The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport - Redistricting & Proposed PlanMIGUEL DE G R A N D Y, PA Redistricting Consultants REPORT ON THE STATUS OF REDISTRICTING AND PROPOSED REDISTRICTING PLAN Presented to the City of Miami City Commission Miguel A. De Grandy, Esq., Pablo Tamayo, Esq., & Stephen M. Cody, J.D. 8 0 0 Douglas Road, Suite 850 , Coral Gables , FL 33134 Telephone:(305)444-7737•Fax:(305)443-2616•wwwDeGrand� .aw om Table of Contents Introduction 1 The Need to Redistrict 1 Chronology To Date 3 Basic Redistricting. Principles 4 Initial Policy Directives From The Cominission 4 Racially Polarized Voting in the City of`Miami 5 Public Comments. rom Public•Hearings 6 District 1 and District 2 6 District 3 7 District 4 7 District 5 7 Maintaining Traditional Neighborhoods; Within One District Where Feasible Specific Principles Utilized in Preparing The Proposed Redistricting Plan' 9 The Subareas of the City of Miami 10 Subarea 1 12 Subarea 2 13 Subarea 3 14 Subarea•.4 15 Subarea, 5 16 Subarea 6 17 Subarea 7 18 Subarea 19 Subareas 9 and 10 20 Subarea 11 21 Subarea 12 22 Subarea 13 23 Subarea 14 24 Subarea 15 25 Subarea 16 -- - 26 The Proposed Redistricting Plan 27 Pending Issues' To Be Addressed 30 Miguel'DeGrandy, P.A RedistrictingfheCommission TAB 1 REDISTRICTING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION AFTER THE..201"0 CENSUS 31 TAB 2 RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY POLARIZED. VOTING IN THE CITY OF MIAMI 45 TAB 3' PRESENTATION TO THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION 67 ,Miguel De Grandy, P. A Redistrictr,ng,theComm.i'ssIon Introduction In response to the constitutional mandate to redistrict prior to the November 2013 City of Miami election, City Manager Johnny Martinez retained Miguel De Grandy, P.A. and Stephen Cody in April 2012 to provide legal and consulting services on redistricting and Voting Rights Act mat- ters. The Need to Redistrict) The 2010 Census revealed that population growth had the result of making the present district- ing map malapportioned. The population of the existing districts can be found in the table below.2 DIST POP. 2010 DEVIATION % DEV. HISPANIC BLACK WHITE 1 77,704 -2,187 -2.74% 88.43 12.57 4.53 2 96,333 16,442 20.58% 52.17 14.54 31.77 3 77,690 -2,201 -2.76% 90.50 5.25 7.21 4 80,681 790 0.99% 91.99 2.64 6.66 5 67,049 -12,842 -16.07% 23.79 75.52 3.75 Total 399,457 36.65% As shown above, the difference between the largest and the smallest district is 36.65 percent. Federal courts have uniformly held that a redistricting scheme that exceeds 10 percent in popu- lation deviation is per se violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The present redistricting plan, drawn from a map prepared by the City's Planning Department in January 2012 can be found on the following page. (The Planning Department's map can be found at: http: www.miamigov.com/Planning/Maps/2012CommissionDistrict.pdf.) A full discussion of the demographics of the present redistricting plan can be found in the re- port behind Tab 1. 1 The percentage totals for the racial and ethnic groups in each district may total more than 100 percent. The Census allows persons to self -identify as members of multiple groups. For instance, a resident could report as both Hispanic and Black. In that case, he or she would be included in both the Black and Hispanic groups for purposes of the Cen- sus. Rather than try to assume that the small number of persons who self -reported as both Black and Hispanic should be placed solely in either category, they were placed in both groups. 2 The ideal population size for a City of Miami district after the 2010 Census is 79,891 residents. The deviations shown are the amount by which the population of the existing districts were less than or exceeded that ideal popula- tion number. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 1 Present City of Miami Districting Plan S/DoraI.B Iaiwwscus . ISLAND ALM ISLAND Chronology To Date Beginning in May 2012, the redistricting consultants met with each Commissioner to obtain in- put as to what each Commissioner believed to be relevant communities of interest in the City. Following these initial meetings, we provided the Commission with a legal primer designed to highlight and outline the fundamental legal principles of redistricting. (Attached hereto at Tab 1). An analysis was conducted of voting in the City of Miami to determine the presence or absence of racially polarized voting. (Attached hereto at Tab 2.) The existence or non-existence of racially polarized voting would help determine the extent to which the City was required to draw a dis- trict with a Black voting age population majority. During a City of Miami Commission meeting in June 2012, Miguel De Grandy, Esq. and Pablo Tamayo, Esq. publicly discussed the redistricting process. During the presentation, they sug- gested a proposed redistricting timeline and discussed 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 3). Following that legal and technical presenta- tion, the Commission instructed the redistricting consultants to hold five 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 Commis- sion also provided initial policy direction as to the different redistricting criteria that should be considered and utilized in preparation of a proposed plan for the Commission's consideration. As instructed by the Commission, the redistricting consultants have also held five redistricting public hearings within the City discussed infra. Together with the initial policy directives from the Commission, applicable legal redistricting principles, and public comments from redistrict- ing public hearings, 16 separate subareas of the City were identified as potential candidates for movement from one district to another. Each of the Subareas is discussed in detail later in this report. Based upon the identified subareas, redistricting consultants have prepared a Proposed Redis- tricting Plan which meets most of the policy goals and directions given by the City Commission and which complies with constitutional principles, as well as the federal Voting Rights Act. A map of the Proposed Redistricting Plan can be found later in this report. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 3 Basic Redistricting Principles The law governing reapportionment and redistricting is derived from a series of different sources, including the United States Constitution, and the U.S. Code, all as interpreted by a number of key court rulings. The redistricting consultants developed the Proposed Redistricting Plan in compliance with requirements of the Constitution, as well as the Voting Rights Act. The redistricting consultants will continue to provide substantive legal analysis and input during the consideration of the Proposed Redistricting Plan to insure that the adopted plan complies with all applicable legal standards and principles of redistricting law, as explained in Tabs 1 and 3. While the redistricting consultants will be advising the Commission throughout the process, when considering redistricting plans, the Commission should be guided by three basic legal principles: 9 Each commission district must achieve substantial equality of population within the deviation permitted under the case law and all deviations should have a rational basis. 9 The City must not engage in racial gerrymandering. 9 The new commission districts must not dilute the votes of minority communi- ties. 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 constitu- tional 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 June 2012 City Commission meet- ing, following a legal and technical presentation, the Commission discussed the redistricting process and identified the following as initial policy considerations to be utilized when drafting redistricting plans: Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 4 9 Districts should be drawn within the deviations permitted by law, which means within an overall deviation of no more than 10 percent. 9 Districts should, to the extent possible, retain the core of existing districts. 9 Districts should use, where possible, well known natural and man-made boundaries. 9 District 3 should achieve a total deviation as close to zero as possible.3 9 Districts should, to the extent possible, keep neighborhoods and communities of interest intact. Racially Polarized Voting in the City of Miami The Supreme Court has determined that a minority group can invoke the protection of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when it can establish three preconditions. The first is that the minority group is large enough and compact enough to form a majority in a single member district. The second is that the minority voters must demonstrate that they are politically cohesive: that is that they tend to support the same candidates. Finally, a minority group must establish that the majority group is also politically cohesive, but that it usually opposes the minority's chosen candidate. As both the existing map and the Proposed Redistricting Plan demonstrate, it is possible to draw a redistricting plan which has a Black voting age population majority. Thus, the first prong of the Supreme Court's test in Thornburg v. Gingles is satisfied. The redistricting consultants looked at 14 electoral contests held during general elections in even numbered years from 2006 to 2012, focusing on high profile offices. As discussed in the analysis attached behind Tab 2, races held during primaries were not used because turnout was much lower than during general elections. Likewise, the Mayoral race in 2009 was not consid- ered because turnout in the election was even lower than during the state primaries. Neverthe- less, the statistical analysis on these high profile state and county races clearly shows that the candidates preferred by Black voters received between 75 and 100 percent of the vote of Black 3 In subsequent meetings with Commissioner Carollo, he expressed a desire to maintain District 3 in its present con- figuration. Because of the directive regarding District 3 was only brought up by Commissioner Carollo and because the existing deviation is not substantial and maintaining the core of the existing district was also a Commission direc- tive, the redistricting consultants decided to draft the map consistent with the amended policy directive. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 5 voters. Therefore, there is ample evidence of Black voter political cohesion to satisfy the second prong of the Gingles test. Non -black voters, and especially Hispanics, have usually rejected the Black voters' preferred candidates. Statistical models indicate that in the 2010 general election, Kendrick Meek received nearly zero percent of the Hispanic vote, while garnering nearly 100 percent of the Black vote. The only exceptions occurred in 2012 when two candidates, Barack Obama and Bill Nelson, managed to receive a majority of the non -Black vote. In none of the other elections did the can- didates preferred by Black voters receive a majority of non -Black votes. Thus, it appears that the third prong of the Gingles test can also be established. The full analysis of racially polarized voting can be found in the report attached at Tab 2. In light of the racially polarized voting that has taken place within the City during the last dec- ade, the redistricting consultants have concluded that the City would be obligated under the Voting Rights Act to maintain a district with a Black voting age population majority. Public Comments From Public Hearings It is important to note that, although not legally required, the Commission instructed redistrict- ing consultants to hold five public hearings before any new or proposed plans were drawn be- cause the Commission wished to give any interested citizen an opportunity to provide input that could be considered in the drafting of a proposed plan. The meetings were not exclusive to the citizens in each district as all citizens were invited to attend each meeting. The public hearings were all advertised pursuant to the City's standard notice procedures for non -Commission meeting public hearings. All meetings were tape recorded. In each of the pub- lic hearings, Miguel De Grandy, Esq. provided a brief legal and technical redistricting presenta- tion, 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 to submit written comments, plans, suggestions, and / or inquiries to the City Clerk. The hearings were recorded and the audio tapes are available in the City Clerk's office. District 1 and District 2 At the request of Commissioner Gort, a combined public hearing was held for District 1 and District 2 at the Miami City Hall chambers. Unfortunately, there were no citizens present for this public hearing and there was no public input received. However, that meeting was broadcast Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 6 • over the City's public access cable channel to inform City residents of the redistricting process and to encourage their participation in subsequent meetings. District 3 A public hearing for District 3 was held at the Jose Marti Park Gym. Three citizens appeared for this hearing. Two were only there to observe and did not provide any input, and the third per- son was actually from District 2, but she did have a few concerns. Her first was that the districts be kept intact as much as possible to ensure the flow of services and so that people could have continuity in their representatives. Additionally, she indicated that her desire was to remain within District 2. (Her residence remained in District 2 because there was no need to alter that portion of the district.) District 4 The public hearing for District 4 was held at Our Lady of Lebanon Catholic Church on Coral Way. Only one citizen appeared and his request was that we move the boundary of District 4 down to 25th Street so that his residence would be taken out of District 2 and moved into Dis- trict 4.4 District 5 There were two public meetings in District 5. The first meeting was advertised for the wrong location, the Little Haiti Cultural Center, even though it was to be held in the Little Haiti Park. Nevertheless, three residents were able to find their way to the first meeting. The second meet- ing was properly advertised and eight people attended. At that meeting, some of the residents spoke about concerns regarding dilution of the current Black voting strength in District 5. Oth- ers spoke about the desire to move the southern part of District 5 into the Southeast Community Redevelopment District area. A final concern was over connecting the northeast area of District 2 into District 5, but keeping as much of the upper east side together as a traditional neighborhood.5 4 This was substantially accomplished because the change was necessary to further equalize the population and bring more of the traditional neighborhood of Silver Bluff into District 4. (See Subarea 16 in the discussion that follows.) 5 These concerns were taken into consideration in drawing the Proposed Redistricting Plan. For example, in line with the residents' requests, the traditional neighborhood of Shorecrest was moved into District 5 to satisfy the legal re- quirements and partially comply with the Commission's directives. The remaining portion of Little River was also fully integrated into District 5. Additionally, the southern boundary of District 5 was altered to more closely conform with the two CRA district boundaries north of the Miami River. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 7 Maintaining Traditional Neighborhoods Within One District Where Feasible In order to comply with the Commission's directive to try and keep traditional neighborhoods intact, your consultants compared the City of Miami Neighborhoods Map with the Present Dis- trict Plan and the Proposed Redistricting Plan. (The Neighborhood Map can be found on the following page.)6It is important to note that the Neighborhoods Map only contains thirty-seven neighborhoods. There may be several other subareas in the City that are not referenced in the Neighborhood Map. However, to be consistent, we will only be addressing those neighbor- hoods that appear in the Neighborhood Map. Out of those 37 neighborhoods, there are thirteen that are split to some extent in the City's Pre- sent Plan. Those neighborhoods include Silver Bluff (D2 and D4), Brickell (D2, D3 and D5), Shenandoah (D4 and D3), Flagami (D4 and D1), West Flagler (D4, D1 and D3), Allapattah (D1 and D5), Little River (D2 and D5), Lemon City (D2 and D5), Wynwood (D2 and D5), Civic Cen- ter (D1 and D5), Omni (D2 and D5), Park West (D2 and D5) and Downtown (D2 and D5). In the Proposed Plan, your redistricting consultants made several changes that brought more of the neighborhoods that are split in the Present Plan into the same district. For example, the Southwest border of D4 was brought further down into D2 which resulted in having more of the neighborhood of Silver Bluff together. The Northeast boundary of D5 was also extended east to Biscayne Boulevard which enabled all of Little River and Lemon City to be moved into the same district. D1 was shifted east to 1-95 which allowed the entire Civic Center neighborhood to be moved into the same district. Additionally, a small portion of D5 was shifted east to North Miami Avenue which incorporates all of Wynwood into the same district. In total, at least five neighborhoods were fully incorporated or more closely aligned into the same district out of the 13 that were split. Therefore, the Proposed Plan only contains eight split neighborhoods that were unable to be moved into the same district or more closely aligned. 6 Source: http:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_in_Miami. Other maps consulted by the redistricting con- sultants included The Miami NET Neighborhood Map, http:/ /www.ci.miami.fl.us/Planning/pages/services/ Maps.asp; the City of Miami Planning District map, http:/ /www.miamigov.com/Planning/Maps/ PlanDist@8x11.pdf; the Miami -Dade County Major Neighborhoods, http:/ /www.beaconcouncil.com/ web/pdf/Miami_major_neighborhoods.pdf; and the City of Miami Police Department District Map, http: / /www.miami-police.org/ district_maps.html. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 8 In addition to looking at the traditional neighborhoods, the redistricting consultants also took into consideration the boundaries of the Omni and Southeast Overtown Park West (SEOPW) CRAs. The boundaries of D5 were aligned so that it would contain most of the SEOPW CRA and the same was done for D2 so that it would contain the vast majority of the Omni CRA. Specific Principles Utilized in Preparing The Proposed Redistricting Plan The Proposed Redistricting 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 popu- lation of the City as of April 1, 2010, it is presumed to be accurate for redistricting purposes even now. In addition, voter registration and election data, broken down by Census blocks, was also part of the data considered. Data from select general elections held during the period of 2006 to 2012 were also included in the model. Because of the use of secret ballots, there is no way to attribute Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 9 votes to specific blocks from data available from the Miami -Dade County Elections Department. However, votes were allocated to blocks in proportion to a particular block's population within a precinct. This is a methodology that is commonly used by political scientists and was followed by the Florida Legislature in crafting the State House, Senate, and Congressional districts for the 2012 election. The redistricting consultants also looked at American Community Survey data, which was de- rived from surveys conducted by the Census Bureau separate and apart from the Decennial Census, and which reports certain social, financial, and housing characteristics. After taking the Census data into account and the requirements of law, the policy direction given by the Commission at the June 2012 meeting formed the basis for the changes shown in the Proposed Redistricting Plan. However, not all of the policy directions could be factored equally into each change. It should be recognized that each of the stated criteria has the possibil- ity of conflicting with each of the others. Preserving the present boundaries in all cases, for in- stance, would have prevented the ability to move boundaries to equalize population. Each of the policy directions were considered and balanced against each other by the redistricting con- sultants in drafting the districts. The Subareas of the City of Miami After the close of all of the public meetings, redistricting consultants identified certain areas within the City of Miami for movement between one district and another in order to comply with legal requirements and to satisfy the criteria adopted by the Commission. In total, 16 subareas were identified and their boundaries and demographics were analyzed. Subareas 1 through 5 represent the cores of the existing districts. Subareas 6 through 16 are areas that represent proposed changes which are necessary to comply with legal requirements and substantially comply with Commission directives. A map showing the locations of the subareas can be found on the following page. A more detailed description of each subarea including a graphic showing its street boundaries and voter registration can be found in the subsequent pages of this report. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 10 W.et2nd,6 v9, Redistricting the Commission Subarea 1 Subarea 1 is the core of District 1. It has a population of 77,7047 that is overwhelmingly Hispanic, as shown on the pie chart below. Eleven percent of its population speaks only English, while over 86 percent of the population speaks at least some Spanish. Persons of Cuban ancestry make up a bare majority of the population at 51.1 percent, with Cen- tral Americans making up almost 28 percent, followed by South Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans. A plurality of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school. Sixteen percent of the population reported no income, 11 percent relies on Social Security, 29 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 7 percent are retired. More than a quar- ter of the population live at or below the poverty level, while a slight majority has an income of 150 percent or more of the poverty level. One third of the residents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Almost three -fourths of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the government. Politically, the voters are 37 percent Democrats, 36 percent are Republi- cans, and 27 percent are independent. Movement: Remains the core of District 1. Justification: Meets the Commission directive of retaining the core of existing districts. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian 7 The population figures for Subareas 1 through 5 in this section of the report only reflect the population of the Subareas themselves and not the original population of the existing districts. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 12 Subarea 2 Subarea 2 is the core of District 2. It has a population of 82,421 that is split almost evenly between Hispanics and non - Hispanics, as shown on the pie chart be- low. Almost 40 percent of its population speaks only English, while half of the population speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as His- panics, persons of Cuban ancestry make up 37.4 percent, with South Americans making up almost 31 percent, followed by Central Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans. Only 12 percent of the popula- tion over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while over half have either a bachelors' or graduate degree. Twelve percent of the population reported no income, 19 percent relies on Social Secu- rity, 9 percent receives some form of pub- lic assistance, and 7 percent are retired. Fourteen percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while more than three -fourths have an income of 150 percent or more of the poverty level. More than half of the residents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Over two-thirds of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the government. Politically, the voters are 46 percent Democrats, 26 percent are Re- publicans, and 28 percent are independent. Movement: Remains the core of District 2. Justification: Meets the Commission directive of retaining the core of existing districts. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 13 Subarea 3 Subarea 3 is the core of District 3. It has a population of 77,690 that, like in Dis- trict 1, is overwhelmingly Hispanic, as shown on the pie chart below. Only 8 percent of its population speaks only English, while 9 out of 10 residents speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as Hispanics, persons of Central American ancestry make up 40.4 percent of the population, with Cubans following close behind at 39.3 percent, followed by South Ameri- cans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans. Forty-three percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while 16 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Fifteen percent of the population reported no income, 28 percent relies on Social Security, 27 percent re- ceives some form of public assistance, and 6 percent are retired. Twenty-nine percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while only 21 percent have an income of 150 percent or more of the poverty rate. Less than a quarter of the residents own their own home, with the rest renting their proper- ties. Two-thirds of the population is privately employed and the re- mainder work for some form of the govemment. Politically, the voters are 32 percent Democrats, 39 percent are Repub- licans, and 28 percent are independent. Movement: Remains the core of District 3. Justification: Meets the Commission directive of retaining the core of existing districts. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 14 Subarea 4 Subarea 4 is the core of District 4. It has a population of 80,354 and has the largest concentration of His- panic residents in the City, as shown on the pie chart below. Six percent of its population speaks only Eng- lish, while 91 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as Hispanics, persons of Cuban ancestry make up 67.6 percent of the population, with Central and South Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans falling far behind. Thirty-one percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while 21 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Fourteen percent of the population reported no income, 33 percent relies on Social Se- curity, 21 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 9 percent are retired. Eighteen percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while more than two-thirds have an in- come of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. A majority, 52 percent, of residents own their own home, with the rest rent- ing their properties. Sixty-eight percent of the population is pri- vately employed and the remainder work for some form of the government. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Politically, the voters are 26 percent Democrats, 49 percent are Republicans, and 25 percent are independent. Movement: Remains the core of District 4. Justification: Meets the Commission directive of retaining the core of ex- isting districts. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 15 Subarea 5 Subarea 5 is the core of District 5. It has a population of 66,666 and has the largest concentration of Black residents in the City, as shown on the pie chart below. Fifty-six percent of its popula- tion speaks only English, while 22 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as Hispanics, persons of Cuban ancestry make up 26.2 percent of the population, with Central and South Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans fol- lowing behind. Thirty-eight percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while 10 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Twenty-one percent of the population reported no income, 28 percent relies on Social Security, 31 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 11 percent are retired. Forty percent of the population lives at or below the poverty level, while 42 percent have an income of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Less than a third of the residents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Seventy-one percent of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the gov- ernment. Politically, the voters are 79 percent Democrats, 6 percent are Republicans, and 15 percent are independent. Movement: Remains the core of District 5. Justification: Meets the Commission directive of retaining the core of existing districts. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 16 Subarea 6 Subarea 6 contains the Shorecrest neighborhood of existing District 2. It has a population of 3,627 and and is nearly majority Black, as shown on the pie chart below. Thirty-four percent of its population speaks only English, while 40 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as Hispanics, persons of Central American ancestry make up 28.3 percent of the population, with Cubans comprising 28 percent. Seventeen percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while 23 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Fourteen percent of the population reported no income, 24 percent relies on Social Security, 16 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 12 percent are retired. Twenty-one percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while 58 percent have an income of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Fifty-one percent of the residents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Sixty-eight percent of the population is pri- vately employed and the remainder work for some form of the government. Politically, the voters are 62 percent Democrats, 13 percent are Re- publicans, and 25 percent are independent. Movement: From District 2 into District 5 0, Justification: Compliance with 14th Amendment's one-person/one- vote principle requires movement of population. Moves the entire traditional neighborhood of Shorecrest in order to further comply with Commission directive to keep traditional neighborhoods whole within one district where possible. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 17 Subarea 7 14', • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Subarea 7 contains the portion of the Little River neighbor- hood which is not already in existing District 5. It has a population of 1,076 and is 58 percent Black, as shown on the pie chart below. Thirty-two percent of its population speaks only English, while 37 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as Hispanics, persons of Cen- tral American ancestry make up 32 percent of the population, with South Americans comprising 30 percent. Twenty per- cent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while 37 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Fourteen percent of the population re- ported no income, 22 percent relies on Social Security, 10 per- cent receives some form of public assistance, and 12 percent are retired. Twenty-one percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while 70 percent have an income of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Forty-one per- cent of the residents own their own home, with the rest rent- ing their properties. Sixty-seven percent of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the government. Politically, the voters are 71 percent Democrats, 7 percent are Republicans, and 22 percent are independent. Movement: From District 2 into District 5 Justification: Compliance with 14th Amendment's one - person / one -vote principle requires movement of population. Moves the remainder of the traditional neighborhood of Lit- tle River into District 5 in order to further comply with Commission directive to keep traditional neighborhoods whole within one district where possible. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 18 Subarea 8 Subarea 8 has a population of 1,711 and and is 51 percent Black, as shown on the pie chart below. Thirty-three percent of its population speaks only English, while 36 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those indi- viduals identified as Hispanics, persons of Central American ancestry make up 31 percent of the population, with South Americans comprising 30 percent. Twenty-one percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while 41 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Fourteen percent of the population reported no income, 27 percent relies on Social Security, 8 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 4 percent are retired. Nineteen percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while 75 percent have an income of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Forty-four percent of the resi- dents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Sixty- seven percent of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the government. Politically, the voters are 69 percent Democrats, 7 percent are Republicans, and 24 percent are independent. Movement: From District 2 into District 5. Justification: Compliance with 14th Amendment's one -person / one -vote principle required movement of popula- tion, and used Biscayne Boulevard as the new District 2/District 5 boundary in compliance with Commission direc- tive to use well defined natural or man- made boundaries. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 19 Subareas 9 and 10 'N f,9th 'S, e.� tt r .NE.48th S e;.. ' ) . :". N E•47tttSt .- •. ` 'M :f t ' • " '7 a -Jr? Subareas 9 and 10 have no population or regis- tered voters. Movement: Subarea 9 is moved from District 2 to District 5. Subarea 10 is moved from District 5 to District 2. Justification for Subarea 9: Used Biscayne Boule- vard as the new District 2/District 5 boundary in compliance with Commission directive to use well defined natural or man-made boundaries. Justification for Subarea 10: Used I-395 as the new District 2/District 5 boundary in compliance with Commission directive to use well defined natural or man-made boundaries. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 20 Subarea 11 W 32 n<i,St I�! der' NW ,31ts't St as ©t 'os1 11 Subarea 11 has a population of 1,921 and and is 71 percent Hispanic, as shown on the pie chart below. Thirty-nine percent of its population speaks only English, while 54 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as His- panics, persons of Central American ancestry make up 40 per- cent of the population, with Cubans and Puerto Ricans almost tied at approximately 17 percent each. Fifty-six percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while only 6 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Eighteen percent of the population reported no in- come, 23 percent relies on Social Security, 29 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 4 percent are retired. Forty-five percent of the population live at or below the pov- erty level, while 33 percent have an income of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Twenty-one percent of the resi- dents own their own home, with the rest renting their proper- ties. Seventy-seven percent of the population is privately em- ployed and the remainder work for some form of the govern- ment. Politically, the voters are 56 percent Democrats, 19 percent are Republicans, and 25 percent are independent. Movement: From District 2 to District 5. Justification: Compliance with 14th Amendment's one -person / one -vote principle requires move- ment of population. This change brings more of the traditional neighborhood of Wynwood into District 5. (Although Wynwood may extend slightly further south, NW 22 St was used as the southern boundary for this change based on input from the Commission to maintain CRA boundaries within one district where feasible. This change maintains the vast majority of the Omni CRA in District 2.) • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 21 Subarea 12 Subarea 12 has a population of 383 and is 58 percent Hispanic, as shown on the pie chart below. Fifty-three percent of its population speaks only English, while 42 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as His- panics, persons of Central American ancestry make up 30 percent of the popula- tion, with Cubans making up 29 percent. Forty-three percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while only 5 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Twenty-three percent of the population reported no income, 28 percent relies on Social Security, 35 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 13 percent are retired. Forty-one percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while 37 percent have an in- come of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Twenty-five percent of the residents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Seventy- five percent of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the government. Politically, the voters are 65 percent Democrats, 13 percent are Republicans, and 22 percent are independent. Movement: From District 5 into District 1. justification: Complies with Commission directive to use well defined natural and man-made boundaries by moving the District 1 / District 5 boundary to I-95 and lowers the deviation of Dis- trict 1. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 22 Subarea 13 Subarea 13 has a population of 261 and is 76 percent Black, as shown on the pie chart below. Eighty-two percent of its population speaks only English, while 13 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those indi- viduals identified as Hispanics, persons of Puerto Rican ancestry make up 38 percent of the population, with Cubans making up 30 percent. Forty-nine percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while only 2 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Twenty percent of the population reported no income, 13 percent relies on Social Security, 38 percent receives some form of public assis- tance, and 13 percent are retired. Fifty-two percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while 32 percent have an income of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Nineteen percent of the resi- dents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Seventy-three percent of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the government. Politically, the voters are 74 percent Democrats, 9 percent are Republi- cans, and 17 percent are independent. Movement: From District 2 to District 5. Justification: Corresponds to the boundary of the Park West CRA and is consistent with Commission direction and public hearing input to main- tain as much of a CRA area in one Commission district as feasible. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 23 Subarea 14 Subarea 14 has a population of 3,332 and is 41 percent Hispanic, as shown on the pie chart be- low. Thirty-eight percent of its population speaks only English, while 48 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as Hispanics, persons of South American ancestry make up 40 percent of the population, with Cu- bans making up 26 percent. Seventeen percent of the population over the age of 18 have not fin- ished high school, while 34 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Twenty percent of the population reported no income, 9 percent relies on Social Security, 20 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 4 percent are re- tired. Twenty-seven percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while 56 per- cent have an income of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Only 12 percent of the residents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Seventy-two percent of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the government. Politically, the voters are 64 percent Democrats, 11 percent are Republicans, and 25 percent are independ- ent. Movement: From District 2 into District 5. Justification: Compliance with 14th Amendment's one- person/one-vote principle required movement of population. Change also brings more of the Park West CRA into D5 to comply with Commission directive and public hearing input to maintain as much of a CRA area in one district as feasible. 41', • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 24 Subarea 15 • 1 -i Arr.401[ +► •SW 4t 1 TerraCk'- . 1 ! ".• T - Y: Subarea 15 has a population of 1,984 and is 89 percent Hispanic, as shown on the pie chart below. Eleven percent of its population speaks only English, while 82 percent speaks at least some Spanish. Of those individuals identified as Hispanics, persons of Cuban ancestry make up 54 percent of the population, with Central Americans making up 21 percent. Twenty-two percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while 29 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Fifteen percent of the population reported no income, 36 percent relies on Social Security, 17 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 7 percent are retired. Seventeen percent of the population live at or below the poverty level, while 66 percent have an income of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Twenty-six percent of the residents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Sixty-four percent of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the govern- ment. Politically, the voters are 30 percent Democrats, 41 percent are Republicans, and 29 percent are independent. Movement: From District 2 into District 4. Justification: Compliance with 14th Amendment's one -person/ one -vote principle required movement of population. Change brings more of the traditional neighborhood of Silver Bluff into District 4 to comply with Commission directive to maintain tra- ditional neighborhoods where feasible. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 25 Subarea 16 Subarea 16 has a population of 327 and is 91 per- cent Hispanic, as shown on the pie chart below. Six percent of its population speaks only Eng- lish, while 92 percent speaks at least some Span- ish. Of those individuals identified as Hispanics, persons of Cuban ancestry make up 78 percent of the population. Thirty-six percent of the population over the age of 18 have not finished high school, while 23 percent report having a bachelors' or graduate degree. Eleven percent of the population reported no income, 24 percent relies on Social Security, 19 percent receives some form of public assistance, and 15 percent are retired. Twenty-one percent of the popula- tion live at or below the poverty level, while 68 percent have an income of 150 percent or more above the poverty rate. Fifty-two percent of the residents own their own home, with the rest renting their properties. Sixty-eight percent of the population is privately employed and the remainder work for some form of the govern- ment. Politically, the voters are 28 percent Democrats, 46 percent are Republicans, and 26 percent are independ- ent. Movement: From District 4 into District 1. Justification: Compliance with Commission directive to use well de- fined natural or man-made boundaries. • Black • Hispanic • Single Race White • Other & Asian Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 26 The Proposed Redistricting Plan Starting with a clean slate, there were an infinite number of possible ways to redraw the City's five Commission districts to rebalance the population. The policy directives of the City Com- mission, the requirements of the United States Constitution and federal voting rights law, to- gether with numerous court decisions on what is required, as well as what is prohibited, during redistricting, narrowed the options available. Taking all of those requirements into considera- tion, the redistricting consultants recommend that the City adopt the Proposed Redistricting Plan. The map for the Proposed Redistricting Plan is shown on the second following page. The total population breakdown for each of the new proposed districts, together with each dis- trict's racial and ethnic makeup can be found in the table below.8 DIST POP. 2010 DEVIATION % DEV. HISPANIC % BLACK % WHITE % 1 78,414 -1,477 -1.85% 88.35 12.63 4.55 2 82,421 2,530 3.17% 52.33 11.37 34.38 3 77,690 -2,201 -2.76% 90.50 5.25 7.21 4 82,338 2,447 3.06% 91.97 2.65 6.68 5 78,594 -1,297 -1.62% 26.74 70.09 5.86 Total 399,457 5.93% The distribution of voting age population within the districts in the Proposed Redistricting Plan can be found in the table below. DIST HISPANIC % BLACK % WHITE % 1 89.87 12.45 3.39 2 52.42 10.85 34.76 3 91.91 5.34 5.91 8 The percentage totals for the racial and ethnic groups in each district may total more than 100 percent. The Census allows persons to self -identify as members of multiple groups. For instance, a resident could report as both Hispanic and Black. In that case, he or she would be included in both the Black and Hispanic groups for purposes of the Cen- sus. Rather than try to assume that the small number of persons who self -reported as both Black and Hispanic should be placed solely in either category, they were placed in both groups. However, the totals for a district may not reach 100 percent because the categories of Asians and Others are not shown. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 27 DIST HISPANIC % BLACK % WHITE % 4 93.23 2.67 5.47 5 28.05 67.85 6.59 The Proposed Redistricting Plan reduces the overall population deviation between the districts from over 36 percent in the present plan to 5.93 percent, well below the judicially mandated limit of 10 percent. The Proposed Redistricting Plan also complies with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act by ensuring the continued existence of a district with a majority of both Black total population and voting age population. Given the political cohesiveness shown by Black voters in the City of Miami, it is expected that the configuration of District 5 under this new plan will continue to enable Black voters to elect their candidate of choice to the Miami City Commission. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 28 1.1 z NIVI 2 th Ave i - !" • )01 14 Redistricting the Commission Pending Issues To Be Addressed The redistricting consultants have recommended to the City Manager that he schedule a work- shop public meeting for the review, discussion, and consideration of the attached Proposed Re- districting Plan. At that time, the redistricting consultants can answer questions and concerns of Commissioners and address the technical aspects of the Plan. It is requested that the City Attor- ney schedule this matter for a time certain on the early part of the agenda on that day. The redis- tricting consultants would also strongly recommend that a vote on whether to approve the Pro- posed Districting Plan be taken as soon as is practicable. If such motion receives a favorable vote, a formal resolution to adopt the Plan should be presented for final adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Commission. Your redistricting consultants will work with your Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office to produce a resolution that will include detailed street boundaries for each district in the Proposed Plan. Please keep in mind that once the final redistricting plan is adopted, the Elections Department still has to prepare for and administer the November 2013 elections. Since the deadline to qual- ify as candidate for the November 2013 election is in mid -September, time is of the essence. Although the redistricting consultants have made every effort to ensure that the Proposed Re- districting Plan meets all of the requirements of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, it is possible that a dissatisfied voter could bring an action in federal or state court. Early adoption of the Plan will provide for sufficient time to litigate any issues raised without intruding into the time needed by the Elections Department to prepare for the November election. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 30 TAB 1 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission '31 MIGUEL DE G R A N D Y, P A Redistricting Consultant REDISTRICTING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION AFTER THE 2010 CENSUS Redistricting Timeline, Process, and Legal Primer Miguel A. De Grandy, Esq. & Stephen M. Cody, J.D. 800 Douglas Road, Suite 850, Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 1305) 444-7737 • Fas: (305) 443-2616 • ww w.DeGrandylaw.com Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction 1 The Need to Redistrict 1 Redistricting Criteria Process and Timeline i Process And Commission Direction 3 Redistricting Standards 3 Direction Regarding Conducting Public Hearings 3 Utilization of Data to Forecast Growth 4 Number of Draft Plans to Present to the Commission: 4 Current Work and On -Going Analysis 6 City of Miami 2010 7 The Population Snapshot 7 Population of Existing Districts 8 The City's Census Challenge 8 Legal Standards for Redistricting 11 I. Constitutional Mandate to Redistrict and Reapportion 11 Miguel De Grandy PA Redistricting the Commission A) Historical Perspective on Redistricting: United States Constitution 12 B) Court Imposed Requirement To Redistrict; Population Differences Amongst Dis- tricts. 13 1)'The Obligation to Redistrict 2) Population Deviation II. Race, LangliageMinorities, and Reapportionment A) Predominant Factor Test; Race -Neutral Justifications B) Compelling. Interest andNarrow Tailoring C) Race Neutral/Traditional Redistricting Criteria D) The Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965i, Summary 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 23 Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission Executive Summary Introduction In late March of this year, the law firm of Miguel De Grandy, P.A. and Sub -consultant Stephen Cody were engaged by the City of Miami to develop a new Single -Member District Plan for use in City Commission elections beginning in the 2013 election. The purpose of this report is to ad- vise you of the work that we are presently conductingand a suggested timeline and.process for future events. As part of this report, we are also,providing you with a basic legal primer to fa- miliarize you with the legal issues relevant to the Redistricting Process: The Need'to Redistrict The 2010 Census revealed that the City of Miami has a total population of399,457, an increase of 10.2% since 2000. The growth, however, has not been uniformacrossall five of, the City's:Com- mission districts: Dividing the City's;populationby five; produces an"ideal' population for each district of 79,891. Presently, -the district with the largest population, District 2,has 96,333 per- sons, and is,16,442 personsabove the ideal. District 5, on the other hand; only has 67,049 resi- dents,.which is.12,842 below the ideal population. Takentogether, that is 29,284 person variance represents a total deviation of 36.65% from the ideal. Redistricting Criteria The City Charter only requires thatthe five members of the CityCommissionbe elected from. single -member districts, but does not contain any other express redistricting criteria. Neither the Florida Constitution nor Florida Statutes contain explicit redistricting requirements that apply to municipalities. The traditional redistricting criteria considered bya body as it reapportions itself includes the use of natural or man-made geographic boundaries, contiguity, compactness, maintaining the. core of existing:districts'to,avoid voter disruption and confusion,, and maintaining communities of interest together, such as traditionalneighbo;hoods, business districts, and coastal or envi- ronmentally sensitive areas, among others. Process and'Timeline The Consultants have begun to gather demographic data and election information. They have met with CountyElections and Housing Department officials, together with City stafffrom the Planning Department and the Community Redevelopment Agency. They have also metwith Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission . each of the Comnussionersto brief them on issues that confront the City during this reappor- tionment cycle. There are a number of policy issues that need to be determined by the Commission, including which redistricting criteria will be emphasized, whether public meetings will be held before any draft plans are prepared, whether future growth patterns should be factored rnto the redistrict- ing, and whether a single draft plan or multiple plans should be prepared. Given the Commission's direction on these process matters, it is anticipated that the redistricting of the CityofMiami willbe completed by die end of November 2012. Miguel De Grandy, PA Rrdislrieling She Camn1ia51011 Process And Commission Direction - We have requestedthat the City -Manager's Office place an item on the City Commission's Agenda'during the month of June to allow -us an opportunity to make a presentation regarding legal issues relevant to the redistricting; process, current -population disparity, and to seek,policy guidance from the Commission on several issues. While individual neetings.with each Com- missioner.provided us with valuable input, as legal counsel we can only act as directed by the majority of Commissioners acting as a legislative body. At the June meeting, we will be seeking ,policy: direction from the Commission on a nuntberof issues. Redistricting. Standards The Courts have recognized and accepted many redistricting, standards, also referred to as "Tra- ditional Redistricting; Principles' , that are employedin crafting a redistricting, plan. Different jurisdictions utilize some or all of these standards,and may prohibit use of other standards that are otherwise' accepted by the courts. For example, recently the citizens of the State of Florida enacted amendments to the -Florida Constitution which prohibit the Florida Legislature from cre- ating a state legislative or congressional plan, to be drawn with the intent to favor ordisfavora political party or an incumbent These amendments also direct that districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging equal opportunity" ofracial or language minori- ties to participate in the political process. The amendments further require that districts shall consist of contiguous territory, be as nearly equal in population as is practicable,fthatdistricts shall be compact and shall — where feasible - utilize existing political and, geographical bounda- ries. (Art. 111§§ 20 & 21, Fla. Const.) County and municipal governments are not subject to these standards. In the "Legal Standards forRedistrictiiig" section set forth below, we pro vide addi- tionalinfonnation regarding redistricting standards for your' consideration. Direction Regarding Conducting Public Hearings Although citizens. participation, in the redistricting process is not constitutionally required, many jurisdictions have elected to use workshops -and public hearing opportunities in order to obtain `input from the electors of the jurisdiction. Workshops prior to crafting a proposed reapportion- ment plan may be useful to obtain citizen input regarding communities of interest and other relevant issues regarding why different areas of the City should remain together in one district. The Commission' should decide whether public hearings or workshops will be utilized in this redistricting process. During the last redistricting cycle, the City Commission directed legal Miguel De Grandy, PA . Redistricting Ihr.Commission counsel to conduct three.public hearings: one in the North; one in the Central area; and one in the Southern area of the city. Approximately 75 residents participated in these hearings. Utilization of Data to Forecast Growth During the last redistricting cycle, data from the Planning Department and other sources was utilized to forecast residential growth in the different areas of the City. This data impacted "deci- sions as to whether to overpopulate or underpopulate particular' districts in anticipation of dif- ferent rates of residential growth within each district. This approach is not constitutionally man- dated. AS will be discussed• further belowlocal jurisdictions do have some, discretion to deviate from the ideal population in each district for a rational purpose. However,` the, ability to deviate is limited. We anticipate that a plan that factors in potential residential growth in different areas of the City, will produce a larger overall deviation and require more movement of residentsvis-k- uis the current district lines than a;plan which does not factor in projected growth. Number of Draft Plans to Presentto the"Conunissiorti• Once all relevant data is analyzed and legal principles'are applied, there may be many different approaches to drafting a redistricting plan that are constitutional and compliant with the federal Voting Rights Act (discussed further below). In the case of the City of Miami, the main challenge will be to rebalance the populations of Districts 2 and 5. Of course, there are different method- ologies to accomplish this result. The Commission should decide whether to direct legal counsel to draft one plan for the Comfnission'sconsideration or provide two or more draft plans which may involve different approaches and methodologiestoaccomplish a rebalancing of. population. Normally, the more alternatives, presented, the more difficult it is to ultimately arrive at a final result. Therefore, your redistricting counsel -recommends that. the Commission consider direct- ing counsel to provide either one plan or;- at Most, two for the. Commission's consideration. Of course, whether one or two plans' are, presented for the Commission's consideration; it will al-: ways be within the providence of theCommission as the governing body to:direct its legal cbiin- sel to make any changes that it deems appropriate. In such circumstance, legal counsel will ad- vise the Commission asto any legal consequences resulting from such proposed change. To be clear, legalcounsel's role is not, to make policy, decisions, only to present a draft plan and inform the Commission on legal issues relevant to such plan or any proposed changes. In summary, below are the issues on which we.will be seeking policy direction from the Com- mission: Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission Whether the districts should be drawn within the deviations permitted by law or whether they should be drawn to approximate population equality Whether Districts 1, 3, and 4, whose population deviations are already within the legally acceptable ranges; should be left in their current configuration or whether their populations should also be rebalanced. Whether District 5 should be intentionally overpopulated and District 2 should be underpopulated within the deviations permitted by law to account for expected population changes over the next decade. Whether the proposed plan should attempt to preserve the core ofexisting :dis- tricts in order to minimize potential voter, confusion. Whether the proposed plan should use natural and man-made features, to the extent possible, as theboundaries of the districts. Whether the proposed, plan should attempt to keep communities of interest intact,to the extent that it is feasible., Whether a meeting or meetings should be held to gather input on the factors that the public feels are important before aproposed map is created. Whether a single: proposed map should be prepared and presented to the Commission, or whether there should' be multiple maps. Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission Current Work and On -Going Analysis Throughout the last two months, we have been meeting with City and County officials to obtain information relevant to our work. In that regard, we have met with the Miami -Dade County Elections Supervisor, Penelope Townsley, and her staff to address several issues, including re- quest for elections data in a format that will allow for review of relevant issues, including polar- ized voting patterns. We are also coordinating with Ms. Townsley's staff to ensure a smooth transition of election plans. Ms. Townsley informed us that the Elections Department will not conduct the process of re-precincting until 2013. Therefore, the need to minimize the precinct splits in the current precinct plan is no longer a primary goal. Nevertheless, we will continue to interface with her staff as we develop a plan or plans, so that the Elections Department can inte- grate the City's proposed plans into their re-precincting process. We have also met with the City of Miami Planning Director, Francisco Garcia, and his staff to ob- tain information regarding zoning applications, permits, MUSP's and other information which will facilitate forecasting residential growth in the different areas of the City in order to incorpo- rate this information into our analysis as we seek to balance the populations of each individual district. We have also met with Peiter Bockweg of the CRA, and Miami -Dade County's Housing Department Director Greg Fortner to obtain further information in that regard. We have completed initial meetings with each member of the City Commission. As you know, during these meetings, we provided preliminary information regarding the process and sought input from you regarding traditional neighborhoods in your district and other issues relevant to our analysis. Our firm and consultant Stephen Cody are continuing the process of data gathering and data analysis. This process will take several months to complete. At that time, we will have internal conclusions regarding polarized voting patterns in the community, demographics for each dis- trict and other information relevant to our work. Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission City of Miami 2010 The Population Snapshot The United States Constitution provides: "Representation and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers .... The actual Enumeration shall 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 Man- ner as they shall by Law direct." The "actual Enumeration" referenced in the Constitution was conducted on April 1, 2010, giving a "demographic snapshot" of the nation. The snapshot of the City of Miami revealed that the population of the City had grown by 36,982 or 10.2% over the past decade to 399,457. The demographic breakdown of the City's population is shown in the table below. DEMOGRAPHIC GROUT' i n 1'1 I White 72.6% Black / African American 19.2% American Indian / Alaska Native 0.3% Asian 1.0% Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander (Less than 0.1%) Two or More Races 2.7 Hispanics are counted in the Census as an ethnic group, rather than a race. In 2010, there were 279,620 Hispanics residing in the City of Miami, representing 70.0% of the City's population. By contrast, the non -Hispanic White population of the City was only 47,535, which was just 11.9% of the City's population and for the first Census, made up a smaller percentage of the population than the Black population. In addition, people who identified themselves as from the West Indies comprised 21.1% of the population of District 5, but only 4.99% in District 2, and less than 2% in the remaining districts. The bulk of the City's Haitian population was also concentrated in District 5, where they made up 17.46% of the population, but less than 3% in the other districts. Miguel De Grandy, PA Red,striettog the Commiseion 7 Population of Existing Districts The map included at the end of this section shows the boundaries of the present City Commis- sion districts. The face of the map also includes the population of those districts and the number of residents which either exceeds or is less than the ideal. The table below shows the population breakdown for each of the five districts. ICI>i. I POP. 2010 \t 11. \I ni c. nc\. -2.74% ftISP 88.43 ; BLACK 12.57 WIII i i 4.53 77,704 -2,187 2 %,333 16,442 2058% 5217 14.54 31.77 1 77,690 -2,201 -2.76% 90.5 5.25 721 4 80,681 790 0.99% 91.99 2.64 6.66 5 67,049 -12,842 -16.07% 23.79 7552 3.75 TOTAL 399,457 36.65% --- With a total deviation of 36.65%, the present districting plan is malapportioned and could not be sustained if a court challenge was brought before the next election cycle. The City's Census Challenge The City of Miami recently filed a challenge to the results of the 2010 Census with the Census Bureau, joining five other jurisdictions in Florida challenging parts of the official population count. It has been reported that city leaders and experts on the Census believe the actual number of Miami residents is much higher, blaming the low count on chronically under -reporting un- documented immigrants, and on a couple of new problems unique to Miami: the inability of Census takers to get past security guards at many of the new condo towers that line Brickell Avenue, downtown Miami and even Midtown Miami, and a flood of new families that arrived from Haiti after the January 2010 earthquake and who may have avoided the count out of fear of reprisals and deportation. We have not reviewed the City's challenge and offer no opinion of the chances of its ultimate success. We have attempted to obtain a copy of the challenge filed by the City with the Census Bureau. However, once a challenge is filed which includes address information, it becomes con- fidential under Title 13 of the United States Code and can only be released by the jurisdiction's submitting authority. (Under the current Census Bureau regulations, the "submitting authority" Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission for the City of Miami is Mayor Tomas Regalado.) Moreover, we have contacted the Census Bu- reau and were told that, given the size of the City's challenge, they could not estimate when their review would conclude. Nevertheless, the City may proceed with its redistricting while the appeal is pending. Even if the appeal ultimately has some success and census numbers are changed, it will not affect the validity of the redistricting plan. See, Dean v. Leake, 550 P. Supp.2d 594 (E.D.N.C. 2008). In Dean, Plaintiffs had filed an action alleging - among other things - that because the North Carolina census numbers had been revised after an appeal, the North Carolina General Assem- bly's had a duty to use the coned• census data in its Redistricting Plan, and failure to do so violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The court in Dean conducted an extensive analysis of federal precedents inducting Supreme Court cases and concluded that federal law does not impose a duty to use corrected census data for redistricting. Id. at 603. The court also reviewed rases which stand for the proposition that use of corrected census data may be permissible in limited circumstances. However, the court cited to several United States Supreme Court precedents which stand for the proposition that the legislative body has wide discretion in proceeding with the task of redistricting and that its use of official census data - even if thereafter corrected - is wholly appropriate. Id. 603-04. Most of the cases dealing with this issue presented a factual scenario in which census data cor- rections had already been made. As it regards the City, its appeal is still pending and these is no set time limitation for the Census Bureau's consideration of the City's challenge. Therefore, be- cause of the need to allow sufficient time for the County Department of Elections to re -precinct the City; the fact that the redistricting plan must be enacted before qualifying for the 2013 elec- tions, and because a delay in proceeding with redistricting may trigger a court challenge, your redistricting counsel recommends that the Commission continue with the process of redistrict- ing. Moreover, although the current timeline envisions final presentation of a redistricting plan for the Commission's consideration in December - well before the qualifying date for the 2013 elec- tions - the City must account for the possibility that any enacted plan may be challenged in court. Therefore, the proper and prudent course of action is to complete redistricting well ahead of the qualifying dates for the next election to allow sufficient time to resolve any challenge that may be lodged against the new plan. Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission Legal Standards for Redistricting The law governing redistricting combines a myriad of legal principles 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 comprehensive exposition of every aspect of the law in this area could easily occupy several volumes. In this report, we have tried to summarize the important principles of redistricting in one coherent and hopefully, easy to understand document This primer is meant to be a tool to provide the members of the Commission with a working knowledge of the most important terms and concepts they will need to effectively participate in enacting a new Single -Member District Plan. The rules of redistricting can be summarized with three basic principles: • Each Commission district must contain a roughly proportional number of residents within the deviation permitted under case law; • The City must not engage in racial gerrymandering; and • The new Commission districts must not dilute votes of minority communi- ties. Below we have divided the discussion of these issues into two sections. The first section dis- cusses the constitutional mandate to reapportion and the acceptable population deviations per- mitted under the law. The second section deals with the role of race in the redistricting process, including a discussion regarding the Federal Voting Rights Act and its interplay with regard to the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. I. Constitutional Mandate to Redistrict and Reapportion Engaging in redistricting legislative districts is required by the United States Constitution if the current districts are otherwise malapportioned. In regard to the current status of the City's dis- tricting plan, its overall deviation of approximately 36% (with the least populated district at 16% below the ideal population and the largest at 20% above) requires the City to engage in a redis- tricting process to rebalance the population among the different districts. Mlauel De Grandy. PA k: 1is0:, r.,4x 11t: : rt I Ff 1 Vd 'FP ua'fl a4 Ianyln uuwu.)ap' rP),Jumpay Z J?flS slouelj p olIae3 „ueJj •£ F. a P09 (RIIIM) opeillM't Jeuolsslwwoo pue hWgU i— ,:1 C. Q n• t A) Historical Perspective on Redistricting: United States Constitution The concepts of"reapportionment" and "redistricting" are distinct. Reapportionment refers to the processpf proportionally reassigning a given number of seats in the United States House of Representatives to apportlon districts among the different states based on an established for mula; or to reformulate a district plan after the number of districts either increases or decreases. Redistricting refers to the process of changing the boundaries of any given legislative district. This primer will focus on rethstrictmg However, it maybe beneficial to briefly provide a histori- cal perspective to give background and context to the Citys. upcoming process. The "Great Compromise" of our constitutional system; of government was our Founding Fathers' g Representatives creation of a,tii'cameral'�le rslature,"with�the House comprised of;a set number of members' proportionately distributed among the states according to their population: As a • result,. the United States Constitutionregiiires`a reapportionment of t1 a House cif Representa- tives to distribute each of the House of Representative's 435 seats between the states and: to equalize population between districts within each state: Specifically, Article I, Section 2, CL.3 of theUnited States Constitution states: "Representatives...shall be apportionedamong the states according to their respective numbers." .It further requires that: "[t)he-actualEnumera- tion...bemade within three years after: the first meeting of the Congress of. the United States and within every. subsequent term of ten years in such manner.as they, shall by law direct:=' Section 1i of the 14th Amendment further states that "Representatives shall be apportioned among 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 USCG§.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 the DepartmentofCoinmerce complete a popula- tion tabulation for each state and reportto the President ofthe;United States the results by De- cember 3lst of the census year. See 13 U.S.C.§'141(b). The. President must them report to Con- gress, using the information provided by the Secretary, the number of representatives to which eachstate.would'be entitled. Although' the Census was created as a vehicle to determine congressional apportionment, the datais utilized by virtually every state and local jurisdiction that engages in the process of redis- tricting. Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commissiox 12 By April 1st of the year following theCensus enumeration, the Secretary of Commerce provides a detailed population reportto the Governor and the Majority and Minority Leaders of each House of the state legislatures. These reports provide the basis for federal, state and local gov- ernment decennial redistricting plans. it contains census maps and electronic files breaking down population databy blocks, census tracts, voting districts, and the corporate limits of towns, cities and counties. The information also generally contains population totals by race, Hispanic origin and voting age. B) Court Imposed Requirement To Redistrict; Population•Differencee'Amongst Districts. As discussed above, the mandate to, reapportion congressional districts is derived•, from Article I, Section of the United States Constitution. However, the duty of state, local and municipal gov- ernments to redistrict arises from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. This distinction is significant because, as will be discussed below, different rules apply with respect to equalizing population of congressional and state'or local government districting plans. 1) The Obligationto Redistrict The City Commissionis obligated toredistrictbased on the judicially recognized principle com- monly referred to as "one person, one vote": Baker v. Carr, 369U.S.'186 (1962); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). These cases' address the practice in several states — as was the case in Baker and 'Reynolds— of maintaining districts for legislative offices that were substantially different in. population, such as an urban district containing 250,000 people electing one representative tothe state gouge of Representatives, and a rural Housedistrict in the same state containing only 75,000 people. The Supreme Court concluded that these wide variations among district popula- tions'resulted,in each vote in the district with the smaller population carrying more weight than a vote in the larger district. In Reynolds, the United States Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment required that seats in state legislatures be redistricted on a population basis. In its now famouswords„the. Supreme Court concluded: [T]he 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 a legislative apportionment controversies. ... The Equal Protection Clause demands no less than substantially equal state Miguel De Grandy;. PA Redistricting the COMM <cian 13 legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of, all races. We hold that, as a,basic constitutional'standard, the Equal ProtectionClause requires that the seats in both^Houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. (377 U.S. at 567-688.) The Court in Reynolds went on to conclude that decennial redistricting was a rational approach to re -adjust legislative representation to take into consideration population shifts and growth. Id at 584. The Court declared that any less frequent re -adjustment 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. localgovemment. having general governmental powers,of,the entire geographic area served by the body." 2) Population Deviation, During this redistricting process, you may hear; and read repeated references to'the concept of: "deviation". In order to determine the degree of deviation of adistrict one must first divide the total population of the jurisdiction_ by the number of districts.' The resulting number is known as the "ideal population". Any variance from the ideal population number is generally referred to as a'deviation For example, if a district has a plus 20% deviation, it means' that the population of the district is 20% greater: than the "ideal" population. Another way the deviation is discussed is by. comparing•the' lowest populated and highest popu- lated districtto obtain the "maximum deviation"; which may also be referred to as the "overall deviation". Forexample,in the, case of the City of Miami; the most populated district (District 2) is at a plus 20% deviation; and the most underpopulated district (District 5) is at a minus 16% deviation. Therefore, the overall,deviationof the current plan is 36%. As briefly discussed above, the requirement to reapportion Congressionaldistricts and redistrict state andelocal districts is derived from different sections of the Constitution: As such, there are different requirements regarding population deviation that flow directly from those different sec- tions of the constitution. In Wesberry v. Sander, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that "the com- mand of Art. I §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 the others." 376 U.S. at 7-8. Therefore, as a rule of thumb, the population deviation among the largest and smallest district in a Congressional Plan (the overall deviation) is usually plus or mi- Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission 14 nus a single voter.. The recently enacted Florida congressional reapportionment plan reached that level of population equality,, with 22 of the districts having an ideal population of 696,345, and five districts with one less resident each. - - For state legislative, and local government districts; the courts have permitted a greater popula- tion deviation among districts. As the Supreme Court observed'in Reynolds, all that is necessary when•drafting state legislative districts (or local government districts; see Avery) is achieving "substantial equality of population among the various districts". 377 US. at 579. The phrase "substantial equality of population" has come to' generally' mean that a legislative or,local`gov- ernment plan will not be held to violate the Equal, Protection clause if the, maximum deviation between the, smallest and largest district. is less than 10%. Chapman v..Meier 420U:S: 1 (1975); Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S: 407 (1977); Brown v. Thompson, 462 U.S. 835,842-43 (1983) ("Our decisions have established, as a general matter, that an apportionment plan. with, a maximum population deviation undera0% falls within this category of minor deviationsl"); Voinovich v. Quitter, 507 U.S..156 (1993). In at least two cases, Mahan'v;Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973) and Voinovicti,;the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state legislative redistricting plans with a deviation between the smallest and largest dis- tricts of more than -10%. In Mahan, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Virginia's:Houseof Delegates redistricting plan that had a deviation between the smallest and largest districts of:16%. The Su- preme Court determined that the General Assembly's desire to preserve political subdivision boundaries; justified; the, deviation among districts. In Voinovich, the Supreme Court reversed a decisionof the lower court Molding Ohio's state legislative planunconstitutional because the overall deviation of the OhioHouse of Representative's'was.13:81% and the overall deviation of the Ohio. Senate Plan was-10.54%.. ,The Court determinedthat preservation of the boundaries of political subdivisionsswas a "rational state, policy" that in the instant case justifiedan_overall de- viation in excess of 10%. These cases.were .decidedbased on factsunique, to the particular case. However, the most ac-. cepted and best practice is to develop a plan that stays within the "bright line" standards in the other leading cases (less than 10% overall deviation), andwhere.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 or a rational ba- sis and the deviation furthers an important governmental' objective such as preserving tradi- tional neighborhoods, preserving communities of interest and utilizing natural or man-made boundaries. that have historical or other significance. Miguel De Grandy, PA Rediatrieliug the Commission 15 In the City's•previous redistricting process, our firm developed a plan with less than10%"overall deviation, and the report accompanying the plan made note of the governmental objective and rational basis for deviations in each of the districts.,The plan was never challenged. The same methodology will be employed during this redistricting cycle II. Race, Language Minorities, and Reapportionment Federal and state case law almost universally=recognizes that "reapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility ofthe state through its, legislature or other body, rather than the (federal) court" Chapman v.: Meir, 420 U-S. 1, 27 (1975). Therefore, the courts arecareful to respect a state's or local government's redistricting decisions,unless those decisions violate. the Constitution' or the law. Voinovich, 507 U.S. at 146. Seealso Perry v. Perez; 565 U. S. _ (2012) . Generally, the courts haveantervenedinthe redistricting choices' of local governments for two reasons: (A) to cure violations of the Equal Protection: Clause of the l4th Amendment; or (B) To remedy viola- tions of the Federal Voting•Rights Act. 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 a. 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); John- son v. De Grandy; 512 U.S.1997 (1994); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (Shaw 1). Generally, in these cases, the Supreme Court held 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 re- view applied to allegedly unconstitutional state action. (Rationalbasis review, intermediate re- view and strict scrutiny review.) These three different levels of judicial review ae used by the courts to balance the'competing interest of the individual and the state often reflected in the case law, and is a recognition of the fact that the protections afforded by the Constitutionare not abso- lute. The courts will apply or a more stringent standard ol review depending on how close the alleged impairment of a constitutional right is to the core of the protections afforded by that right. For example, a law that prohibits anyone under 16 years of age from driving an automobile may create different rights for distinct classes of individuals, but it does not violate the Equal Protec- tion Clause because the law need only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest of pro - Miguel De,Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission 16 tecting the safety of motorists. Onthe other hand, a hypothetical law that benefits ordisadvan- tages a distinct group of individuals on, the basis of race or national origin must usually be nar- rowly 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. The Equal Protection, Clause, in and of itself, does not prohibit the creation of districts where the crafters were conscious of the_ race of the minority of voters inthe district. Vera, 517 U.S. at 972. - However, the Supreme Court has clearly held that theEqual Protection Clause does demand the application of strict scrutiny when race constitutes the principal reason or the predominant factor for.,the shapeof the particular district. On the other hand,the Federal Voting Rights Act (discussedinmore detail below); prohibits any practicewhich with social and historical conditions; impairsthe'ability of a pro- tected class to elect its candidate of choice on anequalbasis with other voters." See Voinovich,, 507 U.S. at 146; Grower Errfison, 507 U.S. Therefore, reconciling: these two competing legal principles, it can be said that a redistricting plan may be rare -conscious to the extent necessary to comply with the Federal Voting Rights Act, but not race -driven, (where race is the overriding or predominant factor in the creation of adis- trict).. A) Predominant Factor Test; Race -Neutral Justifications The Supreme Court has articulated various formulations of. "Predominant Factor" Test. Leg- islative 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 redistricting principles. Sham 1, 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, 514, U.S. at 916 The legislature subordinated traditional neutral redistricting principles ... to ra- cial considerations. Miller, 515 U.S. at 916. Miguel De Grandy. PA Redistricting the Commission 17 Thestate has relied on race in substantial disregard of customary and traditional redistricting 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 predominantly the result of non-racial factors, which factors also happen to have a strong correlationwith race. In that case, the district court, granted Summary Judgment, despite the fact that at the hearing the state presented evidence in the form of three affidavits delineating the states' contention' that factors other than race explained the shape of the district; namely .Po- liticalgerrymandering to create a strong' Democratic district These affidavits maintained that in drawing the district"theyattempted to protect incumbents, to adhere to traditional redistricting criteria, and to preserve the existing partisan balance in the States congressional delegation." Id. at 549, In addition, the State presented an expert's affidavit analyzing the actual voting patterns throughout the district and inthe'areas bordering the district The expert concluded thatrace had a direct correlation with voting patterns'and political identification. The Court held that Summary judgment was'inappropriate because the Legislature's Motivation. was a material fac- tual questionthat was in dispute at the District Court. In order toapply the strict scrutiny re- view„the Court required a finding that race was the "predominant'factor"motivating"the Legis- lature's districting scheme.. Id. at 551. The Court recognizedthat a state may "engage in consti- tutional 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 thatfact".Id. ,(emphasis in original) Because the legislative body's intent or motivation in adopting a given plan is oftenthe central issue in a redistricting judicial dispute, it is important that the;Commission-as the, governing ' body of the. City understand the; significance of these issues. This is why - priorto commencing the process of drafting the, plans - our firm will seek policy, directives from you as to which tradi- tional redistricting standards you wishto have utilized or emphasized in creation of the new single -member district plan. Our firm will be conscious 'of racial and language minority' issues so far as. is necessary to determine applicability and compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act, but willbe.guided by 'annoy directives provided by the Commission, utilizing those race, - neutral criteria as the main onsiderations in crafting the Plan. B) Compelling Interest and Narrow Tailoring The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated concrete standards to determine if the states or local governments redistricting plan survives strict scrutiny review. The Court has found a compel- ling state interest in either of two circumstances: (i) remedying past discrimination; or (ii) com- Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission la plying withthe'Federal Voting Rights Act. In order for a plan or district that is drawn predomi- nantly for racial considerations to survive, the jurisdiction must prove the following: (i)that the discrimination it seeks to remedy is specific and identthable and (ii) that it has a'"strong basisin evidence" to conclude that remedial action was necessary before it correctedthe problem in this way. Evenif the state or local government can prove that it has a compelling state interest in drawing' a planin this manner, courts -still require that the remedy (i.e. the majority: minority district) must be narrowly tailored. In that regard, the jurisdiction mustprove that it "employs sound.redis.: tricting principles and...the affected racial groups residential patterns afford the'opportunity of creating districts in which they will be in the majority." Shaw 1, 509 U.S.. at 657 (internal quota- tion marks omitted). C) Race Neutral/Traditional Redistricting Criteria. The courts have encouraged state and local governments to usetraditional redistricting princi- ples in designing, legislative, districts. However,° the, use of these traditional, redistricting princi- ples is not mandated by the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that a com- pact and "regular looking"'district is not a federal constitutional requirement. Gaffney v. Cum- mings, 412 U.S. 735, 7521118 (1973) (A district's "compactness or attractiveness has never been held to constitute an independent federal requirement.") InShaw;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 incum- bency protection and "to allocate seatsproportionally to major political .parties".,in Justice,Ken- nedy's concurring opinion in Vera, he stated."[djistricts not drawn for impermissible reasons or according to impermissible criteria may take any shape, even a bizarre one 517 U.S.at 999. Therefore, if the shape of the districtcan only be explained in terms of race, it is constitutionally suspect and subject; to strict scrutiny. However, if the shape of the, district can be explained by traditional redistricting principles or other race -neutral criteria, the courts are unlikely to,derlare the; district unconstitutional. As stated above, in our upcoming presentation before the Commission, counsel will solicit policy direction from the Commission in, the form of a Resolution as to what neutral or traditional redis- tricting principles, the Commission wants utilized in Crafting the draft redistricting plan for the Commission's consideration. Some of the factors that courts'have.generally identified as Tradi- tional Redistrictingprinciples include: Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the Commission 19 • The use of natural or man-made geographic boundaries, i.e. a river, a major expressway, major roads such as section lines, roads, or the boundaries of traditional neighborhoods; • Contiguity; • Compactness; • Maintaining the core of existing districts to avoid voter disruption and confu- sion;:and • Maintaining communities of interest together i.e., single-family. residential, high -density residential areas, traditional neighborhoods, business districts; coastal or environmentally sensitive areas, etc. During the City s last redistricting cycle,. the. Commission' identified -the following as initial policy considerations that were utilized when drafting the 2002-2003 Redistricting Plan: • That the_ draft,plan(s),preserve; where,possible,-the: integrityof historical and traditional neighborhoods; • That the draft plan(s) maintain -wherever possible -similar boundaries to ensurethat citizens can remain familiar with current.voting districts and pre- cinct locations; • That the draft plan(s) contain rational and -wherever possible - man-made andnatural boundaries„with the caveat that they should not emphasize boundaries that have had an'unfortunate connotation of segregation in the past (i.e. the railroad); • That the draft plan(s) attempt -wherever possible - to "nest" City Commission District 5 in County Commission District 3'for purposes of providing a more rational combination of services between the County and the City; and • That the draft plan(s) atternpt -wherever possible - to include whole precincts into a district. (Note that; as a result of the. Election Department's decision not to re -precinct until 2013, the following current precinct lines may not serve a useful purpose.) Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting the . Cammissian D) The Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 2 of the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 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, abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color." 42 USC §1973. In1982;.the VRA was amended to include language minorities. Moreover, in1982, reacting to the narrow interpretation of the VRA by the U.S. Supreme Court (requiring proof of discriniinatory intent), Congress also amended' the VRA to require only proof of a dis- criminatory result based on the totality. of the circumstances. The U:SPSupreme Court has recognized the manipulation of district lines during, a Redistricting process can be the basis for a claim that the voting strength of politically cohesive minority vot- ers has been diluted. 'Vote dilution may happen a result fragmenting the minority voters among several districts where the majority can routinely out -vote the minority voters, unneces- sarily packing the minority voters'into'one or a small number: of districts to minimize their influ- ence in the neighboring districts. See Voinovich, 507 U.S. at 146; Grorve, 507 U.S. at 25. Thus, Sec- tion 2 prohibits creation of district lines where the result, "interact[ing] with social and historical conditions, impairs the ability of a protected lass to elect its _candidate of choice on an equal ba- sis with 'other voters." In the case;of Thornburg,v. Gingles, 478 USS. 30 (1986), the,Court held,that three threshold condi- tions are required prior to establishing that a districting plan violates Section 2 of the VRA: • 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 its choice; • The minority population is apolitically coh8sive group; and • The majority population votes as block to defeat the minority group's pre- ferred candidate. If the plaintiff in a case brought under Section 2 establishes that the challenged district meets these three criteria, then the court willmoveon to examine the "totality of the circumstances" to determine if the practice in question results in the dilution of the electoral power of the minority population. If the 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. See Bartlettv. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 7 (2009). Miguel De Grandy, PA Redislrioliug the Commission 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 districting plan. The last redistricting cycle, legal counsel concluded that the Gingles factors were evident within the City. We will again compile:and review data of. previous elections and other factors to determine whether polarized voting is still evident within the City. Miguel De Grandy, PA Redismrieling the Commission Summary We hope that as you worked your way through this primer, many of your initial ques- tions about the reapportionment' and redistricting, process have been answered. Perhaps, this primer has also stimulated a number of other questions regardirig the process. We 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 basicredistricting and re- apportionment 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 can with- stand judicial scrutiny. During our upcoming presentation before the ComMission, we will provide more demo- graphic data for your consideration, and will be seeking; policy guidance, from, you:, that will become our "rules" for developing, the City'snew single member district plan. Your consultants have. a wealth of experience and substantive' knowledge in this field. How- ever, our role is to reflect the Commission's, policy objectives in the of a_ proposed redistricting plan, and to advise the. Commission of the legal consequences,: ifany, of.par- ticular changes or configurations of the plan. Therefore, -we will be looking to the Com- mission to provide, the policy directives that will guide' us in preparing and presenting a final'product for your consideration. Miguel De Grandy, PA Redistricting /he Cnmmissian TAB 2 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 45 Racially and Ethnically Polarized Voting in the City of Miami The Gingles Pre -Conditions Any effort at redistricting must be done with one eye towards defending a potential federal lawsuit brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. The Supreme Court held, in the Thornburg v. Gingles case, that the threshold issues that a plaintiff in a lawsuit must prove are: 1) whether the minority group is large enough and compact enough to form a majority in a single member district; 2) whether the minority group is politically cohesive; and 3) whether there is politically cohesive voting by persons who are not the members of the mi- nority group which usually defeat the minority group's preferred candidate. The maps in the attached report demonstrate that it is possible to draw a single -member district plan for the City of Miami that includes a district with a majority Black voting age population district. Thus, Prong One of the test announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gingles case has been satisfied. The questions to be addressed are whether Black voters in the City of Miami are politically co- hesive and whether non -Black voters vote as a bloc against the Black preferred candidates. Elections Analyzed In preparing the analysis to determine whether voting in the City of Miami can be characterized as "racially or ethnically polarized", the ballot returns for several elections conducted in Miami - Dade County from 2006 to 2012 were examined. Because the City of Miami conducts its City Commission elections on a district basis, those elec- tions were excluded from consideration because all voters were not given the same choices. Likewise, elections that took place in Congressional, Florida House and Senate, School Board, and County Commission elections were rejected for the same reason: not every voter in the City resides in the same Congressional, Legislative, School Board, and County Commission district. The last mayoral election in 2009 saw a turnout of only 22.42 percent. District 5, where 75 per- cent of the City's Black voters reside, had a Black voter turnout of only 12.9 percent. The per- centage of Black voters in the other four Commission districts was even lower. With such a rela- tively small percentage of Black voters turning out in the Mayoral election, that election was Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 46 also excluded from examination. In addition, political primaries were excluded because they also exclude some portions of the electorate (i.e., political independents and members of the op- position party). The elections chosen to determine the existence or non-existence of racially polarized voting were: 2012 Presidential Election 2012 United States Senate Election 2012 County Court Runoff Election, Group 24 2010 Florida Gubernatorial Election 2010 Florida Chief Financial Officer Election 2010 Florida Attorney General Election 2010 Florida Agriculture Commissioner Election 2010 United States Senate Election 2008 Presidential Election 2006 Florida Gubernatorial Election 2006 Florida Chief Financial Officer Election 2006 Florida Attorney General Election 2006 Florida Agriculture Commissioner Election 2006 United States Senate Election Methodology Political scientists normally employ two statistical methods to determine whether racially or ethnically polarized voting exists in a jurisdiction. The simplest method requires identifying voting precincts comprised of at least 90% or more of one particular racial or ethnic group and comparing what the vote in those precincts are compared to the vote in precincts that are com- posed of 90% or more of other racial or ethnic groups. For example, where the election results from a group of heavily Black registered voter precincts are compared to the election results of Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 47 heavily White registered voter precincts and it is apparent that both racial groups would have elected two different candidates, racially polarized voting exists. This homogeneous precinct methodology could not be used in analyzing elections conducted in the City of Miami. At present, there are no precincts which are 90 percent or greater in Black or Single Race White voter registration. At the time of the registration book closing for the No- vember 2012 election, the Miami precinct with the highest level of Black voter registration, Pre- cinct 513, was only 89.7 percent Black registered voters. Precinct 587 had 75.8 percent Single Race White registered voters. Only four of the City's precincts, 972, 992, 993, and 997 had greater than 90 percent Hispanic voter registration. There are no homogeneous Black or Single Race White precincts in Miami and the handful of Hispanic homogeneous precincts only con- tain about 4,000 of the City's more than 108,000 Hispanic voters. Therefore, this report relies upon the second widely accepted statistical method: bivariate re- gression analysis. This method examines the relationship between two variables, in this case, the percentage of vote for a particular candidate in each precinct and the percentage of voters who are members of a racial or ethnic group. Each precinct in the City is plotted on a Cartesian graph, with the percentage of voters who belong to a given racial or ethnic group plotted on the X, or horizontal axis. The percentage of the voters who voted for a particular candidate are plotted on the vertical, or Y axis. The result is an estimate of how many minorities and non - minorities voted for a particular candidate and a numerical value of how interrelated race or ethnicity and the support for a candidate actually is. The graphs also visually demonstrate the principles. In the attached analysis, a rising regres- sion line shows a positive relationship between race or ethnicity and the support for a candi- date. Conversely, a falling regression line indicates that as the percentage of the members of a racial or ethic group increased, the support for a candidate decreased. Each graph also contains an equation showing how the slope of the regression line was computed and an R2 value. The R2 value measures the strength of the relationship between the two variables. The closer the R2 value is to 1.0, the more perfect the correlation. Social scientists consider an R2 value above 0.3 to be statistically significant. For instance, in the 2012 Presidential election, the graph for Black voters clearly shows that as the percentage of Black voters increased, the support for President Obama increased and the R2 value was 0.7203. On the other hand, the regression line on the graph exploring Hispanic voter support shows a shallow downward sloping line and an R2 value of only 0.0899. Because of the Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 48 relatively small number of Single Race White and Other voters in the City, these two groups were merged for the purpose of the statistical analysis. This group's graph shows a line that is nearly flat and an R2 value of only 0.0112. Looking at all three graphs would lead to the conclu- sion that voting in the Presidential election in 2012 was not characterized by racially polarized voting. Each of the 14 electoral contests listed above were subjected to this analysis to determine whether, first, Black voters in Miami are politically cohesive and, second, whether non -Black voters usually vote against the Black voters' preferred candidates. Prong Two - Are Miami Black Voters Politically Cohesive? To the Supreme Court, only the members of a politically cohesive minority group have standing to assert that their voting rights have been violated. In the case of Black voters in the City of Mi- ami, the evidence indicates that they are politically cohesive and usually support the same can- didates. The R2 values for Black voters in each of the 14 electoral contests are shown in the table below, together with a statistical estimate of the Black vote for the candidate. 