1.28%
88.07%
0.84%
61,130
7.18%
0.27%
1.30%
90.48%
0.77%
5 70,848
3.78%
80.27%
2.65%
12.66%
0.64%
49,220
4.77%
77.87%
2.77%
13.92%
0.68%
(�D CD
3 a Ccr
C)_
rnn CL
p
W
Doted'
0 -s
1
CD
0
W"
o
%A
n�
Doo-
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 2 of 11
1 71,552
Population B Age 2000 Census
Population B Sex 2000 Census
District
Total
17 and Under
1 18 to 64
65 and Older
Male
Female
1 71,552
22.68%
59.66%
17.66%
49.28%
50.72%
2 72,573
17.43%
70.16%
12.41%
52.02%
47.98%
3 73,608
21.10%
59.46%
19.44%
50.11%
49.89%
4 73,889
17.27%
58.27%
24.46%
47.04%
52.96%
5 70,848
30.53%
58.55%
10.93%
50.16%
49.84%
;7z "* -73C/)
C� C>
00_
r; 0 f '
3 .5
(D Cn
0 V
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 3 of 11
1 70,200
Population 1990 Census
Voting Age Pop 1990 Census)
District
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
1 Other
1 70,200
8.70%
10.54%
4.70%
75.41%
0.65%
54,048
7.32%
9.16%
4.64%
78.27%
0.61%
2 67,053
32.89%
23.95%
2.11%
39.57%
1.47%
53,909
36.31%
20.31%
1.93%
40.00%
1.45%
3 73,100
7.10%
0.75%
2.40%
89.20%
0.55%
58,446
5.89%
0.61%
2.43%
90.62%
0.45%
4 72,061
11.21%
0.17%
0.84%
87.23%
0.56%
60,005
9.53%
0.14%
0.84%
89.01%
0.47%
5 76,415
3.14%
83.86%
3.69%
8.95%
0.36%
49,889
4.09%
81.56%
3.91%
10.08%
0.35%
(D fD �"�'
300
�
"0
-% 3
cn'•
S?
CL
im
D
C)
0
CD
b
0
n
(D ® C
g. Cr
X-3 W
ten.
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 4 of 11
1 21,670
Re istered Voters 2000
Re istered Voters 1998
Registered Voters 1996
I
District
Party Affiliation
Total I Ren I Dem I Ind
Total
I Party Affiliation
T tal
I Pa Affiliation
I ReD I Dem I Ind
-
eo I Dem I Ind
1 21,670
50.80%
32.61%
16.60%
20,312
51.35%
34.77%
13.89%
21,222
52.37%
35.16%
12.45%
2 29,197
31.66%
48.68%
19.66%
27,731
31.88%
51.24%
16.89%
29,609
32.31%
52.71%
14.98%
3 20,333
58.24%
24.44%
17.32%
19,353
59.80%
25.37%
14.82%
19,993
62.01%
25.02%
12.97%
4 31,602
63.10%
21.21%
15.70%
30,130
64.01%
22.69%
13.30%
31,580
64.87%
23.22%
11.90%
5 29,064
8.43%
82.33%
9.25%
29,589
8.08%
84.19%
7.73%
32,310
8.43%
84.78%
6.80%
'CEJ �7 of)
Gy
T CJ r
Grp
�
�'• �:.
Q.
M�s
w
0
00
1 s j CD
' b
i0 til'
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 5 of 11
District
Total
Reaistered Voters 2000 by Race. Aae. and Sex
Race/Ethnicity
Aae
Sex
White
Tlack
I Hiso
I Other
18 to 29
30 to 44
1 45 to 54
1 55 to 64 65 UD
Male
Female
1 21,670
11.84%
9.31% 74.09%
4.77%
13.93%
19.39%
12.57%
15.69%
38.42%
43.03%
56.29%
2 29,197
44.72%
17.23% 33.24%
4.81%
14.48%
29.22%
19.55%
14.67%
22.08%
47.52%
51.63%
3 20,333
14.48%
1.31% 79.60%
4.61%
10.39%
17.15%
10.85%
14.12%
47.49%
42.75%
56.56%
4 31,602
16.12%
0.40% 79.95%
3.53%
11.82%
18.66%
11.16%
15.48%
42.87%
42.47%
56.97%
5 29,064
7.58%
79.60% 8.82%
3.99%
22.31%
28.67%
16.34%
12.59%
20.10%
40.45%
58.80%
C>
w
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 6 of 11
1 11,008
Registered Voters 2000 by Race
District
Reaistered Republicans 2000
Reaistered Democrats 2000
Registered Ind/Other 2000
15.37%
Total
White
Black
HisO
Other
Total
White
Black
HiSD
Other
Total
White
Black
HisD
Other
1 11,008
9.69%
0.99%
85.64%
3.68%
7,066
15.37%
24.67%
55.48%
4.50%
3,597
11.45%
4.61%
75.31%
8.59%
2 9,245
41.67%
2.53%
53.01%
2.83%
14,213
45.59%
30.62%
19.65%
4.15%
5,740
47.44%
7.79%
35.03%
9.65%
3 11,841
10.49%
0.45%
85.60%
3.45%
4,970
23.98%
3.48%
67.83%
4.69%
3,521
14.46%
1.16%
76.03%
8.38%
4 19,940
11.41%
0.23%
85.49%
2.85%
6,702
31.05%
0.79%
64.92%
3.25%
4,960
14.78%
0.54%
78.00%
6.65%
5 2,449
28.54%
30.62%
36.79%
3.96%
23,928
4.62%
87.30%
5.04%
3.04%
2,687
14.92%
55.68%
17.05%
12.54%
N CD C!r
C
Cl) �E5 (D
D 0
a
CD
n CD
nCr
�c
® W =r c)
x:3
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 7 of 11
1 66.18%
General Election 2000
Primary 2000
District
President of U.S.
U.S. Senator
State Treasurer
Comm of Education
Comm of Education
33.82%
Bush
Gore
Nader
I Other
McCollum
I Nelson
Gallaaher I
Cosgrove
Crist
Sheldon
Sheldon
Bush
66.12%
34.01%
3 72.24%
26.90%
0.69%
0.17%
72.93%
1 66.18%
33.22%
0.41%
0.19%
66.71%
33.29%
70.38%
29.61%
66.17%
33.82%
43.13%
56.95%
2 36.23%
61.93%
1.50%
0.34%
36.44%
63.56%
45.98%
54.03%
39.99%
60.01%
66.12%
34.01%
3 72.24%
26.90%
0.69%
0.17%
72.93%
27.07%
76.80%
23.20%
73.08%
26.92%
55.89%
44.11%
4 76.13%
23.16%
0.54%
0.18%
76.12%
23.90%
80.31%
19.69%
77.38%
22.64%
59.02%
40.98%
5 6.36%
93.18%
0.20%
0.28%
7.71%
92.28%
13.91%
86.07%
8.39%
91.59%
20.74%
79.17%
30.
h
0-
_ r.
5s
0
D 0
0
--�
gCD,o:X
!U=
O
W
t
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 8 of 11
1 25.55%
General Election 199 1 part
District
U.S. Senator
Governor
Secretary of State
Attornev General
Comptroller
67.29%
Crist
Graham
Bush
MacKav
Harris
Gievers
Bludworth
Butterworth
Milliaan
Dauahtrev
1 25.55%
74.47%
76.45%
23.54%
65.04%
34.97%
56.90%
43.10%
67.29%
32.71%
2 18.76%
81.24%
41.13%
58.88%
36.68%
63.25%
27.91%
72.10%
45.20%
54.74%
3 28.78%
71.24%
81.97%
18.04%
71.47%
28.56%
62.29%
37.71%
74.53%
25.49%
4 28.38%
71.62%
82.53%
17.48%
73.44%
26.57%
63.67%
36.34%
76.59%
23.43%
5 3.72%
96.29%
11.18%
88.82%
10.22%
89.82%
5.73%
94.27%
9.06%
90.96%
CSC/:
�300C&
�3
0:D CD
Q.
0
0
-I n
0 ::r ")o CD
c
1Co
0 W n
x
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 9 of 11
1 58.27%
General Election 1998 cont
General Election 1996
District
State Treasurer
Comm of Education
Comm of Aariculture
President of the U.S.
2.50%
Ireland
I Nelson
Gallaaher
FWallace
L Faircloth
I Crawford
Dole
I Clinton
I Perot
1 58.27%
41.71%
70.26%
29.74%
55.58%
44.40%
51.69%
45.81%
2.50%
2 29.92%
70.05%
49.58%
50.42%
28.51%
71.47%
30.94%
64.28%
4.79%
3 64.35%
35.68%
76.40%
23.61%
61.96%
38.05%
60.31%
37.16%
2.54%
4 65.37%
34.65%
78.77%
21.24%
63.67%
36.34%
63.42%
33.51%
3.06%
5 5.02%
95.00%
13.35%
86.63%
5.76%
94.27%
3.98%
95.12%
0.89%
CDD tG
„O 0 v'
a3
Cn
Q :• m
h o a.
� 0 B E
0o�o(D
v
n�O�.
0%=r
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 10 of 11
1 79.54%
General Election 1994 Part
District
U.S. Senator
Governor
Secretary of State
Attornev GeneralComptroller
32.00%
State Treasurer
32.33%
Mack
Rodham
Bush
Chiles
Mortham
Saunders
Ferro
Butterworth
Milligan
I Lewis
I Ireland
I Nelson
37.86%
62.14%
3 85.47%
14.53%
80.28%
19.72%
74.94%
25.08%
74.43%
25.58%
75.51%
24.49%
1 79.54%
20.45%
72.88%
27.12%
67.70%
32.31%
68.01%
32.00%
67.67%
32.33%
66.73%
33.27%
2 56.94%
43.05%
37.59%
62.41%
37.00%
63.00%
32.49%
67.48%
42.12%
57.91%
37.86%
62.14%
3 85.47%
14.53%
80.28%
19.72%
74.94%
25.08%
74.43%
25.58%
75.51%
24.49%
74.11%
25.89%
4 85.29%
14.71%
79.55%
20.46%
74.93%
25.08%
74.39%
25.62%
75.00%
25.00%
74.28%
25.70%
5 22.63%
77.38%
7.82%
92.16%
7.64%
92.36%
6.35%
93.69%
7.35%
92.66%
6.26%
93.72%
CDD CD
30o Cy
a�
CCD
C>
C.
0 O
5
Dr*
=Co
n::r a�
o �o'�
n '�' Cr
cn
0,�"
District Statistics Report
5/8/2003
12:13:36PM
Paqe 11 of 11
1 68.27%
General Election 1994 (Conti
Primary 1994
General Election 1992
District
Comm of Education.
Comm if Aariculture'
Comm of Education
President of the U.S.
U.S. Senator
77.59%
Broaan
Jamerson
Smith
Crawford
I Jamerson
I Griffen
Dole
I Clinton
I Perot
Grant
I Graham
1 68.27%
31.73%
70.03%
29.98%
60.08%
39.92%
62.44%
32.58%
4.98%
22.40%
77.59%
2 38.97%
61.01%
39.80%
60.18%
39.87%
60.20%
35.72%
53.23%
11.06%
20.58%
79.41%
3 76.54%
23.46%
77.03%
22.97%
62.43%
37.57%
72.43%
22.31%
5.26%
24.58%
75.41%
4 77.09%
22.91%
77.03%
22.96%
59.54%
40.25%
72.84%
21.60%
5.56%
25.79%
74.20%
5 6.15%
93.84%
9.68%
90.33%
48.88%
51.15%
8.26%
89.14%
2.59%
4.51%
95.51%
Ci3 CD
�3
0
C Ca
w >o:�
�
�0
M
+� -r"J` Cr
CD o
U EM C
2002
Board of Directors
Heikki Talvitie
President
tel: ( 305)7544134
fax: (305)7544134
he.xk:@go met -res: ,.rce:em
Robert Flanders
Vice President
tel: (305)758-5766
fax: (305)75M337
palmbayb@msn corn
Patrick McCoy
Secretary
tel: (305)758-6371
fax: (305)758-5403
plmccoy@bellsouth.net
David Treece
Treasurer
tel: (305)7549956
fax: (305)7514)068
dvdtreece@aol. corn
Shane Graber
Director
Steve Hagen
Director
Upper Eastside Miami
Council, Inc.
PO Box 380204
Miami, FL 33238
Upper Eastst'de MjWmi Council Inc.
Wednesday, May 07, 2003
Dear Mr. Mayor & Members of the Commission:
This letter formally proposes a change to the redistricting plan as discussed with your legal
counsel, Mr. Ml-uel De Grandv and Mr. Steve Cody_ . We understand from those discussions
that our proposal meets constitutional standards:
1. It will not change the relative population numbers of District 2 and District 5 in
sufficient numbers to impact the constitutionally mandated proportionality. [Table 11
2. The proposal is race neutral and does not dilute the votes of any minority
communities.
The community based Upper Eastside Miami Council and its predecessor, the City appointed
Northeast Task Force, have for over 15 years defined Miami's Upper Eastside as including
both sides of Biscayne Boulevard. It has long been apparent that issues of Biscayne Boulevard
were shared equally by the communities to the East and to the West. This has been a primary
operating assumption of the Upper Eastside Miami Council since its inception and the reason
why it includes representation from the neighborhoods on the west side of the Boulevard.
Dividing the Upper Eastside down the middle along Biscayne Boulevard into two Districts
would unduly complicate and duplicate efforts to enhance the Boulevard.
Therefore, we propose amending the redistricting draft concept plan by moving the Area
I dividing line between District 2 and 5 from Biscayne Boulevard to Northeast 4th Court.
The new boundary line would run down the middle of Northeast 4t' Court from the city line in
Little River to NE 54 Street and continue along the middle of Federal Highway to NE 36
Street at the south. This would involve the return of 4,237 people from District 5 to District 2
with marginal impact on the city's efforts to avoid redistricting in 2013.
The Commission should be aware of the following facts:
1. Many neighborhoods such as Momingside and Belle Meade have historic portions of
their neighborhood west of Biscayne Boulevard.
2. The Palm Grove neighborhood shares architectural similarities with its neighbors to
the east.
3. In past years the Morningside Civic Association has included homes on the western
side of Biscayne Boulevard in its annual home tour.
4. Our proposal is also consistent with the race neutral or traditional redistricting criteria
identified by your legal counsel:
a. It preserves the contiguity of the existing community,
b. It is consistent with compactness in that it provides a uniformed line without
variance
c. It conforms with the boundaries of political subdivisions and administrative
units
d. It is consistent with the current boundaries of the current Upper Eastside NET
Office
e. It is consistent with the community interests as outlined above in the efforts of
the northeast to continue its representation as a single entity.
Submitted Into the public
record in cornnectio '01)th
item ion ,Sa3 Pagc 1 of 2
f
Priscilla A. Thompson
pson 03, 4 4 "�
City Clerk
This proposal is also consistent with the City's desire to avoid boundary lines with racial
connotations. The Northeast 4`h Court boundary also makes sense in that it groups the
residential neighborhoods both east and west of the Boulevard because of their similar
interests not just in the Boulevard but in overall neighborhood enhancements. The area west
of Northeast 4`h Court particularly, North of 55`h Street, is primarily a warehouse area.
Clearly, the neighborhoods west of Biscayne Boulevard and east of Northeast 4`h Court have
more in common with the residential neighborhoods to their east than to the warehouse
districts to their west.
For the foregoing reasons the Upper Eastside Miami Council on behalf of itself and its
citizens of Northeast Miami, a community of interest, request that the District boundary line
between Districts 2 and 5 in Area 1 be moved from the center line of Biscayne Boulevard to
the center line of Northeast 4`h Court, Federal Highway and the Little River.
Sincerely,
Heikki Talvitie
President
Upper Eastside Miami Council, Inc -
Walt Allen, President of Belle Meade Homeowners Association
Rod Alonso, President of Morningside Civic Association
Robert Flanders, Palm Bay, Vice President of the Upper Eastside Miami Council
Shane Graber, President of the Bayside Residents Association
Steve Hagan, Belle Meade, Board Member of the Upper Eastside Miami Council
Maureen Joseph, Board Member of the Baypoint Homeowners Association
Patrick McCoy, Morningside, Board Member of the Upper Eastside Miami Council
Michael Mushett, President of the Shorecrest Homeowners Association
Alex Rodriquez, President of the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association
David Treece, Belle Meade, Board Member of the Upper Eastside Miami Council
Skip Van Cel, Palm Grove, Resident of the affected area
Table 1
d the ta�3li;
��ta�(im� t t^ ryj �
g t.'�i �Yl.l ffaQ 4�T° A/kjf 11: G.'E.ti
.Ern
Lev
iGuy Page 2 of 2
03- 447
Draft Concept Plan - revised
No population shift in area 1
District
Population
Deviation
Deviation %
from ideal
1
71,552_ ! -942
-1.30%
- 2 -----i
-- 72,569 - ---- --75
-- - 0.10%
3
r- 73,608 1, 114
—
j 1.54%
4
73,889 1,395
', 1.92%-
5
70,852 -1,642
-2.27%
362,470 '', 3,037
4.19%
d the ta�3li;
��ta�(im� t t^ ryj �
g t.'�i �Yl.l ffaQ 4�T° A/kjf 11: G.'E.ti
.Ern
Lev
iGuy Page 2 of 2
03- 447
ivtIGUEL DE GRANDY P.,
MIAMI
Ms. Priscilla Thompson, City Clerk
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VIA HAND DELIVERY
April 10, 2003
TALLAHASSEE
Submitted ja,ae tjje
public
record
(tern 1�Priscilla A.
city Clerk
RE: Report on the Status of Redistricting and Draft Concept Plan
Dear Ms. Thompson:
I am pleased to enclose two copies of the Report on the Status of Redistricting and Draft Concept
Plan. Copies of the report have been forwarded under separate cover to the City Commissioners,
as well as the City Attorney. A copy of the report, in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, will also be
posted on the City's website later today.
The City Commission charged this firm to work with the County Attorney, as well as experts
retained by the City, to analyze the present City Commission districting plan and to make
recommendations to bring its single member districts within the confines of the law. The Report
enclosed herewith includes a Draft Concept Map that brings the total population deviations
within the limits allowed by law. The Draft Concept Plan also implements the policy directions
given by the City Commission.
It is my understanding that the City Attorney's office with working with your office to put on the
April 24th agenda at a time certain where we will go through the Report and Draft Concept Plan
in detail and answer any questions that the Commission may have.
In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
MAD/jd
Enclosures
Miami Center - 29th Floor
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2900, Miami, Florida 33131-4330 P. 305.374.65 305.498V43
1�Y oFl Report on the Status
�w 9� p
INC ORATED Q of Redistricting and
Tt 18 96 4
7 ' 010 Draft Concept Plan
Presented to the City of Miami
City Commission
MIGUEL DE GRANDY P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2900 • Miami, FL 33131
Telephone (305) 374-6565 • Fax (305) 374-8743
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF
REDISTRICTING AND
DRAFT CONCEPT PLAN
Presented to the City of Miami City Commission
Miguel A. De Grandy, Esq.
Stephen M. Cody, Esq.
Dated: April 11, 2003
Miguel De Grandy, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2900 • Miami, FL 33131
Telephone (305) 374-6565 • Fax (305) 374-8743
Credits
Statistical Analysis by
Kevin A. Hill, Ph.D.
Florida International University
Metropolitan Center
Dario Moreno, Ph.D., Director
150 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 1201
Miami, FL 33131
(305) 349-2392
Maps by
Jennifer (Zhaohui) Fu, GIS Coordinator
Library Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing Center (GIS -RS Center)
Florida International University
University Park, GL 275 & 274
(305) 348-3138
http://gislab.fiu.edu
Table of Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Chronologyto Date..............................................................................................................
l
Basic Redistricting Principles..............................................................................................2
Major Issue To Be Addressed In The Redistricting Process...............................................2
Initial Policy Directives From The Commission.................................................................3
Public Comments From Public Hearings.............................................................................3
Specific Principles Utilized in Preparing Concept Draft Plan.............................................5
DraftConcept Plan...............................................................................................................6
Changesto Existing Map.....................................................................................................6
From District 1 to District 5.....................................................................................8
From District 2 to District 3...................................................................................11
From District 2 to District 4...................................................................................12
From District 2 to District 5...................................................................................14
From District 3 to District 2...................................................................................20
From District 4 to District 1...................................................................................22
From District 5 to District 2...................................................................................24
Pending Issues To Be Addressed.......................................................................................26
Appendix
1. Legal Primer on Redistricting dated October 12, 2002
2. Presentation before the City of Miami City Commission, December 12, 2002
3. Areas of Growth and Development in the City of Miami
4. Statistical Analysis of Present Districting Plan
5. Statistical Analysis of Draft Concept Plan, dated March 12, 2003
I
7
Proposed Resolution Amending Commission Districts
Thematic Maps
a) Percent Voting Age Population White [Not Hispanic](2000)
b) Percent Voting Age Population Black [Not Hispanic](2000)
c) Percent Voting Age Population Black Hispanic(2000)
d) Percent Voting Age Population Hispanic [Not Black](2000)
e) Percent Registered Voters Democrat (2000)
f) Percent Registered Voters Republican (2000)
g) Percent Registered Voters Independent (2000)
h) Percent Registered Voters Over 65 (2000)
i) Percent Registered Voters Non -Hispanic White(2000)
j) Percent Registered Voters Hispanic
k) Percent Registered Voters Black
1) Percent Vote for George W. Bush
m) Percent Vote for Al Gore
n) Percent Vote for Bill McCollum
o) Percent Vote for Bill Nelson
p) Median Household Income
q) Percent of Households with Social Security Income
r) Percent of Households with Public Assistance Income
s) Percent of Households under 50% of the Poverty Level
t) Median Value of Owner -Occupied Housing (1999)
u) Median Housing Rental Costs
v) Percent of Males without a High School Degree (2000)
w) Percent of Males with a Bachelor's Degree (2000)
x) Percent of Males in Professional Occupations (2000)
y) Percent of Females without a High School Degree (2000)
z) Percent of Females with a Bachelor's Degree (2000)
aa) Percent of Females in Professional Occupations (2000)
bb) Percent of Adults over Age 65
cc) Percent of Grandparents Caregivers for Own Grandchildren (2000)
Overlay of Miami -Dade County Commission District 3 on Draft Concept Map
11
Introduction
In response to the constitutional mandate to redistrict prior to the November 2003 City of Miami
election, in July of 2002, the Mayor and the Commission of the City of Miami retained Miguel
De Grandy, P.A. to provide legal services on redistricting matters and Voting Rights Act matters.
The City also retained Florida International University's Metropolitan Center, under the direction
of Dr. Dario Moreno, to serve as experts to analyze the Census and geographical data and assist
in the technical aspects of drawing the redistricting plan. The Metropolitan Center has called
upon the GIS -RS Center at FIU to provide maps of the present and proposed districts.
Chronology To Date
In September of 2002, your counsel met with each Commissioner to obtain input as to what each
Commissioner believed to be relevant communities of interest in the City. As you may recall,
these individual meetings were prefaced by an explanation that, while this factual information
would be invaluable in our analysis, we would need to get formal policy direction from the
Commission, as a body, in a public hearing in order to implement specific criteria. Following
these initial meetings, on October 10, 2002, we provided the Mayor and the Commission with a
legal primer designed to highlight and outline the fundamental legal principles of redistricting.
(Attached hereto at Tab 1).
During the December 12, 2002 City of Miami Commission meeting, Miguel De Grandy and
Stephen Cody publicly discussed the redistricting process (Item 49, Page 62 of the Commission
Agenda; M-02-1290). During, the presentation they discussed a proposed redistricting timeline,
as well as some of the important substantive rules and principles of redistricting law that had
previously been outlined in the legal primer. In that presentation, they also discussed the
relevant demographic data concerning the City of Miami from the 2000 Census. (Attached hereto
at Tab 2)
Following that legal and technical presentation, the Commission instructed legal counsel to hold
public hearings within the City of Miami to afford residents the opportunity to learn about the
redistricting process, and to opine on individual preferences concerning the City's district
composition. The Commission also provided initial policy direction as to the different
redistricting criteria that should be considered and utilized in preparation of draft plans for the
Commission's consideration.
Since the December 12" Commission meeting, legal counsel have met with the City's planning
staff to discuss issues of population growth, development patterns and trends, and other relevant
matters. (Attached hereto at Tab 3.) The purpose of these meetings was to evaluate growth
trends in different areas of the City. This information was factored into the analysis in order to
assist in producing a plan that, hopefully, will remain within legally acceptable deviation ranges
into the next decade.
The review conducted by your counsel and the experts began with a analysis of the present
districting scheme. (Attached hereto at Tab 4.)
1
As instructed by the Commission, legal counsel have also held three (3) redistricting public
hearings within the City, discussed infra. Together with the City's experts, and based on the
initial policy directives from the Commission, applicable legal redistricting principles, public
comments from redistricting public hearings, and information on growth and demographic trends
a Draft Concept Plan for the Commission's consideration was developed. (Attached hereto at
Tab 5)
As part of the process, the experts reviewed Census data from the 2000 Census and provided
graphical analysis of political and socioeconomic factors which were helpful in the identification
of communities of interest. (Attached hereto at Tab 6).
Finally, legal counsel reviewed Resolution 97-495, which was the legislation enacted by this
Commission in anticipation of the passage of the Charter Amendment which provided for the
election of a non-voting executive mayor elected City-wide and five City Commissioners elected
from districts. Pursuant to that review, and in consultation with your City Attorney and in
coordination with the experts from the Metropolitan Center, legal counsel drafted a proposed
resolution setting forth the boundaries of the districts found in the Draft Concept Plan. (Attached
hereto at Tab 7).
Basic Redistricting Principles
As you know from the attached October 10, 2002 legal primer and the presentation at the
December 12, 2002 Commission meeting, the law governing reapportionment and redistricting is
derived from a series of different sources, including the United States Constitution, the U.S.
Code, all as interpreted by a number of key court rulings. The Draft Concept Plan legal counsel
has developed is in compliance with requirements of the Constitution, as well as the Voting
Rights Act. Counsel will continue to provide substantive legal analysis and advise during the
consideration of redistricting plans to insure that the final plan complies with all applicable legal
standards and principles of redistricting law.
While counsel will be advising you throughout the process, when considering
redistricting plans, the Commission should be guided by three basic principles:
1. Each commission districts must achieve substantial equality of population
within the deviation permitted under the case law.
2. The City must not engage in racial gerrymandering.
3. The new commission districts must not dilute the votes of minority
communities.
Major Issue To Be Addressed In The Redistricting Process
As illustrated in the attached Tab 4, in the City's current plan, we have found that the
overall deviation between the highest district (District No. 2 presently represented by
Commissioner Winton) and the most under -populated (District No. 5 presently represented by
Commissioner Teele) is 17.39%. Therefore, the City's current plan is considered to be
2
"malapportioned" and cannot be utilized in further elections after the 2000 Census. The City is
therefore constitutionally mandated to rebalance the population of districts.
Initial Policy Directives From The Commission
It is important to note that while the Commission's policy directives are, of course, important
factors in this process, any district map must — first and foremost — conform to the
constitutional principles of redistricting and applicable voting rights laws. Additionally, it is
significant to point out that the redistricting process also involves a continuous process of
accommodating competing interests. The challenge is to find an equitable balance of these
important competing interests that complies with the law. As prefaced earlier, at the December
12, 2002 City Commission meeting, following a legal and technical presentation, the
Commission discussed the redistricting process, and passed Motion No. 02-1290. In said
Motion, the Commission identified the following as initial policy considerations to be utilized
when drafting redistricting plans:
That the draft plan(s) preserve, wherever possible, the integrity of historical and
traditional neighborhoods;
That the draft plan(s) maintain, wherever possible, similar boundaries to insure that
citizens can remain familiar with current voting districts and precinct locations;
That the draft plan(s) contain rational and, wherever possible, man-made and natural
boundaries, with the caveat that they should not emphasize boundaries that have had an
unfortunate connotation of segregation in the past;
That the draft plan(s) attempt, wherever possible, to "nest" City Commission District 5
with County Commission District 3 for purposes of providing a more rational
communication of services between the County and the City; and,
That the draft plan(s) attempt, wherever possible, to include whole precincts into a
district.
In the discussion that preceded the policy considerations outlined in the Motion, Commissioner
Sanchez expressed concerns over voter disruption and confusion, namely the large elderly
population of District 3. Commissioner Sanchez further stated that the existing District 3
boundaries are appropriate, and explained that the Miami River, South Miami Avenue, and U.S.I
road are all historic boundaries of the District. (No commissioner expressed a contrary opinion.)
Public Comments From Public Hearings
It is important to note that, although not legally required, the Commission instructed legal
counsel to hold three (3) public hearings before any new or proposed plans were drawn because
the Commission desired to obtain input that could be incorporated in the crafting of proposed
plans. Legal counsel, as directed by the Commission, sought input on the locations of the three
meetings from Commissioners Tecle and Winton.
3
The public hearings were held on February 18`h at 7:OOpm at Legion Post, 6445 NE 7th Avenue,
on February 19" at 7:OOpm at Verrick Park, 3580 Day Avenue, and on February 24" at 6:OOpm at
Temple Israel, 137 NE 19th Street. All public hearings were advertised pursuant to the City's
standard notice procedures for non -Commission meeting public hearings. All meetings were
tape recorded, and Spanish and Creole translators were available for non-English speaking
residents that wished to participate. All locations were inspected to ensure access to persons
with disabilities. In each of the public hearings, special counsel provided a brief legal and
technical redistricting presentation, and stressed that the Commission's instruction was to allow
the residents to publicly state their redistricting preferences on the record. The public was
encouraged in submit written comments, plans, suggestions, and/or inquiries to the City Clerk.
All audio tapes, speaker's sign -in sheets, and any other document submitted at the public
hearings are available in the City Clerk's office.
In all, approximately 75 residents attended the public hearings, and approximately 30 offered
public comments for the record. The following is a summary of the public comments:
In the February 18" public hearing, residents stated that they would like a time -line,
and more information concerning the Commission's intentions. One resident
suggested that the Commission consider adding another district. Two residents also
complained that at -large districts were preferred, because commissioners were very
parochial. Generally, speakers from the northeast expressed a desire to remain in
Commission District 2.
In the February 19" public hearing, residents questioned the process, and whether it
was productive to opine prior to seeing a map. Some residents felt that they should
be reacting to draft maps, rather than providing opinions beforehand. As with the
February 18" meeting, residents suggested that the Commission consider increasing
the number of districts. The residents expressed a preference to remain in
Commission District 2.
The February 24`h public hearing produced the greatest number of residents and
public speakers. Most residents stated that the communities of Edgewater,
Wynwood, and the Upper -Eastside should not be fractured and that they should
remain in present configuration. Residents suggested that those were communities of
interest, and that the coastline and the FEC -corridor were also natural and man-made
boundaries that should be preserved. Residents were pleased with the recent
development and modernization in the area. Speakers also stated that their
neighboring district contained important historic neighborhoods, like Liberty City and
Overtown, which should also be preserved. Speakers acknowledged that, because
Districts 2 and 5 were malapportioned, the boundaries needed to be re -adjusted, but
hoped that the Commission would employ a practical methodology that takes their
views into account. Some residents suggested that commissioners should start by
adjusting the northern boundaries of District 2, and then move proportionally through
all five districts.
As discussed earlier, there is no legal requirement to hold public hearings prior to engaging in
redistricting. By scheduling these public hearings, the City Commission gave the public a
11
meaningful opportunity to actually engage in the process of redistricting by providing comments
that the policy -makers could consider when crafting the plan. Of course, as with any other
legislation, the public will also have an opportunity to publicly opine and react to the Draft
Concept Plan when it is advertised for a public hearing before the City Commission.
Specific Principles Utilized in Preparing Concept Draft Plan
The Draft Concept Plan was crafted using data the Census Bureau makes available to the states
pursuant to U.S. Public Law 94-171, the same data used by the State of Florida in crafting the
State's Congressional and Legislative districts. Although the data reflects the population of the
City as of April 1, 2000, it is presumed to be accurate for redistricting purposes.
This Census data provides information, at the block level, of population, age, race, Hispanic or
Latino origin, sex, household relationship, and tenure at the present address. The 2000 Census
was the first census which permitted respondents to self identify in more than one ethnic and/or
racial category. Consequently, there were hundreds of possible combinations of ethnic and racial
identification. The Office of Management and Budget recommended the use of six race/ethnicity
categories: Single Race White, Non -Hispanic Black, Hispanic Black, Non -Hispanic Black,
Asian, and Other. The review performed by the experts followed the OMB model, but combined
the categories of Asian and Other into one category. The rationale for that combination was the
relatively small number of widely dispersed persons who identified as Asian in the 2000 Census
in the City of Miami.
In addition, voter registration and election data from statewide races that took place between
1990 and 2000, broken down by blocks, was also part of the data considered. The experts also
looked at the Statistical File 3 data, which was derived the sample portion of the 2000 Census,
and which reports social, financial, and housing characteristics.
After taking the Census data into account, the policy direction given by the Commission at the
December 12th meeting formed the basis for the changes shown in the Draft Concept Plan.
However, not all of the policy directions could be factored equally into each change.
It should be recognized each of the stated criteria has the possibility of conflicting with each of
the others. Preserving the present boundaries in all cases, for instance, would prevent the ability
to move boundaries to equalize population. Each of the policy directions were considered and
balanced against each other by the experts and counsel in drafting the districts.
The most difficult direction to put into place was the direction not to split precincts. Precincts in
Florida, unlike in many other states, are not designations of historical neighborhoods. They are
administrative descriptions of areas that represent the overlap of Congressional, Senate, House,
County Commission, and City districts. Precincts in Miami -Dade County are frequently adjusted
by the County Elections Department between biennial Censuses merely for the administrative
convenience of the Department.
The need to equalize population to meet the deviation requirements of law meant that whole
precincts could not maintained in every case. At present, the City of Miami contains 97
precincts. The Draft Concept Plan caused the split of 15 precincts on the borders of the present
5
districts. However, it should be kept in mind that the present districting plan splits 14 precincts:
52, 263, 530, 531, 533, 537, 545, 556, 558, 560, 568, 569, and 578.
Draft Concept Plan
The Draft Concept Plan is shown on the map on the following foldout page. In addition, each of
the City Commissioners received, with this report, a rolled -up wall sized map showing the Draft
Concept Plan, which displays in detail, the boundaries of the five proposed districts and the areas
of change.
In creating the Draft Concept Plan, each of the 5 present districts was altered in varying degrees.
As discussed previously, the primary objective was to cure the malapportionment that had arisen
since the adoption of the present plan in 1997. As discussed in the legal primer, the law requires
that local districting plans not exceed 10 percent deviation. The populations and the deviations
of the five Commission Districts in Draft Concept Plan are shown in the table below.
Changes to Existing Map
Below each of the proposed boundary changes in the Draft Concept Plan is explained in detail.
Each change is presented graphically with a written description, identification of affected
districts, a reference to specific policy directives given by the Commission, as well as population
impact, demographics, and voter impact. It should be noted that virtually every change in
Districts 2 and 5 was necessary in order to bring the plan within constitutional deviation
parameters. Moreover, the changes to District 5 largely comply with the Commission's directive
to nest District 5 within County Commission District 3. (Attached hereto at Tab 8).
Each of the five commission districts was altered in the Draft Concept Plan. Specifically, there
were 10 areas that were moved between the districts. All ten of the areas affected are shown on
the fold -out map on the following page.
I
Draft Concept Plan
Deviation
District
Population
from Ideal
% Deviation
1
71,552
-942
-1.30%
2
68,332
-4,162
-5.74%
3
73,608
1,114
1.54%
4
73,889
1,395
1.92%
5
75,089
2,595
3.58%
Total
362,470
6,757
9.32%
Changes to Existing Map
Below each of the proposed boundary changes in the Draft Concept Plan is explained in detail.
Each change is presented graphically with a written description, identification of affected
districts, a reference to specific policy directives given by the Commission, as well as population
impact, demographics, and voter impact. It should be noted that virtually every change in
Districts 2 and 5 was necessary in order to bring the plan within constitutional deviation
parameters. Moreover, the changes to District 5 largely comply with the Commission's directive
to nest District 5 within County Commission District 3. (Attached hereto at Tab 8).
Each of the five commission districts was altered in the Draft Concept Plan. Specifically, there
were 10 areas that were moved between the districts. All ten of the areas affected are shown on
the fold -out map on the following page.
I
From District I to District 5
�.
J -
Area
6
Ga6t i St
OF
5
3.
= Area 5
k EEJ t ]F°� n
Graphic depiction of areas moved from District I to District 5
(Existing border shown in black)
(Detailed inset map of the two areas are shown at the end of this section)
Description of Change:
In Area 5, the Draft Concept Map moves off of NW 12th Avenue to take in the triangle
formed by NW 12th Avenue, State Road 836, and the Miami River.
In Area 6, the Draft Concept Map moves off of State Road 112 and moves the boundary
south to NW 36th Street.
Policy Direction Implemented:
In Area 5, movement of the boundary to fill in Area 5 was responsive to the policy
direction that the plan use "rational, wherever possible, man-made and natural
boundaries." State Road 836 and the Miami River were therefore used as new
boundaries.
In Area 6, Northwest 36th Street forms a continuous boundary for the upper portion of
District 5, from Biscayne Boulevard to NW 19th Avenue. The effect also discontinues
the use of State Road 112 as the southern boundary in this area. The change meets the
Commission's policy direction given by that the draft plan preserve, wherever possible,
the integrity of historical and traditional neighborhoods, and not to use boundaries that
have an unfortunate connotation of racial segregation.
