The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Item Cover PageAGENDA ITEM COVER PAGE File ID: #15321 Resolution Sponsored by: Commissioner Miguel Gabela A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY COMMISSION DISTRICTS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. R-23-0271; OFFICIALLY DELINEATING THE BOUNDARIES OF EACH DISTRICT AS SET FORTH IN "COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Miami Legislation Resolution City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com File Number: 15321 Final Action Date:1/11/2024 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY COMMISSION DISTRICTS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. R-23-0271; OFFICIALLY DELINEATING THE BOUNDARIES OF EACH DISTRICT AS SET FORTH IN "COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the voters of the City of Miami ("City") adopted a Charter Amendment on September 4, 1997, providing for a non -voting Executive Mayor elected City-wide, and five (5) City Commissioners elected from districts; and WHEREAS, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 97-495 providing for the jurisdictional boundaries of the City Commission Districts; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2003, the City reapportioned district boundaries in Resolution No. 03-0448 following the results of the 2000 Census; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2013, the City reapportioned district boundaries in Resolution No. R-13-0208 following the results of the 2010 Census; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2022, the City Commission reapportioned the district boundaries in Resolution No. R-22-0131 ("2022 Map") following the results of the 2020 Census; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2022, nine (9) months after the adoption of the 2022 Map, certain community organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Miami challenging the new redistricting plan alleging it violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; and WHEREAS, the Federal court entered an order enjoining the City from calling, conducting, supervising, or certifying any elections using the 2022 map; and WHEREAS, the City Commission retained the services of a professional redistricting consultant to provide redistricting advice to the City; and WHEREAS, the results of the 2020 Census show that in 2020, the population of the City had grown to 442,241, an increase of 42,752 or 10.7 percent and that the growth has not been uniform across all five of the City's Commission districts; and WHEREAS, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by federal case law requires "substantial equality" of population among single member districts and a review of the Census data shows that the current plan is malapportioned and cannot be used for subsequent elections; and WHEREAS, Section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the "Voting Rights Act"), is a permanent nationwide prohibition on voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group (as defined in Sections 4(f)(2) and 14(c)(3) of the Act, 52 U.S.C. §§ 10303(f)(2), 10310(c)(3)) and prohibits both voting practices that result in citizens being denied equal access to the political process on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, and voting practices adopted or maintained for the purpose of discriminating on those bases; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court observed in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), that all that is necessary when drafting state legislative districts is achieving "substantial equality of population among the various districts." The phrase "substantial equality of population" has come to generally mean that a legislative or local government plan will not be held to violate the Equal Protection clause if the overall deviation between the smallest and largest district is less than 10%. In Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), the United States Supreme Court applied the Reynolds decision to local governments; and WHEREAS, the City's redistricting consultant met individually with the five district City Commissioners for the purpose of getting input from them to develop a new map that addressed the concerns of the federal court and also achieved compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause; and WHEREAS, as a result of the meetings, the redistricting consultant developed an amalgamated proposed map that took into consideration the policy and political suggestions of the City Commissioners, resident input and the Court's order and named the map Version 12; and WHEREAS, the City's redistricting consultant analyzed the polarized voting patterns in the City and determined that the Version 12 map was consistent with the three factors enunciated in the case of Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986); and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2023, at a Special City Commission meeting, the redistricting consultant presented the Version 12 map to the City Commission and the public; and WHEREAS, after hearing from the public, the City Commission considered the Version 12 map and made some modifications which among other changes included reuniting a portion of Coconut Grove into District 2, made changes between the boundaries of D3 And D4 to restore the Domino park area to D3, moved an area from District 1 into District 5 that contained a restaurant that the District 5 Commissioner had committed significant effort and funding to ensure its success and made other changes necessary to rebalance the population and reduce the Map's overall deviation; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Version 12 map were named the District 3 Version 3 Map ("D3 V3 Map"); and WHEREAS, the City Commission determined that the D3 V3 Map achieved substantial equality of population among the districts; and WHEREAS, the City Commission determined that the D3 V3 Map was legally sound and meets the City Commission's prime directive that the redistricting plan should abide by the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; and WHEREAS, the City Commission wishes to amend the D3 V3 Map, adopted pursuant to Resolution No. R-23-0271, adopted on June 14, 2023, as set forth in "Composite Exhibit 1," attached and incorporated, thereby restoring to District 1 the portion that was removed from it and moved to District 3 pursuant to Resolution No. R-23-0271, to -wit: the area bounded by the Miami River on the North, the Lawrence Canal on the West and State Road 836 on the South, and further restoring to District 2 the portion of Coconut Grove that was removed from it and moved to District 3 pursuant to Resolution No. R-23-0271, to -wit: the area bounded by US Highway 1 on the North, SW 22 Ave and Kirk Street on the West and South Bayshore Drive/South Miami Avenue on the South"; and WHEREAS, the proposed revised Map, as set forth in "Composite Exhibit 1," attached and incorporated, meets the City Commission's prime directive that the redistricting plan should abide by the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; 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 adopted by reference and incorporated as fully set forth in this Section and represent findings of the City Commission. Section 2. The City Commission hereby amends the jurisdictional boundaries of the City Commission Districts adopted pursuant to Resolution No. R-23-0271; officially delineating the boundaries of each District as set forth in "Composite Exhibit 1," attached and incorporated; making findings; and providing an effective date. These election districts shall be applicable for all purposes, including but not limited to, any election of City Commissioners, following the effective date of this Resolution; making findings; and providing an effective date. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption and signature by the Mayor.' APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: 1 If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the end of ten (10) calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission.