Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - RedistrictingCITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Johnny Martinez, P. City Manager DATE: March 12, 2012 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding Redistricting Every ten years, the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) mandates a head count of, everyone residing in the United States. This is commonly known as the U.S. Census. These population totals determine apportionment of congressional representation, and the data is also used for other purposes including funding formulas for some federal programs. According to the 2010 Census, the City of Miami's population has grown from 362,470 citizens to 399,457 citizens in the last decade. As interpreted by the federal courts, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that election districts for state, legislative and local government plans be substantially equal in population. This principle, commonly referred to as the "one person, one vote" standard resulted from the landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims. The analysis to determine compliance with the 14th Amendment begins by identifying the ideal district population. This is done by dividing the total population among the number of districts. In the case of the City of Miami — with a population of 399,457 — the ideal district population is approximately 79,891. Any variance between the actual district population and the ideal district population is commonly referred to as a "deviation." The "total deviation" or "overall deviation" in a single -member district plan is the delta between the most populated and least populated district. Therefore, for example, a district plan where the most populated district is at 5% over the ideal population and the least populated district is at 4% below ideal population, would have a total or overall deviation of 9%. The courts have held that under the Reynolds standard, state legislative plans and local government plans do not have to achieve near mathematical equality (as required by Article 1 Section 2 for congressional seats) and are permitted to have greater deviation among districts. The courts have accepted differences between districts of up to 10% of total deviation in certain i :.:!--..circumstances.;, Nevertheless,_ the courts have stated that although there is greater flexibility in ;state :and local government districting plans, each of the deviations from the ideal district .population -should be grounded on some recognized governmental policy or other rational objective. Discussion Re: Redistricting A cursory analysis of the district population of the current City of Miami districts demonstrates that District 1 is 3% below the ideal population with an approximate total population of 77,741. District 2 is approximately 20% over the ideal population, with a total population of 96,080 citizens. District 3 is 3% below the idealpopulation with an approximate population of 77,690 citizens. District 4 is approximately 1 % over the ideal population with an estimated population of 80,680 citizens. Finally, District 5 is approximately 16% under the ideal population, with an approximate population of 67,266. Therefore, the current overall population deviation in the City - of Miami's plan is approximately 36%. This means that the districts are malapportioned and redistricting must occur in order to re -balance the district populations to a constitutionally acceptable standard. Other important considerations to be factored into the redistricting process are set forth in the Voting Rights Act of 1964. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any practice or procedure, including certain redistricting practices, which impair the ability of a minority community to elect candidates of choice on an equal basis with non -minority voters. In order for there to be a potential claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, three threshold factors which were developed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Thornburg v. Gingles must be present. First, the minority population must be "sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district." Second, the population must be "politically cohesive, and thus, generally vote as a bloc." Third, the majority population must "vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidate." The last two factors are generally referred to as "polarized voting." • Studies conducted ten years ago by the Florida Legislature, the County and the City during its last redistricting process demonstrated that the three prongs of the Gingles case were met in the City of Miami. In the current census cycle, studies have already been conducted by the State and the County which demonstrate that the three Gingles factors are still evident in the City of Miami, but additional City -specific studies are highly advisable. It should be noted that the City, with the assistance of Social Compact, has filed a challenge to the census count in the City of Miami. That challenge is still pending. Nevertheless, even if successful, any change or adjustment in the City's population can be used for further program issues but would not affect apportionment data. Therefore, redistricting may proceed while the City's challenge is pending. During the City's last redistricting effort, which began in 2002 and took approximately 10 months to complete, the City retained the services of Miguel De Grandy as special counsel to the City on redistricting. Mr. De Grandy is an attorney and former State Legislator who is a recognized expert in the field. Mr. De Grandy has represented the Florida House of Representatives during _.:.the last two redistricting cycles as special counsel, has developed plans for other jurisdictions ::such as the: Palm Beach .School Board, and has been involved in several litigation matters ~.:_regarding.: Redistricting. and Voting Rights Act issues. (See attached biographical information). ,:The City also utilized .the. services of Stephen Cody, who worked on the polarized voting analysis; demographic analysis to determine Federal Voting Rights Act compliance, and other Page 2 of 3 Discussion Re: Redistricting issues related to the City's redistricting process. Mr. Cody is also a recognized expert in the field. Mr. De Grandy's firm worked closely with City Commissioners and Administrative staff during the last redistricting process, ultimately developing a redistricting plan which was consistent• with both the 14th Amendment and the Federal Voting Rights Act, and has never been challenged. During the February 9, 2012 Commission meeting, Commissioner Spence -Jones directed the Administration to retum with a recommendation concerning the redistricting process. After careful review of these issues, it is in the best interest of the City and its residents, to have an approved redistricting plan as soon as practicable to avoid a potential law suit for "malapportionment," minimize voter disruption and confusion, and to allow candidates ample time to campaign in the new districts. The Administration is in the process of finalizing Expert Consultant Agreements with both Mr. Miguel De Grandy and Mr. Stephen Cody to provide their services for the City's upcoming redistricting process. These individuals are well -versed in the legal and technical issues of redistricting, and have City -specific expertise as a result of their work during the City's last redistricting cycle, which resulted in a legally compliant plan for the City of Miami that achieved unanimous support amongst the Commission sitting at that time. Both the Administration and Office of the City Attorney, who will be directly overseeing the re- districting process, are available to address any additional question you may have regarding this matter. Page 3 of 3