Population Impact:
The population of Area 5 is 4. The population of Area 6 is 4,761.
Demographics:
The demographic breakdown of the areas moved from District 1 to District
5 are as follows:
Hispanic Non Black
22
Hispanic Black
3%
Voter Impact:
Other Single Race White
1% 8%
ivvn —pai— olack
66%
Area 5 contains a portion of precinct 589. There are a total of 4 registered voters in Area
5, all of which are Republican. In November 2000, the vote in Area 5 for President was
100.00 percent for Bush and 0.00 percent for Gore.
Area 6 contains portions of precincts 596 and 597. There are a total of 1,542 registered
voters in Area 6, of which 5.32 percent are Republican, 87.28 percent are Democrat, and
I
7.39 are Independent. In November 2000, the vote in Area 6 for President was 4.61
percent for Bush and 95.18 percent for Gore.
Inset Maps:
NW 12 Ave
SR 836
-.Wdw
�a89
NW 19 Ave
Miami River
Graphic depiction of Area 5
(Existing border shown in black)
Graphic depiction of Area 6
(Existing border shown in black)
SR 112
NW 36 St
10
From District 2 to District 3
SW 2 Ave Metrorail
Description of Change:
Miami River
SW 7th St
SW 8th St
Graphic depiction of Area 7
(Existing border shown in black)
The Draft Concept Map moves a small parcel from District 2 to District 3, keeping the
Metrorail line and the Miami River as consistent boundaries.
Policy Direction Implemented:
The change follows the Commission's directive to use natural and man-made boundaries.
Population Impact:
The population of Area 7 is 0.
Voter Impact:
There are no registered voters in this area.
11
From District 2 to District 4
SW 27 Ave SW 17 Ave
579
SW 24 St
P
711141
S. Dixie Hwy'
Graphic depiction of Area 9
(Existing border shown in black)
Description of Change:
SW 24 Terr
The Draft Concept Map moves the southern boundary of District 4 south to U.S. 1
between SW 17Avnue and SW 27 Avenue.
Policy Direction Implemented:
The Draft Concept Map makes use of a well known man-made boundary, U.S. 1, as the
southern boundary of this district in keeping with the policy of using rational, man-made
boundaries. In addition, the change keeps an historical and traditional neighborhood in
the same district.
Population Impact:
The population of this area is 3,206.
12
Demographics:
The demographic breakdown of the areas moved from District 2 to District
4 are as follows:
Hispanic ivon tsiacK
80%
Single Race White
Voter Impact:
n Hispanic Black
1%
ispanic Black
1%
This area contains portions of precincts 540 and 546. There are a total of 1,389 registered
voters in this area, of which 57.31 percent are Republican, 24.74 percent are Democrat,
and 17.87 are Independent. In November 2000, the vote in this area for President was
68.04 percent for Bush and 30.79 percent for Gore.
13
SEX
From District 2 to District 5
mw i L
532
61 I
1 Sia_ S
� 5
S.0
6"
_aa
Area 1
Area 2
Area 4
s$ s,+ a,
Graphic depiction of areas moved from District 2 to District 5
(Existing border shown in black)
(Detailed inset map of the three areas are shown at the end of this section)
Description of Change:
In Area 1, The Draft Concept Map moves off of the FEC Railroad and moves the
boundary to the east to Biscayne Boulevard from NE 83rd Street to NE 36th Street.
In Area 2, the Draft Concept Map moves the boundary in the area shown south to NW 36
Street and to the east to NW 2nd Avenue.
In Area 4, the Draft Concept Map moves the southern most boundary of District 5 from
NW 5th Street to the Miami River.
14
Policy Direction Implemented:
In Area 1, the eastern boundary of District 5 between the northern city limits to Northeast
36th Street presently follows the FEC Railroad. Movement of the boundary implements
the policy direction given by the City Commission not to use boundaries that have an
unfortunate connotation of racial segregation.
In Area 2, movement of the boundary south to NW 36 Street and east to NW 2nd Avenue
is responsive to the policy direction that the plan use "rational, wherever possible, man-
made and natural boundaries." The movement of the boundaries to major thoroughfares
constitutes a "rational" change.
In Area 4, movement of the boundary south to the Miami River to NW 2nd Avenue is a
continuation of the change implemented in Area 3, and which was responsive to the
policy direction that the plan use "rational, wherever possible, man-made and natural
boundaries."
Population Impact:
The population of areas moved from District 2 to District 5 is 6,541.
15
Demographics:
The demographic breakdown of the areas moved from District 2 to District
5 are as follows:
Hispanic Non Bla
31%
Hispanic
S OL
Voter Impact:
Other Single Race White
2% 6%
Hispanic Black
56%
These three areas contain portions of precincts 502, 504, 534 through 537, and 542. There
are a total of 3,671 registered voters, of which 31.63 percent are Republican, 49.99
percent are Democrat, and 18.44 are Independent. In November 2000, the vote for
President was 28.17 percent for Bush and 70.32 percent for Gore.
16
Inset Maps
Biscayne Blvd.
FEC Railroad
NE 83 Terr
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 36 St
Graphic depiction of
Area 1
(Existing border shown
in black)
17
M
J Miami Ave
NW 36 Street
NW 20 Street
Graphic depiction of Area 2
(Existing border shown in black)
109
MetroRail line
Graphic depiction of Area 4
(Existing border shown in black)
NW 5 Street
Miami River
19
Metrorail
P
P
Brickell Ave
From District 3 to District 2
I-95 Metrorail
Graphic depiction of Area 8
(Existing border shown in black)
Description of Change:
V**�
SW 15 Rd
The Draft Concept Map moves the area bounded by Metrorail, Brickell Avenue, and SW
15th Road from District 3 into District 2.
Policy Direction Implemented:
The Draft Concept Map puts a Brickell Avenue neighborhood into the district that
encompasses the rest of Brickell Avenue. It is in keeping with the direction of the
Commission that the plan preserve, wherever possible, the integrity of historical and
traditional neighborhoods. In addition, at the public hearings, there was testimony from
members of the public requesting that this area be moved to District 2. The change also
follows the Commission directive to use natural and man-made boundaries, using the
Metrorail rail line as a rational man-made boundary.
Population Impact:
The population of Area 8 is 904.
20
Demographics:
The demographic breakdown of the areas moved from District 3 to District
2 are as follows:
Hispanic Non
51%
Voter Impact:
Other
5%
0%
Single Race White
43%
This area contains a portion of precinct 569. There are a total of 388 registered voters, of
which 43.94 percent are Republican, 34.54 percent are Democrat, and 22.68 percent are
Independent. In November 2000, the vote in Area 1 for President was 49.48 percent for
Bush and 49.13 percent for Gore.
21
NW4St
From District 4 to District 1
NW 52 Ave NW 51 Ave
Graphic depiction of Area 10
(Existing border shown in black)
Description of Change:
NW 4 Ter
NW4St
The Draft Concept Map moves a small parcel bounded by NW 4th Street, NW 4th
Terrace, NW 52 Avenue and NW 51 Avenue from district 4 to District 1.
Policy Direction Implemented:
The Draft Concept Map makes use of NW 4th Street, rather than snaking up NW 52nd
Avenue for a block, then across to NW 51 Avenue, and back down to NW 4th Street,
which is keeping with the policy of using rational, man-made boundaries.
Population Impact:
The population of Area 1 is 128.
22
Demographics:
The demographic breakdown of the areas moved from District 4 to District
1 are as follows:
Single Race White
Hispanic Non Black
86%
Voter Impact:
Hispanic Black
0%
anic Black
1%
This contains a portion of precinct 554. There are a total of 47 registered voters in this
area, of which 68.89 percent are Republican, 17.02 percent are Democrat, and 17.02 are
Independent. In November 2000, the vote for President was 79.41 percent for Bush and
20.58 percent for Gore.
23
NW5Av
Description of Change:
From District 5 to District 2
NW 1 Ct
NW 20 Street
Graphic depiction of Area 3
(Existing border shown in black)
The Draft Concept Map moves the eastern border of District 2 westward from NW 1
Court to NW 2 Avenue.
Policy Direction Implemented:
Movement of the boundary west to NW 2nd Avenue is a continuation of the change
implemented in Area 2, which was responsive to the policy direction that the plan use
"rational, wherever possible, man-made and natural boundaries." The movement of the
boundaries to major thoroughfares constitutes a "rational" change.
Population Impact:
The population of Area 3 is 408.
24
Demographics:
The demographic breakdown of the areas moved from District 5 to District
2 are as follows:
Other
Non Hispanic Black
94%
Voter Impact:
This area contains portions of precincts 533 and 535. There are a total of 197 registered
voters in this area, of which 4.06 percent are Republican, 87.31 percent are Democrat,
and 8.63 are Independent. In November 2000, the vote in this area for President was 1.71
percent for Bush and 97.44 percent for Gore.
25
Pending Issues To Be Addressed
We have recommended to the City Attorney that he schedule a workshop public hearing for the
review, discussion and consideration of the attached Draft Concept Plan for the April 24, 2003
Commission meeting. At that time, legal counsel can answer questions and concerns of
Commissioners and the experts can address the technical aspects of the Plan. If the Commission
desires, additional citizen input can be obtained. It is requested that the City Attorney schedule
this matter for a time certain on the early part of the agenda on that day.
We would also strongly recommend that the resolution be put to a vote on the May 8, 2003
meeting for final adoption.
Please keep in mind that once the final redistricting plan is adopted, the Elections Department
still has to prepare for and administer the November 2003 elections. Depending on the final
plan, the Elections Department may have to modify precincts, and coordinate other
administrative logistics that may be affected by the new map. Also, since the deadline to qualify
as candidate for the November 2003 election is Saturday, September 20, 2003, time is of the
essence.
Although legal counsel has made every effort to ensure that the Plan meets all of the
requirements of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, it is possible that a dissatisfied party
may bring an action in federal or state court. Early adoption of the Plan will give counsel
sufficient time to litigate any issues raised without intruding into the time needed by the
Elections Department to prepare for the November election.
26
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
From: Miguel De Grandy, Esq.
Date: October 10, 2002
Re: Redistricting Legal Primer
Below please find suggestions on the time -line and process of redistricting as well
as a legal primer to familiarize yourselves with some of the legal issues that you will
confront during the reapportionment process.
Suggested Time -Line and Process
In the next two weeks, I will be contacting your offices to set individual
appointments with each Commissioner. The purpose of this preliminary meeting is to
obtain valuable information that you as a representative of the citizens of your district can
provide. We will elicit information regarding traditional neighborhoods in and around
your districts, communities of interest, and other relevant topics.
Although citizens' participation in the redistricting process is not constitutionally
required, many jurisdictions have elected to use workshops and public hearings
opportunities in order to obtain input from the electors of the jurisdiction. Some
jurisdictions elect to hold these workshops prior to crafting a proposed reapportionment
plan. Others employ these public hearing opportunities to present initial plans and seek
input as to how to improve or refine the plans under consideration.
The City, through its Commission, should decide whether public hearings or
workshops will be utilized in the redistricting process, and whether citizen input will be
obtained prior to or subsequent to creation of draft plans. Of course, the City can have
public hearings before and after the creation of proposed plans, but the additional expense
and drain on staff resources becomes an issue with many public hearings. One of the
options that the City may wish to consider is to have one public hearing or workshop
opportunity within each district, prior to creation of draft plans in order to provide input
on how draft plans should be initially crafted, and then have one or more public hearings
at City Hall to solicit input and comments from electors regarding draft plans on a City-
wide basis.
It is strongly recommended that the Commission authorize the employment of a
recognized expert in the redistricting process that can compile data, and assist in
analyzing data regarding the Voting Rights Act issues addressed above. The input from
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 2
elected and civic leaders, as well as the independent analysis of historical election data
and consultants reports will form the basis for initial drafts of legislative redistricting
plans for the Commission's consideration.
As you know, the Commission is the body that will provide policy direction to the
City's redistricting counsel. While counsel may find that suggestions provided by
individual Commissioners are significant and beneficial, counsel can only act if directed
by a majority of Commissioners acting as a legislative body. Therefore, an initial public
hearing before the City Commission during a regularly scheduled Commission Meeting
is highly recommended. This hearing will provide an opportunity for your legal counsel
to make a detailed presentation on legal and practical issues involved in the redistricting
process and answer any questions you may have regarding the process. This initial
hearing will also provide the opportunity for the Commission to give policy direction to
its legal counsel and set the parameters of the process of redistricting.
Analysis of Legal Issues
The law governing reapportionment and redistricting' combines a myriad of legal
principals from a series of different sources, including the United States Constitution and
federal statutes, all as interpreted by a number of key court rulings. As a result, the rules
can often seem confusing and, worse, may even seem contradictory.
A work attempting to fully explain every aspect of the law in this area could
easily occupy several volumes. In this document, we have tried to summarize the
important principles of reapportionment and redistricting in one coherent and, hopefully,
easy to understand document. This primer, therefore, is a tool to provide each of you a
working knowledge of the most important terms and concepts you will need to
effectively participate in the process over the next year.
As you proceed through the primer, you will see that the rules of redistricting can
be summarized in three basic principles:
1. Each commission district must contain a roughly proportional
number of voters within the deviation permitted under case law;
2. The City must not engage in racial gerrymandering; and
3. The new commission districts must not dilute the votes of minority
communities.
1 The concept of reapportionment and redistricting are distinct. Reapportionment refers to the process of proportionally
reassigning a given number of seats in a legislative body, i.e. 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, to
established districts, i.e. amongst the states, based on an established formula. Redistricting refers to the process of
changing the boundaries of any given legislative district. Therefore, the primer will focus on issues regarding
redistricting.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 3
This primer is divided into two sections and addresses each of these principles.
The first section discusses the constitutional mandate to reapportion. The second section
deals with the role of race in the redistricting process, including discussions regarding the
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.
L Constitutional Mandate to Redistrict and Reapportion
Engaging in redistricting legislative districts is not a discretionary process, but a
process required by the United States Constitution, if the jurisdiction would otherwise be
malapportioned.
A. Historical Perspective on Redistricting: United States Constitution
Before analyzing the issues relevant to redistricting a city jurisdiction, it may be
of benefit to look at the historical perspective, to provide background and context to the
City's upcoming process.
The "Great Compromise" of our constitutional system of government was our
Founding Fathers' creation of a bi-cameral legislature, with a House of Representatives
comprised of a set number of members proportionately distributed amongst the states
according to their population. As a result, the United States Constitution requires the
reapportionment of the House of Representatives every ten years to distribute each of the
House of Representatives' four hundred thirty five (435) seats between the states and to
equalize population between districts within each state. Specifically, Article 1, §2, cl. 3
of the United States Constitution states, "Representatives ... shall be apportioned among
the several States ... according to their respective Numbers." It further requires that
"[t]he actual Enumeration ... be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the
Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such
Manners as they shall by Law direct." Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment further
states that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to
their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding
Indians not taxed."
In furtherance of the Constitutional mandate to reapportion, the United States
Congress adopted the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. §1 et seq. The Census Act delegates the
authority to the Secretary of Commerce to "take a decennial census of population as of
the first day of April of such year." See 13 U.S.C. §141(a). It further requires that
Department of Commerce complete a population tabulation for each state and report to
the President of the United States the results by December 31" of the census year (e.g.,
December 31, 2000 for the most recent census year). See 13 U.S.C. §141(b). The
President must then report to Congress, using the information provided by the Secretary,
the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled.
Although the census was created as a vehicle to determine congressional
apportionment, this data is utilized by virtually every state and local jurisdiction that
engages in the process of redistricting.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 4
By April 1st of the year following the census enumeration, the Secretary of
Commerce provides a detailed population report to the governor and the majority and
minority leaders of each house of the State Legislature. These reports provide the basis
for federal, state and local government decennial redistricting plans. They contain census
maps and electronic files breaking down population data by blocks, census tracts, voting
districts, and the corporate limits of towns, cities, and counties. The information also
contains population totals by race, Hispanic origin, and voting age. See Public Law 94-
171.
B. Court Imposed Requirement to Redistrict; Population Differences
Amongst Districts
Whereas Article I, Sections 2 of the United States Constitution (discussed above)
provides a clear directive on congressional apportionment, the duty of local and
municipal governments to redistrict arose from the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is important to
understand, because as discussed below, you will see that different rules apply with
respect to equalizing population of the several districts. The City Commission is
obligated to redistrict based on the judicially recognized principle commonly referred to
as "one-person, one -vote". Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Reynolds v. Sims, 377
U.S. 533 (1964). In Reynolds, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth
Amendment required that seats in state legislatures be reapportioned on a population
basis. In its now famous words, the Supreme Court concluded:
... the basic principle of representative government remains, and must
remain, unchanged — the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to
depend on where he lives. Population is, of necessity, the starting point
for consideration and the controlling criterion for judgment in legislative
2 The United States Department of Commerce announced in March, 2001, that the U.S. Census Bureau
would not release adjusted population figures to the states for use during the current redistricting cycle.
The U.S. Census Bureau had contemplated using certain statistical sampling methods to correct any
undercount resulting from the actual enumeration of population. The experts from the United States
Department of Commerce reviewing the statistical sampling methods recommended against the use of
adjusted population figures. These experts concluded that the statistical method for recalculating
population figures has not proven more accurate than the use of the unadjusted numbers. Furthermore, the
use of adjusted population figures may pose certain constitutional problems. The United States Supreme
Court in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999), held that the
Census Act prohibits the use of sampling data for purposes of apportioning representatives in Congress
among the states based on the specific requirements of Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution.
Considering that the dictates of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution have been applied interchangeably
in the context of apportionment and redistricting, the use of sampling data to establish Congressional
district lines may result in a similar constitutional infirmity. Any attempt to force the Department of
Commerce to release adjusted population figures would run contrary to established precedent. In 1992, a
bi-partisan coalition of the Florida House of Representatives attempted to force the Census Bureau to
release adjusted population figures. In Florida House of Representatives v. United States Department of
Commerce, 961 F.2d 941 (11th Cir. 1992), the court held that adjusted population counts are part of the
Census Bureau's deliberative process and, thus, privileged from disclosure.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 5
apportionment controversies ... The Equal Protection Clause demands no
less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens,
of all places as well as of all races. We hold that, as a basic constitutional
standard, the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses
of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis.
377 U.S. at 568.
The Court went on to conclude that decennial reapportionment was a rational
approach to readjust legislative representation to take into consideration population shifts
and growth. Id. at 584. Any less frequent readjustment, the Court assured, would be
constitutionally suspect.
In Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), the United States Supreme
Court applied the Reynolds decision to local governments. The Court concluded "that the
Constitution permits no substantial variation from equal population in drawing districts
for units of local government having general governmental powers over the entire
geographic area served by the body."
These cases embody a reaction against the practice in several states, as was the
case in Baker and Reynolds, of maintaining districts for state legislative offices that were
substantially different in population, such as an urban district containing 250,000 people
electing one representative to the State House of Representatives, and a rural district in
the same state containing 75,000 people also electing one representative to the State
House of Representatives. The Supreme Court concluded that these types of differences
in district populations resulted in each vote in the district with the smaller population
carrying more weight than a vote in the larger district.
During the redistricting process, you will hear and read repeated references to the
concept of "deviation". Population deviation is discussed in two different ways. In order
to determine the degree of deviation of a district you must first divide the total population
of the jurisdiction by the number of districts. The resulting number is known as the
"ideal population". Sometimes, deviation is discussed in the context of the ideal
population. For example, if the district has a plus 2% deviation, it means that the
population of the district is 2% greater than the "ideal" population. Another way that
deviation is analyzed by comparing the lowest populated and highest populated district to
obtain the "maximum deviation" also refered to as the "overall deviation". For example,
if the most under populated district is at a 3% negative deviation and the most over
populated is at a 4% positive deviation, the overall deviation is 7%. As you will see
shortly, this analysis has Constitutional significance.
The "one person, one vote" cases forbid significant discrepancies in the creation
of state and local governments legislative districts. In contrast, Congressional districts
must be as nearly equal in population as practicable. Wesberry v. Sander, 376 U.S. 1
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 6
(1964).3 As a rule of thumb, the population difference amongst the largest and smallest
congressional districts (the overall deviation) often approaches zero.
For state legislative and local government districts, the courts have permitted a
greater population deviation amongst districts. As the Supreme Court observed in
Reynolds, all that is necessary when drafting state legislative districts is achieving
"substantial equality of population among the various districts." Id. at 579. The phrase
"substantial equality of population" has come to generally mean that a legislative plan
will not be held to violate the Equal Protection Clause if the maximum deviation between
the smallest and largest district is less than ten percent. Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1
(1975); Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (1977); Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842-43
(1983) ("Our decisions have established, as a general matter, that an apportionment plan
with a maximum population deviation under 10% falls within this category of minor
deviations."); Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (1993).
In two cases, Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973) and Voinovich, the Supreme
Court upheld state legislative redistricting plans with a deviation between the smallest
and largest districts of more than ten percent. In Mahan, the Supreme Court upheld
Virginia's state legislative redistricting plan that had a deviation between the smallest and
largest districts of sixteen percent amongst districts to the Virginia House of Delegates.
The Supreme Court determined that the General Assembly's desire to preserve political
subdivision boundaries justified the deviation amongst the districts. In Voinovich, the
Supreme Court reversed a decision of the lower court holding unconstitutional Ohio's
legislative plan because the overall deviation for the Ohio House of Representatives was
13.81 percent and the overall deviation of the Ohio Senate plan was 10.54 percent. The
Court determined that the preservation of the boundaries of political subdivisions was a
"rational state policy" that in the instant case justified an overall deviation in excess of
ten percent.
Although these two cases, which exceeded the 10% overall deviation were
approved, the particular factual and historical basis upon which these cases relied does
not seem to be evident in the City of Miami. Therefore, as a starting point, the City must
look towards staying within the "bright line" standards set by Voinovich and other
leading cases (less than 10% overall deviation), and where possible, seek to craft districts
as close to the ideal population as possible. Deviation between districts should only be
considered when there is good cause and such deviation furthers an important
governmental objective, such as preserving neighborhoods, preserving communities of
interest, and utilizing natural or man-made boundaries that have historical or other
significance.
3 The courts have imposed the strictest standard on congressional districts because the dictate to have near equality
amongst congressional districts is found not in the Equal Protection Clause, but in Article I, s 2, of the United States
Constitution. The Supreme Court stated in Wesberry "the command of Art. I, s 2, that Representatives be chosen 'by
the People of the several States' means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be
worth as much as another's." 376 U.S. at 7-8.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 7
II. Race and Reapportionment
The federal courts have emphasized on numerous occasions that "reapportionment
is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State through its legislature or other body,
rather than of a federal court." Chapman v. Meir, 420 U.S. 1, 27 (1975). As a result,
federal courts are careful to respect a state's or local government's reapportionment and
redistricting decisions, unless those decisions violate the Constitution or federal law.
Voinovich 507 U.S. at 146. Generally, the courts have intervened in the redistricting
choices of local governments for two reasons: (i) to cure violations of the Equal
Protection Clause, and (ii) to redress violations of the Voting Rights Act.
A. Equal Protection Clause and Strict Scrutiny
After the 1990 census, the United States Supreme Court was called upon to decide
a series of cases regarding the role of the Equal Protection Clause and race in the
reapportionment process. Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999); Abrams v. Johnson,
521 U.S. 74 (1997); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899
(1996)(Shaw II); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995); Johnson v. De Grandy, 512
U.S. 997 (1994); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993)(Shaw I). Generally, the Court held
in these cases that, when race was the predominant factor in the creation of a district, the
creation of that district was subject to "strict scrutiny" review by the courts and would, in
most circumstances, violate the Equal Protection Clause.
"Strict scrutiny" is the most stringent legal standard applied to the judicial review
of a state act alleged to violate the constitution. Strict scrutiny is one of the three basic
levels of judicial review applied to allegedly unconstitutional state action — rational basis
review, intermediate review, and strict scrutiny review. These different levels of judicial
review are used by the courts to balance the competing interests of the individual and the
state often reflected in constitutional case law, and is a recognition that the protections
afforded by the Constitution are not absolute. Based on how close the alleged
impairment of a constitutional right is to the core of the protections afforded by that right,
the courts will apply a more relaxed or a more stringent level of review. For example, a
law that prohibits anyone under sixteen years of age from driving an automobile may
create different rights for distinct classes of individuals, but it does not violate the Equal
Protection Clause because the law need only be rationally related to the legitimate state
interest of protecting the safety of motorists. On the other hand, a hypothetical law that
prohibits a distinct minority group from serving in the military would be subject to strict
scrutiny review rather than rational basis review, which means, in legal terms, that if the
law is to survive it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. In other
words, the state must have a very substantial reason for adopting the law and the scope of
the law may not have broader effects than what is necessary to resolve the circumstances
giving rise to the law. Strict scrutiny is a very high standard that is rarely satisfied.
4 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states "... nor shall any State ... deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 8
The Equal Protection Clause, therefore, does not prohibit the creation of districts
conscious of the race of the majority of voters in the district. Vera, 517 U.S. at 972. But
the Supreme Court has clearly held that the Equal Protection Clause does demand the
application of strict scrutiny when race constitutes the principal reason for the shape of
the district. If a local government can, therefore, prove that either (i) a majority -minority
district can be explained by race -neutral factors, i.e. race was not the predominate factor
in the creation of the district, or (ii) the reasons for creating a majority -minority district
are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, then the district will survive
strict judicial scrutiny.
i. Predominant Factor Test; Race -Neutral Justifications
As stated above, the Supreme Court has determined that a legislative district is
subject to strict scrutiny if race was the predominant factor in the creation of the district.
The Supreme Court has articulated various formulations of the "predominant factor" test.
Legislative action to establish new legislative districts is subject to strict scrutiny if:
"redistricting legislation ... is so extremely irregular on its face that it
rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate the races for purposes
of voting, without regard for traditional districting principles. Shaw I, 509
U.S., at 642
"race for its own sake, and not other districting principles, was the
legislature's dominant and controlling rationale in drawing its district lines."
Miller, 515 U.S. at 916.
"the legislature subordinated traditional neutral districting principles ... to
racial considerations." Miller, 515 U.S. at 916.
"the State has relied on race in substantial disregard of customary and
traditional districting practices." Miller, 515 U.S. at 928 (O'Connor, J.,
concurring).
In Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999), the Court addressed the issue of
whether a majority -minority district may escape strict scrutiny review if the state can
establish that the shape of the district was predominately due to non-racial factors, which
factors happen to also have a strong correlation with race. The appellees in Cromartie
filed an injunction to prevent state officials from conducting an election based on districts
created in 1997 after the Supreme Court's decision invalidating the North Carolina
Twelfth Congressional District. The District Court granted the appellees' Motion for
Summary Judgment, concluding that the "uncontroverted material facts" proved that "the
General Assembly, in redistricting, used criteria with respect to District 12 that are
facially race driven." Id. at 545. At the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment,
the state presented evidence in the form of three affidavits delineating the state's
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 9
contention that factors other than race explained the shape of the district; namely,
political gerrymandering to create a strong Democratic district.
The evidence presented by the state included two affidavits by the legislators
predominately responsible for the creation of the district. They asserted that in drawing
the district "they attempted to protect incumbents, to adhere to traditional districting
criteria, and to preserve the existing partisan balance in the State's congressional
delegation." Id. at 549. In addition, the state presented an expert's affidavit analyzing
the actual voting patterns throughout the district and in the areas bordering the district.
He concluded that race had a direct correlation with voting patterns and political
identification. The creation of a strong Democratic district, therefore, may result in a
district with a disproportionate number of African-Americans. In this specific case, the
expert found that the State "included the more heavily Democratic precinct much more
often that the more heavily black precinct." Id.
The Court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because the
legislature's motivation was a material factual question that was in dispute at the District
Court. In order to apply strict scrutiny review, the Court requires a finding that race was
the "predominant factor" motivating the legislature's districting scheme. Id. at 551. The
Court recognized that a state may "engage in constitutional political gerrymandering,
even if it so happens that the most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats and
even if the State were conscious of that fact." Id. (emphasis in original).
Because the legislative body's intent or motivation is often the central issue in a
redistricting judicial dispute, it is important that you as policy makers understand the
significance of these issues. Many legislative plans have been found to be racially
motivated, and failed to pass a strict scrutiny analysis as a result of one or two statements
by elected leaders gleaned from an otherwise acceptable and voluminous record.
ii. Compelling Interest and Narrow Tailoring
The Supreme Court has attempted to articulate concrete standards to determine if
a state's or a local government's redistricting plan survives strict scrutiny review. The
Court has found a compelling state interest in two circumstances: (i) remedying
discrimination and (ii) complying with the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§1971 et seq.
(2000) (the state interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act is discussed in Section
IV). In order to sustain an argument that the state has a compelling interest in designing a
racially gerrymandered district to remedy discrimination, the state must prove the
following: (i) that the discrimination it seeks to remedy is specific and identifiable
discrimination, and (ii) it has a "strong basis in evidence" to conclude that remedial
action was necessary before it embarks to correct the problem.
If the state or local government can prove it has a compelling interest, then the
remedy (the majority -minority district) must be narrowly -tailored, which in this context
the Court has determined means "the State employs sound districting principles, and ...
the affected racial group's residential patterns afford the opportunity of creating districts
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 10
in which they will be in the majority" Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 657 (internal quotations marks
omitted).
iii. Race-Neutral/Traditional Redistricting Criteria
The courts have encouraged states and local governments to use traditional
redistricting principles in designing legislative districts. The courts have identified the
following as some of the factors that are generally considered traditional redistricting
principles:
Natural or man-made geographic boundaries; (such as a water body, or a
highway)
Contiguity;
Compactness;
Conformity to the boundaries of political subdivisions and administrative
units (precinct boundaries);
Communities of interest.
Generally, if the shape of the district can be explained by a traditional redistricting
principle, the courts are unlikely to declare the district unconstitutional.
The use of these traditional redistricting principles, however, is not mandated by
the courts. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that a compact and "regular
looking" district is not a federal constitutional obligation. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412
U.S. 735, 752 n.18 (1973) (district "compactness or attractiveness has never been held to
constitute an independent federal requirement"). In Shaw I, the Court acknowledged that
a compact district shape was "not ... constitutionally required," 509 U.S. at 647, and in
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 964, the Court concluded that "irregular district lines" could be
drawn for "incumbency protection" and "to allocate seats proportionately to major
political parties." In Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in Vera, he stated "[d]istricts
not drawn for impermissible reasons or according to impermissible criteria may take any
shape, even a bizarre one." 517 U.S. at 999.
As part of the process of redistricting, we will be working with the input provided
in public hearings and with the input provided by you and other civic leaders, to identify
areas where communities of interest exist, and will recommend utilization of neutral or
traditional redistricting principles as may be applicable in crafting the City's plan.
iv. Other Equal Protection Issues
Courts generally uphold districts that are alleged to result from political
gerrymandering, which may include redistricting plans drawn to protect incumbents or
political parties. Such redistricting plans, however, if egregious enough, may create a
claim under the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court in Davis v. Bandemer,
478 U.S. 109 (1986), held that the plaintiffs, members of the Democratic Party, had a
permissible cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause against the State of Indiana
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 11
with regard to legislative districts drafted by the Republican dominated Indiana
Legislature. Although the Court stated that the plaintiffs could state a claim under the
Equal Protection Clause for discrimination based upon party affiliation, a plurality of the
Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove the necessary elements of such a claim.
A redistricting plan has never been invalidated on the grounds of political
gerrymandering and most commentators agree that the standard set forth in Davis is
nearly impossible to satisfy. Because the City conducts non-partisan elections, further
detailed analysis of these issues are not necessary for the City's process of redistricting.
B. Voting Rights Act
The question left unanswered by many of the reapportionment and redistricting
cases in the 1990s is how to reconcile the requirements of the 1964 Voting Rights Act
(VRA) and the Equal Protection Clause in the area of reapportionment. More
specifically, does compliance with the Voting Rights Act provide the type of compelling
state interest to help majority -minority districts survive strict scrutiny review?
i. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act/1965-1982
Section 2 of the VRA prohibits any state or political subdivision from imposing a
"voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure ... in a
manner which results in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race
or color." In 1982, reacting to a narrow interpretation of the VRA by the U.S. Supreme
Court requiring proof of discriminatory intent, the U.S. Congress amended the VRA to
require only proof of a discriminatory result based on the totality of the circumstances. A
violation under Section 2 of the VRA, therefore, exists if:
Based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political
processes leading to nomination or election in the state or political
subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of ...
[a racial, color, or language minority class] ... in that its members
have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to
participate in the political process and to elect representatives of
their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class
have been elected ... is one circumstance which may be considered:
Provided, that nothing in this section establishes a right to have
members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their
proportion in the population.
The City of Miami is blessed with a rich ethnic, cultural and racial diversity. Its
population base is comprised of significant cohesive racial and language minorities that
are "protected classes" under the Voting Rights Act. Therefore, particular emphasis and
attention must be placed on complying with the language of the Voting Rights Act as
well as the cases interpreting these provisions.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 12
The Supreme Court has recognized that manipulation of district lines during the
reapportionment and redistricting process can be the basis for a claim that the voting
strength of politically cohesive minority voters has been diluted. Vote dilution may
happen as a result of fragmenting the minority voters among several districts where the
majority can routinely out -vote the minority voters, or by packing the minority voters into
one or a small number of districts to minimize their influence in the neighboring districts.
See Voinovich, 507 U.S. at 146; Growe, 507 U.S. at 25. Section 2, thus, prohibits these
sorts of line -drawing where its result, "'interact[ing] with social and historical conditions,
impairs the ability of a protected class to elect its candidate of choice on an equal basis
with other voters."
On a more technical level, in the case of Gingles v. Thornburg, 478 U.S. 30
(1986), the Court held that three threshold conditions are required prior to establishing
that a redistricting plan violates Section 2 of the VRA:
1) The size and geographic compactness of the minority
population must be such as to enable the creation of a single -
member district in which the minority group can elect a
candidate of their choice;
2) The minority population is a politically cohesive group; and
3) The majority population votes as a bloc to defeat the minority
group's preferred candidate.
If a plaintiff establishes that the challenged district meets the above criteria, then
the court will move on to examine the "totality of the circumstances" to determine if the
device or practice in question results in the dilution of the electoral power of the minority
population. If a plaintiff fails to establish the existence of the three factors, the court does
not need to go any further and the Section 2 claim fails as a matter of law. Johnson v.
Hamrick, 2002 WL 1446849, *8 (11th Cir. July 5, 2002) ("a court cannot find vote
dilution unless the plaintiffs prove all of the necessary factors. If any one of the Gingles
prongs is not established there is no vote dilution") (emphasis in original).
In order to ensure compliance with the VRA, and minimize the probability of
legal liability to the City, an analysis of the Gingles factors will be made throughout the
process of crafting a proposed redistricting plan. In that regard, the utilization of experts
and consultants is highly advisable. The consultant would compile data on previous
elections within the city (including congressional, legislative and judicial) which will
then be analyzed to determine whether the factual basis for determination of prong two
(political cohesion) as well as prong three (polarized block voting) may be evident. If the
existence of Gingles factors are preliminarily established, the results of this analysis will
be utilized to ensure that politically cohesive groups are not unlawfully diluted or
fragmented and that districts are either drawn in a manner where protected classes of
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 13
citizens under the Voting Rights Act would have an "equal opportunity" to elect their
candidate of choice in light of potential polarized racial or ethnic block voting.
In Gingles, the Court also reviewed the extensive legislative history of the 1982
Amendments to the VRA, and gleaned the following as important factors in establishing
that an electoral device or practice, in the "totality of the circumstances," has created or
led to vote dilution:
1) Extent of any history of official, state discrimination;
2) Extent of racial polarization in elections within the state or
political subdivision;
3) Extent to which the state or political subdivision has used:
a) unusually large election districts;
b) majority vote requirements;
c) anti -single shot provisions; or
d) other voting practices that enhance the ability of the
majority to discriminate against a minority group.
4) If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of
the minority group have been denied access to that process;
5) The extent to which members of the minority group in the state
or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in
such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder
their ability to participate effectively in the political process;
6) Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt
or subtle racial appeals;
7) The extent to which members of the minority group have been
elected to public office in the jurisdiction;
8) Whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness by elected
officials to the particular needs of the group; and
9) Whether the policy underlying the use of the voting
qualification, standard, practice, or procedure is tenuous.
In the 2000 redistricting cycle, courts reviewing Section 2 challenges, generally,
have not been faced with situations in which minority groups have been completely
disenfranchised. Instead, the bulk of the challenges deal with marginal cases in which
districts have been created with substantial minority populations and the question is
whether those districts will perform for candidates of choice of African-American or
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Miami Commission
Page 14
Hispanic communities. These types of cases have placed renewed emphasis on the third
of the Gingles pre -conditions — whether the adopted plans impair the ability of minorities
to elect candidates of their choice. The courts demand a functional and practical review
of the performance of these challenged districts, including an analysis of voter turnout
percentages, cross-over voting, and performance at the decisive election, which many
times requires in depth statistical analysis of primary elections. Establishing a
redistricting plan based on the results of expert studies therefore minimizes the
probability of liability in creation of the plan. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45 (holding that
Section 2 requires a "searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality" with
"a functional view of the political process"); Page v. Bartels, 144 F.Supp.2d 346 (D.N.J.
2001); Martinez v. Bush, Case No. 02 -20244 -CIV -JORDAN (S.D. Fla. July 9, 2002)
canelncinn
We hope that as you worked your way through this primer, many of your initial
questions about the reapportionment and redistricting process have been answered.
Perhaps, this primer has also stimulated a number of other questions regarding the
process. I look forward to working with you to address these questions. As mentioned
before, this primer is by no means the definitive, exhaustive source on this area of the
law, but it is intended to serve as a reference tool for understanding certain basic
redistricting and reapportionment concepts. In addition to familiarizing yourself with
those basic concepts, as you proceed in this historic process, it will serve you well to keep
in mind the three basic rules outlined at the beginning of this primer. Those rules form
the baseline of what is needed to ensure that the redistricting plans adopted by the City of
Miami have a fair chance of avoiding or surviving judicial scrutiny.
Speaking Points for December 2002
Legal Presentation to the City of Miami Commission
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Commission. For the record my name is Miguel De
Grandy. My address is 201 S. Biscayne Blvd.,
Suite 2900.
I am here today with Mr. Steve Cody who is Of
Counsel to my firm, and also a recognized expert on
Redistricting and Voting Rights Act issues.
As your counsel on Redistricting, we've requested
this opportunity to make this public presentation for
your benefit as well for your constituents.
As part of this presentation, we will start with an
overview of the legal issues related to Redistricting.
Mr. Cody will then go through the relevant
demographic data from the 2000 Census.
At the conclusion of our presentation, we will
request initial policy direction from you as to the
different Redistricting criteria that you would like
us to consider and utilize in preparation of draft
plans for your consideration.
Finally, we will also seek input from you as to the
number of public hearings and the time -line for
public hearings if you chose to have them.
Before we begin let me emphasize one basic
principle.
POLICY DIRECTION FROM COMMISSION
Our job as counsel to the City is to assist you as
elected officials in crafting and implementing a
sound legal plan for Redistricting the City of
Miami.
I do not have the privilege of having been elected
by the people of the City of Miami to make public
policy decisions, and that is not my role.
Therefore, please do not interpret any of my
comments either at this hearing or at any subsequent
discussion as an attempt to in any way usurp or
compromise your right to represent your
constituents.
Rather, please understand that as counsel, it is my
responsibility and ethical duty to advise you on the
law, and to advise you in areas where I believe the
law may not permit utilization of any specific policy
consideration or criteria in crafting a plan.
It will then, of course, be your sole providence, as a
Commission, to make all final decisions on policy
2
considerations and implementations of specific
plans.
OUTLINE OF LEGAL PRESENTATION
Having said that Commissioners, let me give you a
brief outline of the legal issues I will cover and then
proceed to my legal presentation.
As you know, from the Legal Memorandum that I
sent to you in July, the law governing
Reapportionment and Redistricting is very
complicated and is derived from a series of different
sources including the United States Constitution,
and Federal Statutes, all as interpreted by a number
of key court rulings.
Often times these rules seem confusing and
sometimes even contradictory.
Rather than bore you and confuse you with an entire
dissertation on the law, I will limit my presentation
to three basic principles that will guide our process
in the City of Miami. These principles are as
follows:
1. Each Commission District must achieve
substantial equality of population within
the deviation permitted under the case
law.
3
2. The City must not engage in racial
gerrymandering and;
3. New Commission Districts must not
dilute the votes of Minority Communities.
PROPORTIONAL DISTRICTS
First
The requirement to redistrict state and local
governments is derived from the 14th Amendment
on the United State Constitution based on the
traditionally recognized principle commonly
referred to as one person -one vote.
Federal Courts have basically held that the 14th
Amendment requires that Legislative Districts in
state and municipal governments be apportioned on
a population basis.
The law requires "substantial equality of
population" among the various districts.
The phrase "substantial equality of population" has
come to generally mean that a Legislative Plan will
not violate the Equal Protection Clause if the
difference between the smallest and largest district
in the jurisdiction is less than 10%.
F.
The range between the largest and smallest
populated district is referred to as the maximum
population deviation, or overall deviation.
In the city's current plan, we find that the overall
deviation between the highest district (District No. 2
— Commissioner Winton) and the most under-
populated (District No. 5 — Commissioner Teele) is
roughly 18.5 %.
Therefore, the City's plan is considered to be
"Malapportioned" and could not be utilized in
further elections after the 2000 Census.
The City is therefore Constitutionally mandated to
rebalance the population of districts.
Although the data is two years old, we will use the
year 2000 census figures in realigning your plan.
This data has been found to be universally
acceptable by the Federal Courts and therefore
minimizes the probability of legal challenges if
other data or methodologies are utilized.
RACE & REAPPORTIONMENT
The second and third principles that I mentioned are
sometimes looked at as contradictory. The
Constitution prohibits a jurisdiction from engaging
s
in racial gerrymandering, yet the Voting Rights Act
prohibits dilution of minority communities voting
strength.
Let's first talk about the Constitutional mandate
prohibiting racial gerrymandering.
This principle fully evolved in the 1990
Redistricting cycle through several Supreme Court
opinions. The most notable one being Shaw v.
R Pn n
Generally, the court held in these cases that, when
race was the predominant factor in the creation of a
district, it would be subject to the most stringent
legal standard and would in most circumstances
violate the Equal Protection Clause.
This predominant factor test has been articulated in
several ways in different cases.
Basically, the court looks at the intent of the
Legislative body and whether consideration of race
or ethnic background played a bigger role than other
customary and traditional Redistricting principles.
In effect, a jurisdiction can be conscious of race as
one of its factors in consideration, but not driven by
considerations of race and ethnic background.
This makes traditionally accepted principles of
Redistricting more important in insulating your plan
against a legal challenge.
We will discuss these factors in more detail toward
the end of our presentation, but by way of example,
These principles include things such as:
A. The use of natural or man made geographic
boundaries.
B. Compactness and;
C. Maintaining traditional neighborhoods and
communities of interest.
If the configuration of a district can be explained by
traditional Redistricting principles, the courts are
unlikely to declare the district unconstitutional.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Finally, Commission Districts must not dilute the
votes of minority communities.
Most every decision of the Supreme Court on the
Voting Rights Act analyzed a scenario with only
one minority community or protected class under
the Voting Rights Act.
VA
The City of Miami presents unique challenges
because there are two communities recognized as
protected classes under the Voting Rights Act and
within those protected classes you have sub -sets of
language and ethnic minorities.
As was done in the City's original plan of single
member districts, the challenge before you in this
process is to balance the interest of all groups, while
at same time being mindful of the 14th Amendment
prohibition against using race as an overriding
criteria.
Earlier this year, Mr. Cody and I served as counsel
to the Florida House of Representatives. When
assisting the Speaker in crafting the Miami -Dade
County portion of the map, we took the position that
race and ethnic background could and should be
considered among a menu of other traditional
redistricting principles.
The Legislature's plan was challenged in the case of
Martinez v. Bush and the three-judge Federal Panel
upheld the methodology utilized to create the plan.
Specifically, the court found that:
"Race or Hispanic status was considered in the
drawing of performing black or Hispanic Senate
and House Districts in an effort to enhance
performance of the districts for black or Hispanic
t
candidates of choice, to avoid dilution of the votes
of black or Hispanic voters, and to comply with
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Traditional
Redistricting principles were also considered and
respected in the drawing of these districts. Neither
race nor Hispanic status was the controlling or
predominant factor in drawing of such districts."
In drawing the City's plans, we would propose to
take the same approach that was approved
unanimously by the three-judge Federal court in
Martinez v. Bush.
The court further found that compliance with the
Voting Rights Act was a necessary goal in South
Florida because the three-part test of Gingles v.
Thornbury has been established.
In Ginles the court held that at a minimum in order
to state a cause of action under Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act it must be established that:
1. The protected group is "sufficiently large and
geographically compact".
2. That the protected
cohesive" and that;
group is "politically
3. Other voters generally vote as a block to defeat
the minority candidates of choice in at large
elections.
I
The three-judge Martinez court held that: "In the
case at bar it is undisputed that the Giles factors
are satisfied."
We can, and will, rely on this judicial finding as an
initial indication that compliance with the Voting
Rights Act is a necessary element of analysis in
crafting a plan.
We will of course develop independent evidence
through expert consultants to demonstrate that those
factors are apparent within the boundaries of the
City of Miami, and therefore race and ethnicity
must be considered as a factor in order to comply
with the Voting Rights Act.
At this time, let me introduce Mr. Cody to walk you
through some of the data from the 2000 census that
is relevant to the City's process.
At the conclusion of this presentation we will
enumerate some of the traditional Redistricting
principles that have been recognized by the courts
an ask for your policy direction as to which
principles should guide us in producing a
preliminary plan for your consideration.
DEMOGRAPHIC PRESENTATION ON
REDISTRICTING TO THE CITY OF MIAMI
10
OPEN WITH SLIDE 1
Introduction
Thank you, Miguel.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Commission.
For the record, my name is Steve Cody and my
address is 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2900, in
Miami.
If Power Point Working
During my presentation, I will by referring to a
number of Power Point slides that will be put up on
the big screen.
Miguel is handing out a set of the slides in booklet
form so that you can follow along, if you wish.
If Power Point Not Working
During my presentation, I had planned to refer to a
number of Power Point slides.
However, there are
gremlins
about. I have print
outs
of the slides just
in case
the technology did
not
cooperate.
11
Miguel is handing out a set of the slides in booklet
form so that you can follow along, if you wish.
Overview
SLIDE 2
I would like to give you a brief overview of the
demographics of the City.
As Miguel mentioned in his remarks, the demography
of the City of Miami drives the reapportionment
process
The State of Florida had a population growth of 23.5%
during the decade between 1990 and 2000.
Miami -Dade County also saw growth of 16.3%,
representing 316,268 persons.
In contrast, the City of Miami, overall saw relatively
little growth.
In 1990 the population was 358,726.
On Census day in 2000, the population was 362,411,
an increase of only 3,685 or just 1%.
Ethnic Overview
SLIDE 3
Although the population of the city has not changed
greatly, there has been slight shift in the City's ethnic
makeup.
12
Between 1990 and 2000, the number of Non Hispanic
White residents actually declined by about a thousand.
Hispanic Blacks increased by about 800.
The number of Hispanics grew by over 13,000,
increasing their share of the population from 60
percent to 63 percent.
The Non Hispanic Black population fell, both in terms
of raw population and as a percentage of the City's
population.
In 1990, there were 88,204 Non Hispanic Black
residents of the City, which accounted for 25 percent
of the population.
In 2000, there were almost 11,000 fewer Non Hispanic
Blacks in the City and their share of the population
had dropped to 21 percent.
As Miguel discussed during his part of the
presentation, during the Martinez case which was tried
this last summer, the evidence presented showed that
the Non Hispanic Black population that had resided in
the City of Miami in the 1990's migrated north,
moving into North Miami, North Miami Beach, and
most significantly into South Broward County.
Although districts are drawn primarily with an eye
towards the population, it is ultimately the voting age
population and the registered voters who will decide
how these districts perform.
13
With the idea of testing performance, lets examine the
political make up of the City, first at the City-wide
level, and then later looking at the districts.
In 1990, the voting age portion of the City's
population was approximately 77 percent. That is,
over three quarters of the population was 18 or older.
In 2000, the voting age portion of the population was
78 percent.
SLIDE 4
Overall, 17 percent of the City's population is above
the age of 65, which mirrors the percentage of all
Floridians 65 and over, but is higher than the
percentage of older residents of both the nation as a
whole or Miami -Dade County.
SLIDE 5
The Black population of the City is significantly
younger than the other components of the City's
population. The voting age component of the Black
population is 68 percent, 10 points below the voting
age proportion of the City.
The Hispanic population of the City, by contrast is
significantly older than the other parts of the City's
populations. The voting age portion of the Hispanic
population is 82 percent, 4 points above the voting age
proportion of the City and 14 points above the voting
age proportion of the Black population.
Political Overview
14
We now turn to a brief analysis of voter registration in
the City of Miami.
SLIDE 6
Of the 276,000 persons who are of voting age, only 62
percent, or 132,000 are registered to vote in the City of
Miami. As we will discuss in moment, these voters
are not evenly dispersed throughout the five
Commission districts.
The election of Miami City Commissioners is
admittedly non-partisan. However, in crafting the
districts, the Commission can take into account the
manner by which the voters are registered.
SLIDE 7
In the City of Miami, as of the 2000 presidential
election, almost 16 percent of the registered voters
were independent, with the remainder fairly evenly
split between Republicans and Democrats.
As draft plans are developed, we will be able to
provide you with analysis that shows how the city and
each proposed district performed politically in federal,
state, county, and city elections over the last 10 years.
Unfortunately, time today does not permit a
presentation that shows how each of the present
districts have performed in the past.
Deviation Problem
15
SLIDE 8
As Miguel indicated, there are significant differences
between the districts that drive this redistricting
process. Districts 1, 2, and 3 all presently have
populations that exceed the ideal population. Districts
4 and 5 are under -populated.
Because the total deviation exceeds 10 percent, the
City is required to redistribute the population.
The most significant issue that the Commission must
consider is the de -population of District 5. District 5
lost 8,826 residents over the last decade.
At present, District 5 is almost 13 percent below the
ideal population. By itself, it exceeds the 10 percent
deviation limit.
District 2, on the other hand, gained almost 5,300
residents in the last ten years, making it 5.6% above
the ideal population.
All indications, based on present development
patterns, is the District 2 will continue to increase in
population.
At the very least, the redistricting must lower the
population deviations. The Commission has a wide
variety of choices before it in addressing the
population differences.
16
The three-judge panel in the recent Martinez case
emphasized that there is no one "right" districting
plan.
There are plans that are illegal, violating the U.S.
Constitution or federal law, and legal plans, which
respect the law. However, the Courts generally defer
to the legislative wisdom of an elected body that
chooses from a variety of legal plans.
Introduction to Districts
In considering how to address the deviation problem,
the Commission may want to first consider the
demographic and political components of each district.
The demographic and political snapshot I've given
you for the City is not reflective of each of the
districts. The five boroughs are different in many
different ways.
Discussion of District 1
As I indicated previously, District 1 is over populated.
It has almost 3,700 more residents than the ideal
population, or a total deviation of 4.85 percent.
SLIDE 9
Hispanics make up the largest share of this district
with more than 76 percent of the population, followed
by Non Hispanic Blacks, with 10.4 percent, and Non
Hispanic Whites at 6.9 percent.
Sixteen percent of the population is over the age of 65.
17
SLIDE 10
While there are almost 60,000 persons of voting age,
only 37 percent are registered to vote.
SLIDE 11
Of those persons registered, almost half were
Republicans, 35 percent were Democrats, and 16
percent were Independents.
SLIDE 12
Almost 72 percent of registered voters were Hispanic,
with Black and White voters having an nearly equal
share of 12 percent, respectively.
Discussion of District 2
District 2, like District 1, is over populated. It has
almost 4.300 more residents than the ideal population,
or a total deviation of 5.6 percent.
SLIDE 13
Hispanics make up the largest share of this district but
are not a majority, with 46 percent. Non Hispanic
Whites are 30 percent, followed by Non Hispanic
Blacks, with 19 percent. District 2 is the most
ethnically diverse district.
Thirteen percent of the population is over the age of
65, well below the City's average.
SLIDE 14
There are over 63,000 persons of voting age, and over
half of them are registered to vote.
SLIDE 15
Of those persons registered, a fifth were independents,
almost half were Democrats, and 33 percent of
registrants were Republicans.
SLIDE 16
Over 44 percent of registered voters were White, 35
percent were Hispanic, and 16 percent were Black.
Discussion of District 3
District 3, like Districts 1 and 2, is also over
populated. It has over 2,000 more residents than the
ideal population, or a total deviation of 2.7 percent.
SLIDE 17
Hispanics make up the largest share of this district
with 87 percent. Non Hispanic Whites are 8 percent,
followed by Non Hispanic Blacks, with only 1
percent.
Nineteen percent of the population is over the age of
65, well above the City's average.
SLIDE 18
There are almost 59,000 persons of voting age, but
only 35 percent of them are percent are registered to
vote.
SLIDE 19
Of those persons registered, 58 percent are
Republicans, 25 percent were Democrats, and the just
over 17 percent of registrants were Independents.
SLIDE 20
Almost 79 percent of registered voters were Hispanic,
15 percent were White, and just 1 percent were Black.
District 3 had the largest percentage of registered
voters 65 and older, with 47 percent of voters having
reached retirement age.
Discussion of District 4
District 4 is under populated by almost 1,800
residents, or a total deviation of -2.5 percent.
SLIDE 21
This is the most Hispanics district, with 89 percent of
the population. Non Hispanic Blacks were only 0.3
percent. Non Hispanic Whites are 9 percent.
Almost 25 percent of the population is over the age of
65, well above the City's average.
20
SLIDE 22
There are over 58,000 persons of voting age, and over
half of them are registered to vote.
SLIDE 23
Of those persons registered, 63 percent are
Republicans, 21 percent were Democrats, and 14
percent of registrants were Independents.
SLIDE 24
Over 80 percent of registered voters were Hispanic, 16
percent were White, and only 0.4 percent were Black.
District 4 had the second largest percentage of
registered voters 65 and older, with 43 percent of
voters having reached retirement age.
Discussion of District 5
District 5 is the most under populated district, having
8,300 fewer residents than the ideal, or a total
deviation of —12.9 percent.
SLIDE 25
This is the most African American district, with 83
percent of the population. Hispanics were only 10
percent and Non Hispanic Whites are 3 percent.
Only 11 percent of the population is over the age of
65, well below the City's average.
21
SLIDE 26
There are only 43,000 persons of voting age, and over
60 percent of them are registered to vote, the highest
registration figure in the City.
SLIDE 27
Of those persons registered, 86 percent are Democrats,
8 percent were Independents, and only 6 percent were
Republicans.
SLIDE 28
Over 85 percent of registered voters were Black, 4
percent were White, and only 7 percent were Hispanic.
District 5 had the lowest percentage of registered
voters 65 and older, with only 20 percent of voters
having reached retirement age.
Traditional Redistricting Values
Now that we've taken a brief look at the City and the
Districts that comprise it, the Commission may also
want to weigh traditional redistricting principles as it
weighs the choices before it.
Over the course of the last two decades, the federal
courts have considered numerous challenges to
redistricting plans. Through that process, the courts
have refined a number of factors. Those factors
include:
22
o Natural and man-made boundaries. The courts
have recognized that rivers, sea coasts, canals,
highways, and even streets can form natural and
man-made boundaries.
■ In the City of Miami, the Miami River is one
of the most strike natural boundaries.
■ The City
is also
split
by
two major
commuter
highways
— I-
95
and the 836
expressway.
o Maintaining communities of interest. In the
recent reapportionment of the Florida House,
coastal areas were recognized as communities of
interest, as were urban business cores.
o Compactness. Does a district send out amoeba
like tendrils to pick up far flung neighborhoods or
does it take in relatively dense areas?
o Incumbency protection, at least in the limited
form of avoiding contests between incumbents
o Avoiding voter confusion. Are areas that have
been part of districts in the past kept together?
o This last criteria may be a significant concern in
an area whose population has a large elderly or
non-English speaking population.
o In Miami, we see a population which is has large
components which are both elderly and non-
English speaking.
23
o Future Growth. In the course of preparing for the
redistricting task ahead of us, Miguel and I have
met with staff from your Planning Department.
o We have asked them to give us an overview of
the major development projects that are slated to
come online in the City over the next five years.
o The purpose of this inquiry is to determine which
areas of the City are likely to grow faster than
others and to account for that projected growth in
crafting the districts.
o It may be possible to slightly under populate high
growth districts and over -populate districts that
face de -population, with the end result that the
City will likely face a much lower level of
deviation after the 2010 Census.
o Although no one can guarantee where the City
will be in 8 years, it is our hope that by taking
growth into account, there will be a strong
likelihood that the total deviation of the plan will
still be well under 10 percent.
o Taking growth into account is a non-racial
redistricting criteria which would be supported
under the law.
Where we go from here
The demographic data and these traditional
redistricting factors will no doubt be balanced as part
of this Commission's deliberative process.
24
As part of this process, we would ask for some
guidance from the Commission.
This Commission can direct us to toss out the present
map and start from scratch
1"
It can direct that the core of present districts should be
maintained as much as possible and that the map be
"tweaked" to balance out the population.
Either approach is supported under the law.
We would also like to get policy direction from the
Commission with regard to public hearings.
The Florida Legislature held a series of public
hearings around the state to get local input.
The 3 -judge panel in the Martinez case found these
public hearings are not required under the law. It is
this Commission's sole discretion as to whether to
hold hearings around the city to get input from the
residents.
If the Commission desires public hearings, we would
ask for direction of how many hearings to hold.
Moreover, we would need to get a time line from the
Commission. Qualifying for the next election is in
September 2003 and the process of finalizing the new
district lines should be completed well before that.
25
Conclusion
Commissioners, on behalf of Miguel De Grandy and
myself, I thank you for giving this opportunity to meet
with you.
Both Miguel and I are available to answer any
questions that you may have and look forward to
receiving your policy direction.
26
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REPORT
From 1996 Updated through January 27, 2003
COMPLETED
1. Fortune House — completed— 297 units with accessory commercial and recreational
spaces.
2. The Mark — completed - 355 units — with accessory commercial and recreational
spaces.
3. Barclays Financial Center (including JW Marriott) — completed - 1111 Brickell
Avenue. 300 -room hotel with accessory commercial and recreational uses; 500,000
square feet of office use. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $1.2 million.
4. Homewood Apartments Residential Project — completed - 1155 Brickell Bay Drive.
This project consists of a 355 unit residential tower with accessory commercial and
recreational uses and 465 parking spaces. The project is currently under construction.
Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $500,000. Projected on tax roll: 2001.
5. Mandarin Hotel — completed - 500 Brickell Key Drive. This project consists of over
300 hotel rooms with accessory commercial and recreational space. Estimated ad
valorum tax revenue to City of $680,000. Projected on tax roll: 2002
6. Miramar Apartments — completed - 1744-56 N. Bayshore Drive. The project consists
of 471 residential units. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $935,000.
Projected on tax roll: 2001.
7. Tequesta Point — completed - 808 Brickell Key Drive. The project consists of a 273
unit condominium structure. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $500,000.
Projected on tax roll: 2002.
8. The Metropolitan (formerly approved as Chateau Meritage) — completed - 2475
Brickell Avenue. This project consists of 199 residential units with 319 parking
spaces. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $119,000. Projected on tax roll:
2002.
9. Mutiny II - Coconut Grove - 2889 McFarlane Drive. This project consists of a 211
unit apartment hotel structure with accessory commercial/retail space and 700 parking
spaces. The project is under construction. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City
of $400,000. Projected on tax roll: 2002.
10. Ritz Carlton in Coconut Grove - 2730 Tigertail Avenue. This project consists of 250
hotel rooms, 208 residential units and accessory function and commercial/retail space
with 564 parking spaces. The project is under construction. Estimated ad valorum tax
revenue to City of $1.3 million. Projected on tax roll: 2002.
11. Brickell Grand (Brickell Summit) - 1010 South Miami Avenue. The project consists
of a mixed-use development project with 20,879 sq. ft. of retail use, 3,787 square feet
of office use and a total of 427 residential units, with 536 parking spaces, within the
Brickell area. The project is under construction. Estimated Ad Valorum tax to City of
Miami will be $512,648. Projected on tax roll: 2004.
APPROVED PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR ABOUT TO BREAK -
GROUND; DRI FEES PAID AND PERMITS APPROVED BY PLANNING AND
ZONING
12. Millennium Project - 1435-1441 Brickell Avenue. This project was approved for up
to 243,656 square feet of office, 199,265 square feet of sports club use, 286 hotel
rooms, 140 extended stay rooms, 190 residential units, 11,716 square feet of
accessory commercial space and 1,171 parking spaces. The project is under
construction. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $2.8 million. Projected on
tax roll: 2003.
13. Cloisters on the Bay - 3471 Main Highway - approved by City Commission. This
project consists of a Planned Unit Development comprised of 41 attached single
family units with accessory recreational uses. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to
City of $425,000. Projected on tax roll: 2003 for completion — building gradually
from 2001 on.
14. Brickell Bay Plaza - 1201 Brickell Avenue. This project was approved for up to 641
residential units with accessory recreational and commercial/retail uses and 786
parking spaces. The project is in permitting. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to
City of $1 million. Projected on tax roll: 2004.
15. Espirito Santo Plaza at SE 14r'' Street and Brickell Avenue. The project was approved
as a mixed use development consisting of approximately 320,000 sq.ft. of office use,
34,000 sq.ft. of bank use, 15,000 sq.ft. of retail, 100 residential units, accessory
recreational uses including a health club, and 970 parking spaces; including the lobby
area, the project will be about 37 stories tall. The project was recently modified to
convert approximately 171,848 square feet of office into 203 hotel units; The project
is under construction. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $850,000.
Projected on tax roll: 2004.
16. Coral View Residential — Coral Way between 29t' and 30r' Avenue — residential
project with 226 units and 429 parking spaces with 16,897 sq.ft. of ground floor retail
along Coral Way. The project is under construction.
17. Brickell View; located at 1200 South Miami Avenue, in the Central Brickell area, this
is a mixed use project consisting of 600 residential units, 23,461 square feet of ground
floor retail, 30,52 square feet of office use and 843 parking spaces. Permits have just
been granted and construction about to commence.
18. Silver Bluff Harbour- 1660 S. Bayshore Court. This project consists of an 11 unit
luxury condominium project located within a six story building on Biscayne Bay in
Coconut Grove. The project was approved by the City Commission in February of
1999. Permitting is expected to commence within the next year. Estimated ad
valorum tax revenue to City of $93,500. Projected on tax roll: 2004.
19. Brickell Main Street — approximately 900 South Miami Avenue. The project consists
of a hotel/mixed use development with 175,500 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant use and
a total of 288 hotel rooms, with 1,040 parking spaces. Estimated Ad Valorum tax to
City of Miami will be $387,135 for Phase I, and $623,718 for Phase IL Projected on
tax roll: 2004
20. Brickell Bay Village Apartments. 2101-2105 Brickell Avenue. This project consists
of a 359 unit residential tower to be located along Brickell Avenue fronting Biscayne
Bay; the project will provide a total of 510 parking spaces and recreational facilities.
Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $637,000. Projected on tax roll: 2004
21. Finger Co. Project — Biscayne Bay Village. This is a Mixed Use Project at 20r'' Street
and Biscayne Bay - the project is proposed to include approximately 425 residential
units and retail at the ground level along Biscayne Boulevard.
22. One Miami - Development program approved by City Commission. This project
consists of a development program which includes: 300 hotel rooms, 1500 residential
units, 400,000 square feet of retail, 1.2 million square feet of office and 7000 parking
spaces. Phase I is in Planning stages. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue for Phase I
only to City of $1 million. Projected on tax roll: Phase I — 2004. One Miami — Parcel
A. This will consist of approximately 900 residential units within 2 towers (at 45 and
46 stories) with 41,000 square feet of commercial space (which includes 24,000
square feet of office, and 17,000 square feet of restaurant uses) and approximately
1200 parking spaces.
23. 1800 North Bayshore Drive (1800 Club property); this project is a mixed-use
development project consisting of 450 residential units, with accessory recreational
uses, 36,818 sq. ft. of retail/nonresidential space, and 670 parking spaces.
UPCOMING PROJECTS
Approved by City Commission, Zoning Board or Planning and Zoning Department -
No building permits yet.
24. The Jade (aka Bayshore Palms) - 1201 Brickell Bay Drive. This project was
approved for up to 749 residential units with accessory recreational and
commercial/retail uses and 1,254 parking spaces to be located in 2 towers. Phase I
has been renamed "The Jade". Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $2.6
million. Projected on tax roll: Phase I — 2005.
25. Brickell on the River - 27 SE 5r' Street - This project was approved in 1995 for 508
residential units, 325 hotel units, 17,426 sq.ft. of office space, 30,729 sq.ft. of
accessory spaces including retail, restaurant and meeting rooms, and 652 parking
spaces. The applicant has just been approved for a time extension until August of
year 2001. The project is currently being re -designed with an amended development
program to consist of approximately 712 residential units in 2 towers. The amended
plans are expected to be before the City Commission in July of 2001. Estimated ad
valorum tax revenue to City of $1.3 million. Projected on tax roll: on hold.
26. Blue Condominium (fka Biscayne Bay Tower) - 501 NE 36r'' Street. This project
consists of a 358 unit residential tower to be located along NE 36r'' Street fronting a
City park along Biscayne Bay; the project will provide a total of 549 parking spaces
and recreational facilities. The MUSP was approved by the City Commission in
April, 1999. Estimated ad valorum tax revenue to City of $637,000. The project is
undergoing a modification to the design; scheduled for City Commission in Feb. 2003
27. Brickell Commons Mixed Use Development Project to be located on the properties
generally bounded by the Miami River on the north, SE/SW 8r' Street on the south,
the People Mover guide way on the east, and Miami Avenue and the property located
at approximately 750 South Miami Avenue on the west. The proposed Mixed Use
project shall be developed in phases and will consist of a total of 585,938 sq. ft. of
retail use, of which 242,338 sq. ft. will be developed as Phase I and will consist of a
5,000 seat movie theater; the project will also consist of 1,700 residential units to be
developed in a future phase, and 3,241 parking spaces, of which 1,036 will be
constructed in the first phase and 2,205 spaces will be constructed in future phases.
Estimated Ad Valorum tax to City of Miami will be $771,877 for Phase I, and $4.9
million for future phases.
28. Park Place at Brickell — Located at 15r' Road and Brickell Avenue - The project will
consist of a residential/mixed use development in 2 phases with a total of 773
residential units and 36,554 square feet of nonresidential space alonthe ground floor
on Brickell Avenue and a park -like setting at the intersection of 15t Road and South
Miami Avenue.
29. 1060 Brickell - The project will consist of a residential development in 2 phases with
accessory commercial uses on the first 2 levels; the project will have between 543 and
619 units.
30. Miramar Center II, located at approximately 1700 North Bayshore Drive (just north
of the Omni), this is a mixed use project consisting of 635 residential units, 110,372
square feet of non residential uses (including ground floor retail and an institutional
use) and 763 parking spaces.
31. Brickell West properties; this is a residential project located at approximately 529,
537, 545 and 551 SW 11r'' Street; the project will consist a 40 -unit residential
structure with 72 parking spaces.
32. Brickell Station Towers. To be located adjacent to the Metrorail guide way between
S.W 11r'' and 12r'' Streets. The project is proposed to consist of a mixed-use complex
including two 38 story residential towers, with 718 units and 17,550 square feet of
ground floor retail uses.
33.901 Brickell Avenue. (Previously approved BY the Ccity Commission as an
individual project DRI — the final plan requires design review prior to building
permits being issued).
34. The Beacon Brickell Village — 30 SE 8r'' Street and 830 SE l't Avenue; this project is
a residential project consisting of 260 residential units, with accessory recreational
uses, 5,745 sq. ft. of retail space, and 364 parking spaces.
35. Royal Bay Estates; this is a single family residential PUD to be located along South
Bayshore Drive in Coconut Grove just south of 17r'' Avenue (1641 South Bayshore
Drive and 1640 Micanopy); the project will consist of 4 residential units, one being a
rehab of the existing historic structure along South Bayshore Drive.
36. Design Centre — 155 NE 38r'' Street this is a mixed-use project that will consist of
9,746 sq ft of retail, 25,269 square feet of design showroom space, 25,216 sq ft. of
office and 20 residential units with 181 parking spaces
37. Tuttle Street Project - Design District Gateway — Biscayne Boulevard at NE 38r''
Street. This is a mixed-use project that will consist of 115,000 sq ft of design retail
space, 168,000 sq ft. of office and 664 parking spaces.
38. Brickell Bay Tower — located at 170-186 SE 12r' Terrace
Residential project consisting of approximately 138 units with 155 parking spaces
39. Coral Station at Brickell Way Village. To be located adjacent to the Metrorail
guideway at SW 15r'' Road and SW l't Avenue. The project is a mixed use
development project consisting of 204 residential units, 186 hotel units, 201,400 sq.
ft. of office use, 62,333 sq. ft. of retail/restaurant use, accessory recreational uses and
1,267 parking spaces.
40. The Sail Residential project (east of Brickell Avenue at 14r' Street); this project is a
residential project to consist of under 200 units; it is still in preliminary planning
stages, no firm numbers yet.
41. Sky Residence - 34r'' Street Tower. Residential project located at 34r'' Street and
Biscayne Bay — consists of 36 residential units with 71 parking spaces.
42. South Bayshore Tower — 1390 Brickell Bay Drive. This is a mixed-use project
consisting of 347 residential units — 514 parking spaces and approximately 12,000
square feet of retail uses.
43. Edgewater Tower; This is a residential project located on 32°`' Street and NE 7r''
Avenue on Biscayne Bay. The project consists of 100 residential units with 120
parking spaces.
44. Grovenor (Naval Reserve property); This is a residential project located at 2610
Bayshore Drive, consisting of approximately 151 residential units with approximately
400 parking spaces.
45. Bay 25; This project will be located at 25 NE 25r'' Street. It will be a 19 story
residential complex with ground floor retail. The project will consist of
approximately 61 residential units with 84 parking spaces.
46. Taurus Mixed -Use project; This project is located along Main Highway and Franklin
Avenue in Coconut Grove. It will consist of a 5 story residential project with ground
floor retail and restaurant utilizing the historic Taurus structure. The project will
consist of approximately 46 residential units and 114 parking spaces.
47. Edgewater Tower, 701 NE 31't Street; This project consists of 120 residential units
with required parking and accessory recreational uses.
48. Tuscan Place; NW 6r'' Avenue at NW 6r'' Street; this project consists of 199 residential
units with 382 parking spaces and accessory recreational uses.
49. Fortune Plaza; 1421 South Miami Avenue; this project consists of 10,405 square feet
of commercial uses with 22 parking spaces.
50. Coral Sea View; 1401 SW 22 Street; this is a mixed use project consisting of 562
square feet of commercial space and 62 residential units with 92 parking spaces and
accessory recreational uses.
51. Little Town; 1215 SW 7r'' Street; this is a mixed project consisting of 6,028 square
feet of retail, 42 residential units and 67 parking spaces, with accessory recreational
uses.
52. The Grove Courtyards; 2630 SW 28r'' Street; this project consists of 60 residential
units with 63 parking spaces and accessory recreational uses in Coconut Grove (near
the 27r'' Avenue Metrorail station).
53. Brisas del Mar apartments; 556 West Flagler Street; this project consists of 160
residential units with 80 parking spaces and accessory recreational uses.
Projects in Application or preliminary design review stages
Brickell Emerald Condominium (fka Brickell Premiere Hotel Project) at SE 14r' Street
between Biscayne Bay and Brickell Avenue - The project was approved for 120
hotel/condominium units with 1000 sq.ft. of accessory retail. It is now being redesigned
into 120 condominium units of larger sizes with 183 parking spaces and recreational
facilities.
The Platinum Condominium — 480 NE 30r'' Street — 116 residential units with 198
parking spaces and recreational amenities.
The Tower at Grand Bay — 2675 South Bayshore Drive, Coconut Grove; this project
consists of a condominium addition to the Grand Bay Hotel; 62 units with 122 new
parking spaces (utilizing excess from hotel) and recreational amenities.
Anderson Opera Center. Located on Biscayne Boulevard just north of the Performing
Arts Center. This is not a MUSP but is substantial in that it consists of 22696 sq.ft. of
production/rehearsal space, a 500 seat theater, approximately 4000 sq.ft. of retail
approximately 16,000 sq.ft. of office, 22 apartment units and 301 parking spaces.
Miacentralis Tower I; located on SE 2°`' Avenue at SE l't Street in Downtown Miami;
consists of 155 residential units, 15,000 sq.ft. retail (including a restaurant and fitness
center) and 270 parking spaces.
Ayesteran Towers; located at 700-790 SW 27r' Avenue; consists of 141 residential units,
14000 sq.ft. commercial uses and approximately 334 parking spaces.
The Belmont (fka Lofts on the Way) — Coral Way; This is a residential project to be
located on Coral Way and SW 32°`' Avenue; the project is a mixed-use project consisting
of 182 residential units in a 13 story high structure, including 6 townhouses, and 13,120
square feet of ground floor retail, with 308 parking spaces.
39r'' Street Project (Biscayne Morningside Company, LLC) — Biscayne Boulevard at 39r''
Street - Edgewater — 146 residential units with 265 parking spaces and recreational
amenities (PUD).
Miami River Renaissance; This is a mixed-use project located on the north bank of the
Miami River at the Miami Avenue Bridge. The project will consist of 450 residential
units with approximately 9000 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, 58,000 sq. ft. of office
and 536 parking spaces.
Riverwalk Plaza; This is a mixed-use project located on SW River Drive between Flagler
Street and SW 2°`' Street — the project consists of approximately 200 residential units with
16,300 square feet of retail/restaurant uses and 422 parking spaces.
CURRENT (1997-2001) Districts
LA — cayne-Blvd i
Ave � lin v
E 8tI Aver Ave o y Dr
79th St 502 N s
t t
504
NW4 dA
506
516
SE 8 Av W I St
m
5 I-195
Doral Blvd Indian ek Dr
I Palme to 529
537 538
_-527 26 t
State H' Iwa 9$3 I,
4 539 l
I I X550 1 `526 5 0 N,-
FIJI
5Q, 549 546 89 way 6 sao
so
M arthur Cswy
iAve rLA60 5 548 593 543
a
5 5 ! Biscayne Blvd 541 -
5 553
555 557 559 563 566
565 �
575 572 2
SW cl-A� e 69
SW 27th Av 573 56 i
2
579
S Le J ne Rd
SW 42 d
580 �,.
581
�
Railroads yj
583 r - ,
5 s
Biscayne
Major Roadways
S R Rd 582 Ric backer Cswy
Districts
_ 2 SW 5 h A 586 y
- 3
4.•-Crand Blvd
Water
Deviation Analysis: Existing Plan
District
Population
1
76,189
2
76,796
3
74,512
4
70,811
5
64,191
Total
362,449
Deviation from Ideal % Deviation from Ideal
3,689
5.09%
4,296
5.93%
2,012
2.78%
-1,689
-2.33%
-8,309
-11.46
12,605
17.39
Current Plan (1997-2001) District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10-43-40AM
Page 1 of 11
1 76,189
Poaulation (2000 Census)
Votina Aae Poa (2000 Census)
District
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
1 76,189
6.90%
10.44%
5.34%
76.32%
1.00%
59,619
5.01%
10.23%
5.35%
78.44%
0.98%
2 76,796
29.51%
19.18%
2.52%
46.58%
2.21%
63,212
30.94%
16.51%
2.58%
47.73%
2.23%
3 74,512
8.43%
1.23%
2.88%
86.69%
0.77%
58,887
6.17%
1.07%
3.03%
89.02%
0.71%
4 70,811
9.20%
0.30%
1.29%
88.39%
0.81%
58,614
6.90%
0.25%
1.31%
90.80%
0.74%
5 64,191
3.40%
83.28%
2.41%
10.34%
0.58%
43,362
4.38%
81.39%
2.50%
11.12%
0.60%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 2 of 11
1 76,189
Population By Age (2000 Census)
Population By Sex (2000 Census)
District
ETo;
17 and Under
18 to 64
65 and Older
Male
Female
51.84%
48.16%
3 74,512
20.97%
59.70%
19.34%
50.08%
1 76,189
21.75%
61.49%
16.77%
51.63%
48.37%
2 76,796
17.69%
69.22%
13.09%
51.84%
48.16%
3 74,512
20.97%
59.70%
19.34%
50.08%
49.92%
4 70,811
17.22%
58.14%
24.63%
47.02%
52.98%
5 64,191
32.45%
56.50%
11.05%
47.44%
52.56%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 3 of 11
1 71,207
Population (1990 Census)
Voting Age Pop (1990 Census
DistrictTotal
74.36%
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
41.94%
1.41%
57,304
34.32%
19.69%
2.12%
42.45%
1.40%
3 74,017
7.60%
1 71,207
8.57%
11.70%
4.73%
74.36%
0.64%
54,725
7.23%
10.23%
4.65%
77.28%
0.60%
2 71,506
31.10%
23.26%
2.29%
41.94%
1.41%
57,304
34.32%
19.69%
2.12%
42.45%
1.40%
3 74,017
7.60%
0.75%
2.38%
88.71%
0.56%
59,222
6.45%
0.61%
2.41%
90.07%
0.46%
4 69,082
11.03%
0.15%
0.83%
87.43%
0.55%
57,576
9.31%
0.14%
0.83%
89.27%
0.46%
5 73,017
3.06%
85.71%
3.50%
7.37%
0.36%
47,470
4.05%
83.63%
3.71%
8.25%
0.35%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 4 of 11
1 23,165
Re istered Voters 2000
Registered Voters 1998
Re istered Voters 1996
District
Total
Party Affiliation
Total
Party AffiliationPart
Total
Affiliation
Rep Dem Ind
Rep Dem Ind
I Rep I Dem I Ind
47.19%
19.53%
30,522
33.70%
49.46%
16.84%
32,726
1 23,165
47.74%
36.28%
15.99%
21,868
47.96%
38.74%
13.30%
22,953
48.72%
39.39%
11.89%
2 32,255
33.28%
47.19%
19.53%
30,522
33.70%
49.46%
16.84%
32,726
34.15%
50.85%
15.00%
3 20,722
57.95%
24.63%
17.42%
19,706
59.54%
25.56%
14.90%
20,360
61.71%
25.25%
13.05%
4 30,323
63.35%
21.04%
15.60%
28,721
64.25%
22.47%
13.29%
30,088
65.12%
22.97%
11.91%
5 25,409
5.79%
85.69%
8.52%
26,307
5.94%
86.97%
7.09%
28,595
6.21%
87.67%
6.12%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 5 of 11
District
Total
Reaistered Voters 2000 by Race. Aae. and Sex
Race/Ethnicity
Aae
Sex
White
Black
Hiso
I Other
18 to 29
30 to 44
1 45 to 54
55 to 64
65 uo
Male
Female
1 23,165
11.25%
14.44% 69.58%
4.73%
14.51%
20.10%
12.78%
15.47%
37.13%
42.77%
56.56%
2 32,255
44.09%
16.42% 34.84%
4.66%
14.14%
29.40%
19.40%
14.48%
22.59%
48.15%
51.03%
3 20,722
15.26%
1.30% 78.82%
4.62%
10.41%
17.37%
10.95%
14.14%
47.13%
42.77%
56.54%
4 30,323
15.68%
0.41% 80.38%
3.53%
11.71%
18.52%
10.99%
15.51%
43.27%
42.45%
56.99%
5 25,409
4.40%
84.81% 6.74%
4.05%
23.41%
27.93%
16.14%
12.67%
19.86%
38.96%
60.26%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 6 of 11
1 11,058
Re istered Voters 2000 by Race
District
Reaistered Republicans 2000
Reaistered Democrats 2000
Reaistered Ind/Other 2000
13.18%
Total
I White
I Black
I Hiso
I Other
Total
I White
I Black
I Hisq
I Other
Total
I White
I Black
I Hisq
I Other
29.85%
20.93%
4.10%
1 11,058
9.74%
1.31%
85.22%
3.73%
8,404
13.18%
35.42%
47.19%
4.20%
3,703
11.34%
6.05%
73.70%
8.91%
2 10,736
40.91%
2.51%
53.82%
2.77%
15,221
45.13%
29.85%
20.93%
4.10%
6,299
46.98%
7.68%
36.10%
9.22%
3 12,008
10.98%
0.44%
85.13%
3.44%
5,104
25.27%
3.43%
66.63%
4.66%
3,610
15.37%
1.16%
75.04%
8.45%
4 19,211
11.16%
0.23%
85.73%
2.87%
6,381
30.31%
0.80%
65.65%
3.24%
4,731
14.29%
0.57%
78.52%
6.59%
5 1,472
14.06%
46.20%
35.05%
4.62%
21,773
3.41%
89.41%
4.13%
3.05%
2,164
7.76%
64.74%
13.77%
13.68%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 7 of 11
1 62.33%
General Election 2000
Primary 2000
District
President of U.S.
U.S. Senator
State Treasurer
Comm of Education
Comm of Education
38.30%
Bush
I Gore
I Nader
I Other
McCollum
I Nelson
Gallaaher
I Cosgrove
Crist
I Sheldon
Sheldon
I Bush
65.66%
1 62.33%
37.09%
0.40%
0.19%
62.67%
37.33%
66.33%
33.66%
61.69%
38.30%
36.06%
63.94%
2 37.82%
60.39%
1.45%
0.35%
37.99%
62.01%
47.24%
52.76%
41.27%
58.73%
65.66%
34.34%
3 71.77%
27.36%
0.70%
0.17%
72.40%
27.60%
76.40%
23.60%
72.62%
27.37%
56.92%
43.08%
4 76.49%
22.82%
0.53%
0.18%
76.46%
23.54%
80.60%
19.40%
77.74%
22.27%
58.85%
41.15%
5 5.12%
94.42%
0.19%
0.28%
6.69%
93.31%
12.92%
87.08%
7.52%
92.48%
21.06%
78.94%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 8 of 11
1 23.83%
General Election 1998 part)
District
U.S. Senator
Governor
Secretary of State
Attornev General
Comptroller
62.13%
Crist
Graham
Bush
I MacKay
Harris
I Gievers
Bludworth
I Butterworth
Milliaan
Dauahtrev
1 23.83%
76.17%
71.83%
28.17%
60.44%
39.56%
52.33%
47.67%
62.13%
37.87%
2 19.15%
80.85%
43.41%
56.60%
38.38%
61.63%
29.35%
70.65%
46.58%
53.42%
3 28.76%
71.25%
81.50%
18.51%
70.98%
29.02%
61.73%
38.27%
74.17%
25.83%
4 28.49%
71.52%
82.94%
17.06%
73.87%
26.13%
64.26%
35.74%
76.86%
23.14%
5 3.27%
96.73%
9.78%
90.22%
9.43%
90.57%
5.03%
94.97%
8.25%
91.75%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 9 of 11
1 53.65%
General Election 1998 (cont)
General Election 1996
District
State Treasurer
Comm of Education
Comm of Aariculture
President of the U.S.
2.36%
Ireland
F Nelson
Gallaaher
I Wallace
Faircloth
I Crawford
Dole
I Clinton
I Perot
3 63.84%
36.17%
76.09%
23.91%
61.46%
38.54%
60.03%
37.38%
2.59%
4 65.88%
1 53.65%
46.34%
65.63%
34.37%
51.14%
48.86%
48.07%
49.57%
2.36%
2 31.44%
68.56%
50.87%
49.13%
30.04%
69.96%
32.53%
62.83%
4.64%
3 63.84%
36.17%
76.09%
23.91%
61.46%
38.54%
60.03%
37.38%
2.59%
4 65.88%
34.13%
79.03%
20.97%
64.10%
35.90%
63.68%
33.26%
3.05%
5 4.25%
95.75%
12.50%
87.50%
5.07%
94.93%
3.24%
95.87%
0.88%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 10 of 11
1 75.59%
General Election 1994 Part
District
U.S. Senator
Governor
Secretary of State
Attornev General
Comptroller
State Treasurer
I
37.08%
Mack
Rodham
Bush
Chiles
Mortham
Saunders
Ferro
Butterworth
Milligan
Lewis
Ireland
Nelson
1 75.59%
24.41%
67.98%
32.02%
62.92%
37.10%
63.15%
36.86%
62.93%
37.08%
61.88%
38.12%
2 58.36%
41.63%
39.75%
60.25%
38.79%
61.21%
34.51%
65.49%
43.60%
56.40%
39.58%
60.42%
3 85.07%
14.93%
79.69%
20.31%
74.34%
25.67%
73.73%
26.27%
75.01%
24.99%
73.57%
26.42%
4 85.60%
14.40%
80.01%
19.99%
75.34%
24.67%
74.89%
25.11%
75.39%
24.61%
74.64%
25.35%
5 21.63%
78.37%
6.73%
93.27%
6.91%
93.09%
5.64%
94.36%
6.54%
93.46%
5.55%
94.44%
District Statistics Report
3/6/2003
10.43.40AM
Page 11 of 11
1 63.19%
General Election 1994 (Conti
Primary 1994
General Election 1992
District
Comm of Education.
Comm if Aariculture'
Comm of Education
President of the U.S.
U.S. Senator
79.27%
Broaan
I Jamerson
Smith I Crawford
Jamerson
I Griffen
Dole
I Clinton
I Perot
Grant
I Graham
1 63.19%
36.80%
65.27%
34.73%
57.56%
42.44%
57.68%
37.56%
4.76%
20.73%
79.27%
2 40.79%
59.21%
41.66%
58.34%
40.59%
59.45%
37.44%
51.74%
10.82%
20.78%
79.23%
3 75.99%
24.01%
76.45%
23.54%
61.37%
38.63%
71.85%
22.75%
5.40%
24.62%
75.38%
4 77.53%
22.47%
77.49%
22.51%
59.72%
40.21%
73.37%
21.23%
5.40%
25.86%
74.14%
5 5.43%
94.57%
8.86%
91.14%
48.87%
51.13%
7.35%
90.09%
2.56%
4.21%
95.78%
......... . ......._ �e,,a,.,
�, ` � U
-/ i '
__ -_ _������ ~_~-'
Deviation Analysis: Draft Concept Map
District Population Deviation from Ideal % Deviation from Ideal
1 71,552 -942 -1.30%
2 68,332
-4,162 -5.74%
3 73,608
1,114 1.54%
4 73,889
1,395 1.92%
5 75,089
2,595 3.58%
Total 362,470 6,757 9.32%
Draft Concept Map: District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11-00-46AM
Page 1 of 11
1 71,552
Poaulation (2000 Census)
Votina Aae Poa (2000 Census)
District
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
1 71,552
6.81%
6.81%
5.46%
79.93%
0.99%
55,323
4.72%
5.89%
5.50%
82.92%
0.97%
2 68,332
32.48%
16.60%
2.36%
46.35%
2.22%
56,918
33.87%
14.36%
2.44%
47.09%
2.25%
3 73,608
7.99%
1.24%
2.91%
87.11%
0.75%
58,080
5.64%
1.07%
3.07%
89.53%
0.69%
4 73,889
9.48%
0.33%
1.28%
88.07%
0.84%
61,130
7.18%
0.27%
1.30%
90.48%
0.77%
5 75,089
3.93%
79.75%
2.66%
12.90%
0.77%
52,222
4.91%
77.30%
2.78%
14.19%
0.81%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 2 of 11
1 71,552
Population By Age (2000 Census)
Population By Sex (2000 Census)
District
ETo;
17 and Under
18 to 64
65 and Older
Male
Female
51.98%
48.02%
3 73,608
21.10%
59.46%
19.44%
50.11%
1 71,552
22.68%
59.66%
17.66%
49.28%
50.72%
2 68,332
16.70%
70.49%
12.81%
51.98%
48.02%
3 73,608
21.10%
59.46%
19.44%
50.11%
49.89%
4 73,889
17.27%
58.27%
24.46%
47.04%
52.96%
5 75,089
30.45%
58.90%
10.65%
50.30%
49.70%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 3 of 11
1 70,200
Population (1990 Census)
Voting Age Pop (1990 Census
DistrictTotal
75.41%
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Total
Single Race
Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
41.38%
1.45%
50,726
37.88%
17.63%
1.68%
41.39%
1.41%
3 73,100
7.10%
1 70,200
8.70%
10.54%
4.70%
75.41%
0.65%
54,048
7.32%
9.16%
4.64%
78.27%
0.61%
2 62,312
34.79%
20.55%
1.82%
41.38%
1.45%
50,726
37.88%
17.63%
1.68%
41.39%
1.41%
3 73,100
7.10%
0.75%
2.40%
89.20%
0.55%
58,446
5.89%
0.61%
2.43%
90.62%
0.45%
4 72,061
11.21%
0.17%
0.84%
87.23%
0.56%
60,005
9.53%
0.14%
0.84%
89.01%
0.47%
5 81,156
3.42%
82.96%
3.82%
9.35%
0.44%
53,072
4.52%
80.44%
4.03%
10.55%
0.46%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 4 of 11
1 21,670
Re istered Voters 2000
Registered Voters 1998
Re istered Voters 1996
District
Total
I Party Affiliation
Total
Party Affiliation
Total
Party Affiliation
I Rep I Dem I Ind
I Rep I Dem I Ind
Rep I Dem I Ind
47.98%
19.73%
26,470
32.41%
50.68%
16.92%
28,348
1 21,670
50.80%
32.61%
16.60%
20,312
51.35%
34.77%
13.89%
21,222
52.37%
35.16%
12.45%
2 27,836
32.29%
47.98%
19.73%
26,470
32.41%
50.68%
16.92%
28,348
32.70%
52.34%
14.97%
3 20,333
58.24%
24.44%
17.32%
19,353
59.80%
25.37%
14.82%
19,993
62.01%
25.02%
12.97%
4 31,602
63.10%
21.21%
15.70%
30,130
64.01%
22.69%
13.30%
31,580
64.87%
23.22%
11.90%
5 30,425
8.89%
81.46%
9.65%
30,850
8.59%
83.33%
8.07%
33,571
9.00%
83.89%
7.11%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 5 of 11
District
Total
Reaistered Voters 2000 by Race. Aae. and Sex
Race/Ethnicity
Aae
Sex
White
Black
Hiso
I Other
18 to 29
30 to 44
1 45 to 54
55 to 64
65 uo
Male
Female
1 21,670
11.84%
9.31% 74.09%
4.77%
13.93%
19.39%
12.57%
15.69%
38.42%
43.03%
56.29%
2 27,836
46.15%
14.83% 34.09%
4.93%
14.50%
29.05%
19.37%
14.72%
22.37%
47.26%
51.90%
3 20,333
14.48%
1.31% 79.60%
4.61%
10.39%
17.15%
10.85%
14.12%
47.49%
42.75%
56.56%
4 31,602
16.12%
0.40% 79.95%
3.53%
11.82%
18.66%
11.16%
15.48%
42.87%
42.47%
56.97%
5 30,425
7.93%
79.01% 9.14%
3.91%
21.95%
28.85%
16.65%
12.63%
19.92%
41.00%
58.24%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 6 of 11
1 11,008
Re istered Voters 2000 by Race
District
Reaistered Republicans 2000
Reaistered Democrats 2000
Reaistered Ind/Other 2000
15.37%
Total
I White
I Black
I Hiso
I Other
Total
I White
I Black
I Hisq
I Other
Total
I White
I Black
I Hisq
I Other
27.92%
20.18%
4.28%
1 11,008
9.69%
0.99%
85.64%
3.68%
7,066
15.37%
24.67%
55.48%
4.50%
3,597
11.45%
4.61%
75.31%
8.59%
2 8,989
42.24%
1.15%
53.73%
2.87%
13,357
47.65%
27.92%
20.18%
4.28%
5,491
48.86%
5.43%
35.77%
9.91%
3 11,841
10.49%
0.45%
85.60%
3.45%
4,970
23.98%
3.48%
67.83%
4.69%
3,521
14.46%
1.16%
76.03%
8.38%
4 19,940
11.41%
0.23%
85.49%
2.85%
6,702
31.05%
0.79%
64.92%
3.25%
4,960
14.78%
0.54%
78.00%
6.65%
5 2,706
27.86%
32.52%
35.92%
3.70%
24,783
4.92%
86.80%
5.27%
3.01%
2,936
15.02%
56.03%
17.23%
11.82%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 7 of 11
1 66.18%
General Election 2000
Primary 2000
District
President of U.S.
U.S. Senator
State Treasurer
Comm of Education
Comm of Education
33.82%
Bush
I Gore
I Nader
I Other
McCollum
I Nelson
Gallaaher
I Cosgrove
Crist
I Sheldon
Sheldon
I Bush
65.99%
1 66.18%
33.22%
0.41%
0.19%
66.71%
33.29%
70.38%
29.61%
66.17%
33.82%
43.13%
56.95%
2 37.02%
61.14%
1.49%
0.34%
37.22%
62.77%
46.75%
53.27%
40.75%
59.24%
65.99%
34.17%
3 72.24%
26.90%
0.69%
0.17%
72.93%
27.07%
76.80%
23.20%
73.08%
26.92%
55.89%
44.11%
4 76.13%
23.16%
0.54%
0.18%
76.12%
23.90%
80.31%
19.69%
77.38%
22.64%
59.02%
40.98%
5 7.06%
92.40%
0.28%
0.29%
8.37%
91.62%
14.75%
85.23%
9.20%
90.80%
22.04%
77.88%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 8 of 11
1 25.55%
General Election 1998 part)
District
U.S. Senator
Governor
Secretary of State
Attornev General
Comptroller
67.29%
Crist
Graham
Bush
I MacKay
Harris
I Gievers
Bludworth
I Butterworth
Milliaan
Dauahtrev
1 25.55%
74.47%
76.45%
23.54%
65.04%
34.97%
56.90%
43.10%
67.29%
32.71%
2 19.00%
81.00%
41.78%
58.22%
37.28%
62.66%
28.40%
71.62%
45.71%
54.24%
3 28.78%
71.24%
81.97%
18.04%
71.47%
28.56%
62.29%
37.71%
74.53%
25.49%
4 28.38%
71.62%
82.53%
17.48%
73.44%
26.57%
63.67%
36.34%
76.59%
23.43%
5 4.19%
95.83%
11.94%
88.07%
10.87%
89.16%
6.29%
93.70%
10.28%
89.74%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 9 of 11
1 58.27%
General Election 1998 (cont)
General Election 1996
District
State Treasurer
Comm of Education
Comm of Aariculture
President of the U.S.
2.50%
Ireland
F Nelson
Gallaaher
I Wallace
Faircloth
I Crawford
Dole
I Clinton
I Perot
3 64.35%
35.68%
76.40%
23.61%
61.96%
38.05%
60.31%
37.16%
2.54%
4 65.37%
1 58.27%
41.71%
70.26%
29.74%
55.58%
44.40%
51.69%
45.81%
2.50%
2 30.43%
69.55%
50.11%
49.87%
29.02%
70.96%
31.47%
63.78%
4.76%
3 64.35%
35.68%
76.40%
23.61%
61.96%
38.05%
60.31%
37.16%
2.54%
4 65.37%
34.65%
78.77%
21.24%
63.67%
36.34%
63.42%
33.51%
3.06%
5 5.69%
94.32%
14.53%
85.46%
6.34%
93.68%
4.67%
94.22%
1.10%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 10 of 11
1 79.54%
General Election 1994 Part
District
U.S. Senator
Governor
Secretary of State
Attornev General
Comptroller
State Treasurer
I
32.33%
Mack
Rodham
Bush
Chiles
Mortham
Saunders
Ferro
Butterworth
Milligan
Lewis
Ireland
Nelson
1 79.54%
20.45%
72.88%
27.12%
67.70%
32.31%
68.01%
32.00%
67.67%
32.33%
66.73%
33.27%
2 57.36%
42.62%
37.89%
62.11%
37.32%
62.66%
32.84%
67.12%
42.40%
57.61%
38.17%
61.83%
3 85.47%
14.53%
80.28%
19.72%
74.94%
25.08%
74.43%
25.58%
75.51%
24.49%
74.11%
25.89%
4 85.29%
14.71%
79.55%
20.46%
74.93%
25.08%
74.39%
25.62%
75.00%
25.00%
74.28%
25.70%
5 23.99%
76.03%
8.93%
91.07%
8.77%
91.24%
7.28%
92.76%
8.81%
91.21%
7.51%
92.48%
District Statistics Report
3/22/2003
11.00.46AM
Page 11 of 11
1 68.27%
General Election 1994 (Conti
Primary 1994
General Election 1992
District
Comm of Education.
Comm if Aariculture'
Comm of Education
President of the U.S.
U.S. Senator
77.59%
Broaan
I Jamerson
Smith I Crawford
Jamerson
I Griffen
Dole
I Clinton
I Perot
Grant
I Graham
1 68.27%
31.73%
70.03%
29.98%
60.08%
39.92%
62.44%
32.58%
4.98%
22.40%
77.59%
2 39.25%
60.73%
40.13%
59.84%
39.54%
60.57%
36.06%
52.93%
11.01%
20.64%
79.35%
3 76.54%
23.46%
77.03%
22.97%
62.43%
37.57%
72.43%
22.31%
5.26%
24.58%
75.41%
4 77.09%
22.91%
77.03%
22.96%
59.54%
40.25%
72.84%
21.60%
5.56%
25.79%
74.20%
5 7.45%
92.55%
10.85%
89.16%
48.78%
51.24%
9.18%
87.79%
3.03%
5.21%
94.80%
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION WITH ATTACHMENT(S)
RELATED TO THE REAPPORTIONMENT OF
THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF
THE CITY COMMISSION DISTRICTS FOR
USE IN THE NOVEMBER 4, 2003
ELECTION AND EACH ELECTION
THEREAFTER; OFFICIALLY DELINEATING
THE BOUNDARIES OF EACH DISTRICT
AS SET FORTH IN "EXHIBIT A",
ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART
HEREOF.
WHEREAS, the voters of the City of Miami adopted a Charter
Amendment on September 4, 1997 providing for a non-voting
executive mayor elected City-wide and five City Commissioners
elected from districts; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission adopted Resolution 97-495
providing for the jurisdictional boundaries of the City
Commission Districts; and
WHEREAS, the 2000 Census results show changes in the city's
population and population deviations between the existing
districts which exceed ten (10) percent; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to the City Commission to
officially reapportion the City of Miami City Commission
districts pursuant to the requirements of law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are herby adopted by reference
hereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. The City hereby delineates the
jurisdictional boundaries of each of the five delineated
districts, as set forth in "Exhibit 111, attached hereto and made
a part hereof which shall be used in the November 4, 2003
election and all elections subsequent thereto.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2003.
ATTEST:
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
Alejandro Vilarello
City Attorney
E
MANNY DIAZ, MAYOR
EXHIBIT 1
Overall City Map, District Maps, and District Descriptions
New text is underlined. Deleted text is s*,.,,,.v thfoug4.
Bi ayne Blvd
W 27 h Ave
State Hig way 823
PIE 10 t
W 4t Ave
Collins Av
E 8t Av
s y
79th S,
NE 79th St
W St
NW 42 d
rt
4
E 8t Av
irport Expy
W 4 h St
Doral Blvd
I-195
Indian C ek Dr
NW 36th St
FLI
N t St
26t St
State Hi wa 953
'
State Hi'
�'
I-395'
NW 7th St
thur Cswy
i Ave N 3rd
WFla er'St
3
�
St
8th
N
B' A e
o
c
a
22nd St
S-1
Rickenbacker
SW 42 d
Bisca
S Re Rd
Crand Blvd
Ave
CITY OF MIAMI SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
DISTRICT 1
Beginning at the intersection of the Tamiami Canal and NW
65 Avenue and its northerly extension, run south on the center
line of NW 65 Avenue and its northerly extension to NW 3 Street,
then run east to NW 53 Avenue, then run north to NW 4 Street,
then run east to NW 45 Avenue, then run east to NW 52 Avenue,
then run north to NW 4 Terraee, then run east to NW 51 Avenue,
then run south to NW 3 Street, then run east to NW 43 Avenue,
then run north to NW 7 Street, then run east to NW 22 Avenue,
then run north to the SR 836, then run east to t�ie mliami River,
then run northeast to NW 7 Avenue, then run north to NW 36
Street, then run west to NW 19 4-0 Avenue, then run north to NW
38 Street , then run north to SR 112, run west to Ntltl 19
Avenue, then run south and west to along the City of Miami
boundary to NW 65 Avenue and its northerly extension.
61
New text is underlined. Deleted text is s"ok thio g4
CITY OF MIAMI SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
DISTRICT 2
Beginning at the intersection of SW 37 Avenue and SW 24
Street, run east along the center line of SW 24 Street to SW 27
44 Avenue, then run south to SW 24 Terraee, then run east tom;:
17 Avenue, then run south to South Dixie Highway, then run east
to I-95, poatk -Miami creno, then run northeast to SW 1 Avenue
26 Read, then run northeast to the center of the Metrorail line
then north to NE 14 Street, then west to NW 2nd Avenue, then
north to NW 36 Street, then east to Biscavne Blvd, then north to
NE 83 Street, then west to the City of Miami boundary, then
north, east and south along the City of Miami boundary,then
southeast- R-Erliek-e-1-1 Avenue, then run northeast to SW 25 Read,
Street, then run west to SW 1 Court, then run north to SW 7
Street, then run west to SW 2 Avenue, then run north to the
riazixi liver, then run northwest to NW 5 street, then run east to
the FEGic'cc=_��r�, then run north to NW 11 Terraee, then run r -west
to NW 1 Geurtthen run north to NW 20 Street, then run west to
NW 3 Avenuthen run north to NW 22Stret then run west to NW
5 Avenue, then run north to NW 25 Streeter then run east to NW I
Avenue, then run north to NW 37 Street, then run east to Alartai
N.
New text is underlined. Deleted text is s"ok thfe gJ
Avenue, then run south to NE 36 Streetthen run east to
the FEC n� boundary
crater rn. iccc� � ��r� � then ��i �� �i�i�O�' ��ic�'�l9f th2
Gi:yef M4:am4:, then run east th andwest aleng the easter^
New text is underlined. Deleted text is s"ok thio gJ
CITY OF MIAMI SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
DISTRICT 3
Beginning at the intersection of NW 27 Avenue and NW 7
Street, run east along to the centerline of NW 7 Street to NW 22
Avenue, then run north to the SR 836, then run east to the Miami
River, then run southeast to center of the Metrorail line,SW 2
Avenue, then run south to SW 7 Street, then run east to SW 1
Court, then run south toCTS-8 Suet then run east to the FEC
ilr�e then run south to SW 15 Read, then run southeast to
Avenue, then run southwest to SW 25 Read, then run southeast to
Briekell Avenue, then run southwest to SW 26 Read, then run
northwest teSeut�i mliami Avenue,- then run southwest to SW 1
Avenue, then run southwest to I-95, then run southwest to South
Dixie Highway, then run west to SW 17 Avenue, then run north to
SW 9 Street, then run west to SW 27 Avenue, then run north to NW
7 Street.
4
New text is underlined. Deleted text is s"ok thio g4
CITY OF MIAMI SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
DISTRICT 4
Beginning at the intersection of the Tamiami Canal and NW
65 Avenue and its northerly extension, run south on the center
line of NW 65 Avenue and its northerly extension to NW 3 Street,
then run east to NW 53 Avenue, then run north to NW 4 Street,
then run east to NW 45 Avenue, then run east to NW 52 Avenue,
then run north to NW 4 Terraee, then run east to NW 51 Avenue,
then run south to NW 4 Street, then run east to NW 45 Avenue,
then run south to NW 3 Street, then run east to NW 43 Avenue,
then run north to NW 7 Street, then run east to NW 27 Avenue,
then run south to SW 9 Street, then run east to SW 17 Avenue,
then run south to South Dixie Highway ,W 24 Terraee, then run
south west to SW 27 Avenue west to SW 19 Avenue, then run north
to SW 24 Street, then run west to SW 37 Avenue, then run along
the boundary of the City of Miami to the Conal, then ru
northeast along—tle Ta is i Conal to the northerly extension of
NW 65 Avenue.
11
New text is underlined. Deleted text is s"ok thio g4
CITY OF MIAMI SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
DISTRICT 5
Beainnina at the intersection of NE 83 Street and Biscavne
Boulevard, run west and south along the City of Miami boundary
to the intersection of NW 19 Avenue and NW 36 Street, then run
east to NW 7 Avenue, then run south to SR 836, then run
southwest to the Miami River, then run southeast to the center
of the Metrorail line, then north to NE 14 Street, then west to
NW 2nd Avenue, then north to NW 36 Street, then east to Biscayne
Blvd, then north to NE 83 Street.
$chi ni g at theai t -int -ion -e f NW 2 Avenue, then south to
the northern boundary of t -he City of Miami and- the FEG Railreadr
run south along the FEC R-ailread- to NE36 Street, then run west
��i
cv
t„ Nor then run north to NW 37 S�._ rrc•t �11a�� �l'o�e�� �Street, then ru
west to NW 3 Avenue, then run seuth to NW 5 Street, then ru
west to NW 5 Avenue, then run south to NW 22Stret then ru
east to NW 3 Avenue, then run south to NW 20 Street, then ru
sv'c'cra ra-vt, tcv „ N T l x m
1 Tere, e F
then run east to the Railroad, then
r�
run south to NW5 Etre t, then run west t -he River, thepi
run nertheast to NW 7 vnue then run nerth to NW 6 Street, then
13
New text is underlined. Deleted text is s*,.,,,.v thio g4
14
New text is underlined. Deleted text is s"ok thio g-'
Percent of Voting Age Population Black [Not Hispanic] (2000) Ilin ve
o
E 8t Ave O or y Dr
North
E 4t Ave NE 79th St J
o
NW 4 d Ave
a o
O o
SE 8 Ave
W St
Doral Blvd I-195 Indian k Dr
Palm to Expy-.� NW 36th St t St _
2 t
State Hig way 953 _
-IUD
e Highw
N 7th Stat Itt r-05
i \
N 3rd St
Ave
\ W Fla ler St m a
V V)
D
U
.. 8th $t -.
(D N V c V
a p.
e
m m ata �
S
m
a SW 22nd St
� US -1
Rickenbacker Cs %
SW 42 dA
R 11 P11
�C 0 a e
U S RE I Rd
Pe
Percent rul
0.10
16.00
32.00
49.00 rand n Blv
- 65.00
- 81.00
- 97.10 I
4t Ave Percent of Voting Age Population Hispanic Black (2000) Ilin ve
E 8t Ave O � — or y Dr
N rt
NE 79th St
E 4t Ave
z
o NW 4 d Ave
a o
m
a
O o
SE 8 1 Ave W St
irport Expy �
i
Doral BlvdI-195 Indian kDr
Palm to Expy-. NW 36th St t St _.
2. t
State Hig way 953
o _ St e Highw IUD
z m I395
N 7th St
i Ave N 3rdSt
N
W Fla ler St �
V
D
U
.. 8th $t i
DN
(D N V c v
D p
e
m m
ci
m
a SW 22nd St U
� US -1
Rickenbacker Cs %
SW 42 dA
R 11 Rd
�C a e
U S RE I Rd
Pe
Percent
0.20
4.00
7.00
10.00 rand n Blv
- 14.00
- 17.00
- 20.60 I
iscay Blvd
Percent of Registered Voters Independent (2000)
4t Ave Ilin ve
E 8t Ave O ', or y Dr
N rt
NE 79th St
E 4t Ave
z
o
NW 4 d Ave
a o
m
a
O o
SE 8ti Ave
Airport Ex y W St
Doral Blvd I-195 Indian k Dr
Palm to Expy NW 36th St t
2 t
State Hig way 953
St e Hig wh
- � I-395
N 7th St m acar1Ttiur-Cs
i Ave 3rd St
W Fla ler St
V
J
n kh
D N
c
m vp
m m ?sf
m
US -1
Rickenbacker Cs
SW 42 dA
e
�C Bisca e
U � S R Rd
—�
Percent
E 0.00
6.00
11.00
15.00 Crand n Blv
- 19.00
- 23.00
- 23.0+ I
Percent Registered Voters Non -Hispanic White (2000) o ve
4t Ave
❑ I
E 8t Ave O - t I I or y Dr
N rt
NE 79th St
E 4t Ave
z
o
NW 4 d Ave _
a o —
m
a
O o
SE 8 Ave
Airport Ex y W St
Doral Blvd I-195 Indian k Dr
Palm to Exp NW 36th St t - -
- � z t
State Hig way 953
Highw
1-395
N 7th S m acartTi Cs
Ave
3rd St
W Fla ler St m `�
V V)
J
th St
D N J
< N V c Av 2
(D
m <
m m
a r
O �
Rickenbacker Cs
_ SW 42 dA
�C a e
U S R Rd
�❑
Percent
0.00
6.00
14.00
® 23.00 Crand n B.lv
- 40.00
- 54.00
- 54.0+ I
I I I `� iscay Blvd
Median Housing Rental Costs (1999)
W 4t- Ave Ilin ve
E 8t Ave O - } or y Dr
N rt
_" 5t
E 4t Ave
z
o
NW 4 d Ave
m
O o
SE 8 Ave
irport Expy W St
Doral Blvd I-195 Indian k Dr
Palm to Exp NW 36th St t
- - 2 t
o
State Hig way 953
n o 0 0 O
SU te Highw
-- 395
acartt2rCs —1
Ave N 3rd St N 1 1
W Fla ler St
D
N 1
D N V L
m
m a pAe
m 3�
a SW 22nd St,
O
Rickenbacker Cs
SW 42 dA
R 11 P11
�C Bisca e
U S Re I Rd
E
Median Rent in Dollars
$188
$393
$482 IL
E $522 ---,_,�Crand n Blv
$57
$6755
- $1358 I
S I I I I ' \ iscaTb Blvd
Percent of Females in Professional Occupations (2000) Ilin ve
E 8t Ave O �- or y Dr
N rt
NE 79th St
E 4t Ave
z
o
NW 4 d Ave
m
O o
SE 8 Ave
W St
Doral BlvdI-195 Indian kDr
Palm to Exp NW 36th St St I_ _ _.
GI 0 2 t
State Hig way 953 L—
_ 000
St e HighwIll \
Tom. m 395
_ N 7th St �-
a
Ave I N 3rd St
W Fla ler StLl
m
v h
D
n c V 2
e
r.
m < P°
m m 3t�
S
m /
a SW 22nd St �.
� US -1
Rickenbacker Cs .�
SW 42 dA
O a .e
SR Rd
Percent
5.00
11.00
17.00
22.00 Crand n Blv
- 28.00
- 34.00
- 39.0+ I
d
ala
Overlay of Miami -Dade County Commission
District 3 on Draft Concept Map-Bracsw+i
"823
Q � Griffi Blvd
NF nB' cayne Blvdtate Ht
Ave Collin v
r �
E 8tl Ave
orth Baa rs_,wy
79th S, N E 79th St W
z
a NW42 dA - -
(D
5
f E 8t
Av
W St
Airport Expy
�
Doral Blvd
I-195 dian ek Dr
i'
NW 36th St
N t St
-
- t' �
26 t
State Hi
wa 53
4
State) High
3
— -- - - - -
I-395
~~ ? P~
NW 7th t
-�
arthur Cswy
3rd St -r --U')00,
W Fla ler St
u
�m
Proposed District Lines
rt
Major Roads
th St
_ MDCC District 3
ry
Water
r
�*
A
2
^^^" Railroads
D
m
<