9 2012 President Obama 0.7203 100% 2012 Senate Nelson 0.6934 100% 2012 County Court Wallace 0.7712 75% 2010 Governor Sink 0.7257 100% 2010 Chief Fin. Off. Ausley 0.7772 100% 2010 Attorney Gen. Gelber 0.7339 100% 2010 Agri. Comm. Maddox 0.7766 100% 2010 Meek Senate 0.9489 100% 2008 President Obama 0.7455 100% 2006 Governor Davis 0.7396 100% 2006 Chief Fin. Off. Sink 0.6946 100% 2006 Attorney Gen. Campbell 0.7186 100% 9 It should also be noted that using the bivariate ecological regression model can yield estimates that exceed 100 per- cent. Where that has occurred, those estimates have been rounded down to 100 percent. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 49 Year Election Candidate R-Squared Black Vote % 2006 Agri. Comm. Copeland 0.7491 100`so 2006 Senate Nelson 0.6535 100% All of the R2 values were statistically significant and support the conclusion that Black voters in the City of Miami are politically cohesive. Prong Three - Do Non -Black Voters in the City of Miami Vote Differently Than Black Voters? The third prong of the Gingles test asks whether non -minority voters prefer different candidates than the minority voters. The examination of the 14 political races demonstrates that, for the most part, they do. The bivariate regression analysis for Single Race White and Other voters failed to demonstrate any statistically significant R2 values in the elections examined and all were, for all practical purposes, zero. The regression lines on the graphs included in this report were likewise unre- markable. However, the same cannot be said for the observed voting for Hispanics in these races. The R2 values for Hispanic voters in each of the 14 electoral contests are shown in the ta- ble below, together with an estimate of the Hispanic vote for the candidate. Year Election Candidate R-Squared Hisp. Vote % 2012 President Obama -0.0899 54% 2012 Senate Nelson -0.625 48% 2012 County Court Wallace -0.5099 38% 2010 Governor Sink -0.8962 25% 2010 Chief Fin. Off. Ausley -0.8251 19% 2010 Attorney Gen. Gelber -0.8845 22% 2010 Agri. Comm. Maddox -0.8533 19% 2010 Meek Senate -0.7156 0% 2008 President Obama -0.8452 30% 2006 Governor Davis -0.8998 18% Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 50 Year Election Candidate R-Squared Hisp. Vote % 2006 Chief Fin. Off. Sink -0.8937 24% 2006 Attorney Gen. Campbell -0.8891 24% 2006 Agri. Comm. Copeland -0.8761 22% 2006 Senate Nelson -0.9007 30% In 13 of the 14 races examined, the R2 values were above 0.3 and were, therefore, statistically significant.10 The graphs included with this report show that in each election as the percentage of Hispanic voters increased, the support for the identified Black preferred candidate decreased. The 2012 Presidential election is also the only race where a hypothetical precinct with 100 per- cent Hispanic voter registration would have given a majority of votes cast for the Black pre- ferred candidate. Conclusion Voting in a significant number (92.9%) of the races examined that took place across all of the City of Miami was racially polarized. The Voting Rights Act has clearly established the need for jurisdictions with legally significant racial bloc voting to create or maintain districts that provide minorities with the opportunity to elect a representative of their choice. In this case, the redistricting consultants have concluded that the presence of racially polarized voting requires the City of Miami to preserve a City Commission district with a Black voting age population majority. 10 The table above represents a negative correlation between the presence of Hispanic voters and the support for the Black preferred candidates. The greater the R2 value, the less support a candidate received by Hispanic voters. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 51 2012 Presidential Election Candidates: Barack Obama (D), Mitt Romney (R) 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Support for Obama Among Black Voters y = 0.5697x + 0.5647 R2 = 0.7203 0% 25% 50% 75% Support for Obama Among Hispanic Voters 100% 01)4) o4(4, o� 8 Oo O 75% 75% 50% 25% 0% • 9 .7_.,.Alb, • y =-0.2363x +00.7753 R2 = 0.0899 25% 50% . . . • a' 75% 100% . •�• • s• •X•jq ;w• • .`".a•• <. • Support for Obama Among SRW and Others = -0.1121x + 0.712 R2 = 0.0112 100% 0% Miguel De Grandy, P.A. 25% 50% 75% 100% Redistricting the Commission 52 2012 United States Senate Election Candidates: Bill Nelson (D), Connie Mack IV (R) 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0"41.1- • r Support for Nelson Among Black Voters tee 0 (•• •I.07(((• y = 0.5232x + 0.5845 R2 = 0.6934 0% 25% 50% 75% Support for Nelson Among Hispanic Voters y=-0.R49510 +09722 25% 50% 75% Support for Nelson Among SRW and Others = -0.0618x + 0.7103 R2 = 0.0039 100% 1 00% 0% Miguel De Grandy, P.A. 25% 50% 75% 100% Redistricting the Commission 53 2012 County Court Group 24 Runoff Election Candidates: Greer Wallace, Andrea Wolfson 100 75 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 Support for Wallace Among Black Voters • QJ y = 0.3506x + 39.779 R2 = 0.7712 25 50 75 Support for Wallace Among Hispanic Voters 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 O y =-0.2841x + 63.104 R2 = 0.5099 100 25 50 75 Support for Wallace Among SRW and Others y = -U.1 bUbX + 5U.94 R2 = 0.0651 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. 25 50 75 100 Redistricting the Commission 54 2010 Gubernatorial Election Candidates: Alex Sink (D), Rick Scott (R) Support for Sink Among Black Voters W •� O 1� �� • • 100 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 y = 0.6306x + 44.238 R2 = 0.7257 25 50 75 Support for Sink Among Hispanic Voters 100 25 50 75 Support for Sink Among SRW and Others * •u LP Do Moo -CI ■ •■■ ��■*■l'j r'• -I • ■ II ■■ •' I. ■� ■ ■ • - r• ■ • ■ ■ • y = 0.2254x + 53.916 R2 = 0.0276 100 0 25 50 75 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 55 2010 Chief Financial Officer Election Candidates: Loranne Ausley (D), Jeff Atwater (R) 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 Support for Ausley Among Black Voters 0 y = 0.7593x + 37.023 R2 = 0.7772 25 50 75 100 Support for Ausley Among Hispanic Voters *46 00 • y =-0.7801x + 97.09 R2 = 0.8251 •■ IIIE.; ■ 25 50 75 100 Support for Ausley Among SRW and Others 4Q mil 0 .� ° ID 1-100 043 ° Q � n no ■oel ■U. i ■Ir■'+, o a o y = 0.0732x + 52.37 R2 = 0.0025 0 0 25 50 75 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 56 2010 Attorney General Election Candidates: Dan Gelber (D), Pam Bondi (R) 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 Support for Gelber Among Black Voters y= 0.7077x + 41.2 R2 = 0.7339 25 50 75 100 Support for Gelber Among Hispanic Voters o y =-0.7747x + 99.811 R2 = 0.8845 25 50 75 100 Support for Gelber Among SRW and Others ■ J CP3� 0 ■ 0 Ma lau -4-15 y = 0.2064x + 52.408 R2 = 0.0216 0 0 25 50 75 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 57 2010 Agriculture Commissioner Election Candidates: Scott Maddox (D), Adam Putnam (R) 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 Support for Maddox Among Black Voters y = 0.7545x + 37.512 R2 = 0.7766 22.5 45 67.5 Support for Maddox Among Hispanic Voters • • . '• • •• ••• • • • • • • 0 y =-0.7886x + 97.936 R2 = 0.8533 • • 0 0 0 0 O • -•,, • 90 ••. • 25 50 75 100 Support for Maddox Among SRW and Others p y=0.1117x+51.887 R2 = 0.0059 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. 25 50 75 100 Redistricting the Commission 8 2010 United States Senate Election Candidates: Kendrick Meek (D), Marco Rubio (R), Charlie Crist (I) 100 75 50 — -� 25 Support for Meek Among Black Voters ••� 114•14111► 11.411 (•7 •ig•41 • !• y = 0.8867x + 14.992 R2=0.9489 0 0 25 50 75 100 100 75 50 25 0 0 25 50 75 100 ... Support for Meek Among Hispanic Voters 40) o o 0o • o$$4040.o "•• • y =-0.7678x + 77.226 R2 = 0.7156 0 0 0>.• ..•i`i .• 4 • 100 75 50 25 Support for Meek Among SRW and Others ill 1:6 &ID a L'a 0 0 0 y =-0.3305x + 42.235 R2 = 0.0457 0 0 0 25 50 75 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 59 2008 Presidential Election Candidates: Barack Obama (D), John McCain (R) 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 Support for Obama Among Black Voters O % O O y = 0.6853x + 47.008 R2 = 0.7455 25 50 75 Support for Obama Among Hispanic Voters y =-0.7276x + 102.52 R2=0.8452 100 25 50 75 Support for Obama Among SRW and Others 135 DD Eho CI ■!l" ' ❑ y = 0.1343x + 59.33 100 R2 = 0.0099 0 25 50 75 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 60 2006 Gubernatorial Election Candidates: Jim Davis (D), Charlie Crist (R) 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 Support for Davis Among Black Voters y = 0.7048x + 37.161 R2 = 0.7396 25 50 75 Support for Davis Among Hispanic Voters O. 4> y =-0.7751x + 95.729 R2 = 0.8998 100 ■ ■I J • 25 50 75 Support for Davis Among SRW and Others °o-lo- �� ochci _g6 y = 0.2162x + 48.083 R2 = 0.0241 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. 25 50 75 100 Redistricting the Commission 61 2010 Chief Financial Officer Election Candidates: Alex Sink (D), Tom Lee (R) 100 75 50 25 :IOW • •ir • • my Co • c• rt." � '• v Support for Sink Among Black Voters 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 O O �a 0• • y = 0.6763x + 43.247 R2 = 0.6946 25 50 75 100 Support for Sink Among Hispanic Voters .• • . • •. $ � OO Q> ' . • . 0 O . _ y =-0.7649x + 100.61 R2=0.8937 • • •• • .> ,. .•. , • 25 50 75 100 Support for Sink Among SRW and Others CFO y = 0.2688x + 52.353 R2=0.038 25 50 75 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 62 2006 Attorney General Election Candidates: Dan Gelber (D), Pam Bondi (R) 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 Support for Campbell Among Black Voters y = 0.6406x + 41.859 R2 = 0.7186 25 50 75 Support for Campbell Among Hispanic Voters O43> Y =-0.7105x + 95.422 R2 = 0.8891 100 25 50 75 Support for Campbell Among SRW and Others EIP E81_ 0 min 100 = 0.2139x + 51.396 R2 = 0.0277 25 50 75 100 ,ligue: Dr Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 63 2006 Agriculture Commissioner Election Candidates: Eric Copeland (D), Charles Bronson (R) 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 Support for Copeland Among Black Voters 0 '• 0 • 0 • 0 • •. • y = 0.6757x + 39.513 R2=0.7491 25 50 75 100 Support for Copeland Among Hispanic Voters 4t • . • ,. .... • • 75 . • •. $8• % •... 4• • : • 50 o 44> 25 y = -0.7286x + 94.861 R2 = 0.8761 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 Support for Copeland Among SRW and Others ■.■! • • ■�i..r 7i • .1.i.■ ■ o = 0.165x + 50.93 R2 = 0.0155 100 0 25 50 75 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 64 2006 United States Senate Election Candidates: Bill Nelson (D), Bill McCollum (R) 100 75 50 25 0 0 100 75 50 25 Support for Nelson Among Black Voters y = 0.5681x + 47.315 R2 = 0.6535 25 50 75 Support for Nelson Among Hispanic Voters • •♦• •• •. • • ♦ o .O ♦ • V = -0.665x + 96.747 Q 0 0 100 75 50 25 0 0 R2 = 0.9007 • • O O • -. ••••• 100 25 50 75 Support for Nelson Among SRW and Others y = 0.2912x + 53.5 R2 = 0.0594 100 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. 25 50 75 100 Redistricting the Commission 65 TAB 3 Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 66 SPEAKING POINTS Introduction: SLIDE 1— "REDISTRICTING THE CITY OF MIAMI" REDISTRICTING TILE CITY OF MIAMI Timeline. Pmts. and Lcpi Primer Mr. Chairman and members of the Commis- sion, for the record, my name is Miguel De Grandy and my address is 800 Douglas Road. My assistant, Sean De Grandy is passing out two documents. One is the report I sent to you last month. The other is a copy of today's PowerPoint presentation. MIGUEL DE GRANDY. ESQ MIGUEL DE GRANDY. ESQ, PABLO TAMAYO, ESQ,. Also with me today is my associate Pablo Tamayo, and Mr. Steve Cody who is also a consultant to the City and our Firm on this Redistricting. The report I sent you last month included a proposed Redistricting timeline and process, and a legal primer on Redistricting that informed you on the basic legal principles that must be em- ployed in this process. In today's presentation, we will briefly touch on the highlights of those legal principles and provide you with additional demographic data for your consideration. At the conclusion of our presentation, we will request policy direction and guidance from you as to the different Redistricting criteria or standards that you'd like us to consider and utilize in preparation of a draft plan for your consideration. We will also seek input from you regarding a couple of process issues.Of course, at the end of our presentation, we will be happy to answer any specific questions you may have. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 67 Outline of Legal Presentation SLIDE 2 - "REAPPORTIONMENT LAW" REAPPORTIONMENT LAW Having said that Commissioners, lets now proceed with a brief discussion on the key legal principles we need to employ in this Redistricting process. In the written submission we sent to you last month, we gave you a more detailed outline of the development of Reappor- tionment and Redistricting law, and the dif- ferences between Congressional Reappor- tionment, and Redistricting of state and lo- cal legislative bodies. Often times these rules may seem confusing and sometimes even contradictory. So rather than bore you and confuse you with another detailed dissertation on the law, I will limit my presentation today to the three basic principles that we emphasized in our written submission, which will guide our process of Redistricting in the City of Miami. These principles are as follows: SLIDE 3 - "THREE BASIC PRINCIPLES" 0 3 Basic Principles I. Each Commission District must achieve substantial equality of population within the deviation permitted under the (arse law. 2. The City must not engage in racial gerrymandering, and 3. New Commission Districts must not dilute the votes of minority communities. First, each Commission district must achieve substantially quality of population within the deviation permitted by law. Sec- ond, the City must not engage in racial Ger- rymandering, and; Third, the new Commission districts must not dilute the votes of minority communi- ties. Deviation from Ideal Population Now, let's start with the first principle.The Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 68 requirement to redistrict state and local governments is derived from the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.Federal Courts have basically held that the 14th Amendment re- quires that legislative districts in state and municipal governments must be apportioned on a population basis, and the law requires "substantial equality of population" among the various districts. SLIDE 4 — "IDEAL DISTRICT POPULATION". Ideal District Population 399,457 = 5 = 79,891 Population 2010 Number of Districts Ideal Population And so the analysis begins by taking the total population of the City, and dividing it by the number of districts, which would yield the ideal district population number. Any difference from the ideal population is referred to as a deviation. Federal case law has also established a "safe harbor" range of deviation. Generally, a state or municipal districting plan will not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution if the difference between the smallest and largest dis- trict in the jurisdiction is less than 10% and the deviations have a rational basis. This range between the largest and smallest populated district is referred to as the overall devia- tion. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 69 SLIDE 5 — "CURRENT CITY PLAN IS MALAPPORTIONED" Current City Plan Is Malapportioned zo District 2 District 5 -16`; Total Deviation 36% least among these two districts. In the City's current plan, we find that the overall deviation between the most popu- lated district — District 2 — and the most un- derpopulated — District 5 — is slightly over 36%. Therefore, the City's plan is considered to be "malapportioned" and cannot be utilized in further elections after the 2010 Census. And so the City is therefore constitutionally mandated to rebalance the population, at SLIDE 6 — "POPULATION DEVIATION BY DISTRICT" Population Deviation by District • Diu I • Diu 2 • Din 3 • Dht 4 • Dia However, the remaining three districts are within acceptable parameters. Districts 1 and 3 are approximately 3% under the ideal population and District 4 is ap- proximately 1% over the ideal population. From a constitutional perspective, there is no need to rebalance the populations of District 1,3&4. However, as we will discuss at the end of the presentation, whether you would like to rebal- ance the population of these three districts is a policy decision that you need to make. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 70 Census Challenge Now, the data that we are using to analyze these issues comes from the official Federal Census. Although the data is two years old, the use of official census data has been found to be univer- sally acceptable by the Federal Courts and therefore utilization of this data minimizes the prob- ability of legal challenges. SLIDE 7 - "CENSUS CHALLENGE". Census Challenge • The City has submitted a challenge to the results of the Census daiming an undercount due to: • A chmnic under -reporting of undocumented immigrants; • The inability of Census takers to get past security guards at many of the new condo towers; and • A flood of new families that arrived from Haiti after the January 12, 2010 earthquake. In that regard, let me take a moment to also briefly address the City's census challenge. The City — through a third -party non-profit organization — has submitted a challenge to the official census numbers for the City of Miami. Challenges to the official Federal Census results are rarely successful. Moreover, a census challenge may take sev- eral years to be adjudicated. In the mean- time, the City's plan is currently malappor- tioned and the City needs to Redistrict in advance of next year's election. Federal courts have held that a plan which utilizes official cen- sus numbers will not be held to be invalid even if those numbers are subsequently revised as a result of a successful census challenge. SLIDE 8 - "CENSUS CHALLENGE" . Census Challenge • The Census challenge does not affect the validity of redistricting done while awaiting the results of the challenge • A favorable outcome by the Bureau of the Census will not require the City to redistrict with the new numbers • &mrcc: Ann r. LertAr..550 F. Supp.2d 594 (E.D.\.G 2008) Therefore, because of the need to allow suf- ficient time for the County Department of Elections to Re -precinct the City; the fact that the Redistricting Plan must be enacted before qualifying for the 2013 Elections, and because a delay in proceeding with Redis- tricting might trigger a court challenge, we have strongly recommended that we pro- ceed with the Redistricting now, so that we Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 71 may have a plan for your consideration and approval before the end of the year. Race and Reapportionment Let's now talk a little bit about the second and third principles that I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation. The Constitution prohibits a jurisdiction from engaging in racial gerrymandering, yet the Voting Rights Act prohibits dilution of a majority community's voting strength. These two principles are sometimes in tension with each other. Let's address them one at a time. First, let's talk about the Constitutional mandate prohibiting racial Gerrymandering. SLIDE 9 - "RACE DRIVEN V. RACE CONSCIOUS" . Race Driven v. Race Conscious • The Supreme Court and other lower courts have distinguished between a plan that is -race -driven" and a plan that is "race - conscious" • A "race -driven" plan is one that uses race or ethnicity as its sole or overriding criteria • Often resulting in districts that have bizarre boundaries • A "race -conscious" plan considers race, along with other factors This principle fully evolved in the 1990 Re- districting Cycle through several Supreme Court opinions. The most notable one be- ing Shaw v. Reno. Generally, the Supreme Court has held that when race is the pre- dominant factor in the creation of a district, it will be subject to the most stringent legal standard of strict scrutiny, and in most cir- cumstances would violate the Equal Protec- tion Clause of the 14th Amendment. Basically, the court looks at the intent of the legislative body and whether considerations of race or ethnic background played an overriding role over customary and traditional Redistricting principles. Therefore, while a jurisdiction can be conscious of race or ethnicity as one of several factors in consideration, race or ethnicity can- not be the driving consideration in creation of the plan. This is why policy direction on the use of accepted or traditional Redistricting principles becomes important; in order to insulate your plan against a legal challenge. We will be discussing those traditional or accepted Redistricting principles in more detail at the end of our presentation when we discuss standards and policy guidance. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 72 Voting Rights Act SLIDE 10 - "SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT" Section 2 of The Voting Rights Act • Pmhihits any state or political subdivision from imposinga "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure...in a manner which results in the denial or abridgment of die right to vote on account of race or color." • The 1982 amendment • Added protection for language minorities. • Results or Effect vs. Intent Whereas race or ethnicity as the overriding criteria is unacceptable, being conscious of racial or ethnic demographics for the pur- pose of complying with the Voting Rights Act is not only appropriate; it is mandated by law.Originally, the Voting Rights Act only protected racial minorities. The 1982 Amendment added protection for language minorities and changed the analy- sis from one of intent to discriminate, to that resulting in a discriminatory effect. There- fore, even if a jurisdiction acts in good -faith with no discriminatory intent, a plan may violate the Voting Rights Act if it has the effect of diminishing a minority community's equal opportu- nity to participate in the political process. SLIDE 11 - "THORNBURG V. GINGLES" Thornburg v. Gingles • In 1986, the Supreme Court decided that to make a case under the "effects standard" of Section 2, a plaintiff must first prove: • That the minority group is large enough and compact enough to form a majority in asingle member district • That the minority group is politically cohesive • That the majority group usually votes as a bloc to defeat the minority chosen candidate. • 478U.S.301I986) didate. In order to determine applicability of the Voting Rights Act in a specific community, the Supreme Court set forth a three -prong test in the case of Thornburg v. Gingles. First, the minority group in question must be large enough and compact enough to form a majority in a single -member district. Second, that minority group must be politi- cally cohesive, which means that the major- ity of its members have political issues in common and often vote for a preferred can - Third, there must be evidence that the majority group votes as a block in a manner which usu- ally results in defeating the minority community's candidate of choice. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 73 Determining whether the three -prongs of the Gingle's case are met involve several types of sta- tistical analysis. Once the first prong is established, different data is analyzed to determine whether polarized voting exists in that community. In the current Redistricting cycle, the Flor- ida Legislature conducted the analysis in different areas of the state and concluded that polar- ized voting still exists in South Florida. Recently, Miami -Dade County Redistricted its single -member district Commission plan.As part of that process, the County Commission also employed expert consultants who conducted analyses which concluded that polarized voting still exists on a countywide basis. Our preliminary analysis also indicates that polarized voting is evident within the City of Mi- ami, Throughout the next several months we will be conducting more in-depth analyses in that regard, and will document our findings in our final report, when we present a draft plan for your consideration. At this point, let me turn the presentation over to my associate Pablo Tamayo who will walk you through some relevant demographic data regarding the City of Miami's population. I will come back after his presentation to engage with you in a discussion on Redistricting stan- dards and policy directives that we will need from you in order to craft your plan. With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Tamayo. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 74 TAMAYO SECTION Demographic Presentation — Pablo Tamayo SLIDE 12 - "POPULATION DATA" CITY OF MIAMI 2010 POPULATION DATA SLIDE 13 - "RATE OF GROWTH 2000 TO 2010" Rate of Growth - 2000 to 2010 20% IS% 10% 5% 0% ■ Ory of Miami • Miami -Dade Cowry F State of Florldv Thank you, Miguel. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, as Mr. De Grandy explained, I will be walking you through some general demographic statis- tics of the City and then we will review some demographic data specific to each dis- trict. Ok so with that let's look at some general citywide demographic information. Census data indicates that the City of Mi- ami grew at a smaller rate than the popula- tion of the State of Florida from the 2000 to 2010 census. However, the City's rate of growth was comparable to that of Miami -Dade County as a whole. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 75 SLIDE 14 - "CITY OF MIAMI POPULATION" F---- Cite of Miami Population 400.000 375.000 350.000 305.000 • 1900 • 1990 ■ 2000 • 2010 SLIDE 15 - "DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN" Demographic Breakdown 0 0 II, (:r,,nl W hits 72.6% Black / African American 19.2% American Indian / Alaska Native 0.3% Asian 1.0% Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander (Less than 0.1%) Two or Marc Races 2.7 The next slide shows the growth of the City of Miami Population in the last four census cycles. The City's population grew approximately 3.5% from 1980 to 1990. From 1990 to 2000, the population grew slightly over 1%. Fi- nally, from 2000 to 2010, the population grew slightly more than 10%. Commissioners, the Census allows indi- viduals to self -identify by both race and ethnicity. According to the census, approximately 72.6% of the City's population self - identified as "white", with about 19.2% self - identified as "Black or African -American". The remaining population identified them- selves as members of other races including American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, Pacific Islander or as a member of two or more races. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 76 SLIDE 16 - "ETHNICITY BREAKDOWN" Ethnicity Breakdown • Hispanic • Black • White SLIDE 17 - "ETHNIC TRENDS" Ethnic Trends - City ofMiami s0% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 70'- .�' 1s"o 12% . 12% 2000 2010 • Ilisponk ■ Stack IN White 70% of the City's population self -identified as "Hispanic", 18% as "Black", and 12% as "White". A comparison with the last decade's census numbers indicates that the Hispanic popula- tion has grown by approximately 4 percent- age points, while the Black population has decreased by the same percentage. The White population has remained constant at approximately 12%. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 77 SLIDE 18 - "AGE DISTRIBUTION" 60% 48% 36% 24% 12% Age Distribution City of Miem Mime -Dade County State of Florida • Parson. under 5 • Panora radar IS It Penn 19.64 • Parson char 65 In terms of age distribution, census data in- dicates that approximately 16% of the City's population is above the age of 65, which is a slightly smaller percentage than that popu- lation of the entire state, but yet still above the senior citizen percentage in Miami -Dade County. The data also indicates a somewhat smaller school age population in the City when compared to Miami -Dade County or the State of Florida as a whole. SLIDE 19 - "CITY OF MIAMI AGE DISTRIBUTION" City of Miami Age Distribution 0 0 • Under 18 • 18 to 64 ■ 65 When looking at the breakdown of popula- tion among the different ethnic or racial communities, we find that over one quarter of the residents that self -identified as Black or African -American are under the age of 18; A significantly larger percentage than in the Hispanic or Non -Hispanic White Com- munity. Three-quarters of the Non -Hispanic White community are in the 18 to 64 age group. The Hispanic Community has the largest percentage of senior citizens of the three demographic groups at 18.2%. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 78 SLIDE 20 - "VOTING AGE V. REGISTERED VOTERS" Voting Age v. Registered Voters 400.000 300.000 200.000 100.000 0 ■ wwa. • RerstereelVocer SLIDE 21 - "REGISTERED VOTERS BY PARTY" Registered Voters by Party 0 80.000 60.000 40.000 20.000 0 78.119 ■ Democrat • Republican le No Pany uMt • other In the next slide, we see a huge disparity between voting age population and regis- tered voter population. This disparity is usually evident in commu- nities with a large immigrant or non -citizen population. In terms of partisan breakdown, we find that of those registered to vote in the City, a little over 78,000 are registered democrats, almost 51,000 are registered Republicans, almost 42,000 have no party affiliation and about 2,500 are registered in minor parties. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 79 SLIDE 22 - "DISTRICTS" — CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION DISTRICTS SLIDE 23 - "DISTRICT 1" District 1 3% Below IdealPopalation 0 0 CITY0FATIAIN Iwo aid xi — As Mr. De Grandy discussed at the begin- ning of the presentation, as a result of the City's malapportionment, there is a wide disparity in population numbers in the five districts, particularly District 2 and District 5. In this section of the presentation, we will look at some district specific statistics. Ok so let's begin with District 1— as you can see here it is approximately 3% below the ideal population. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 80 SLIDE 24 - "DISTRICT 1 DEMOGRAPHY" District 1 Demography 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% ■Hispanic ■ead, ■ram. Now taking a look at the demographics in District 1 we see that approximately 88% of the total population of District 1 self - identified as Hispanic; around twelve and a half self -identified as Black and 4.5% as White. Now, you may note that the numbers in some of these slides do not add up to a total of 100%. That is because we have not in- cluded the smaller percentages of individuals that self -identified as members of other races or ethnic groups that I previously mentioned, or those that noted two or more races. SLIDE 25 - "VOTER REGISTRATION BY ETHNICITY" Voter Registration by Ethnicity 75% SO% 25% 0% 80. I ■ Hispanic foirrOgrofer ■ Black _ WAIu Looking now at registered voters, we find similar numbers with slightly over 80% com- prised of Hispanics, 6.1% White, and 8.5% Black. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 81 SLIDE 26 - "PARTY REGISTRATION" 30.000 15,000 7.500 Party Registration 28.905 10,755 10,219 7,573 • Tad • Danavaa ■ aapbliom • No PartyMt District 1 has the second lowest number of registered voters of all five districts. In terms of partisan registration, we find that of the roughly 29,000 individuals regis- tered to vote in District 1, there is an almost even split between Democrats and Republi- cans, with 7,573 citizens with no party af- filiation. Now, of course, the City's elections are non- partisan. However, these statistics are rele- vant to us in the Redistricting process as they may indicate political cohesiveness or lack thereof among or within the different minority groups. As part of our analysis on polarized voting, we also will analyze several elections during the last decade which will also indicate political cohesiveness and block voting patterns among the different minority groups. For purposes of illustration in our presentation today, we will be looking at just the 2010 Guber- natorial Election, and the 2008 Presidential Election, so that you can see some of the marked dif- ferences in voting patterns among the citizens of the different districts. This data helps to illustrate the correlation between race or ethnicity and the preferred candi- date of the two predominant minority communities in the City. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 82 SLIDE 27 - "2010 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION" 2010 Gubernatorial Election 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% II Sink .D • Sem-R SLIDE 28 - "2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION" 2008 Presidential Election 100% 80% 60% 0% 010 20% OX • Obama • D • McCain - R Even though the partisan numbers between Republicans and Democrats are virtually the same in District 1, 55.4% of the citizens of District 1 voted for Governor Scott, while 42.5% voted for candidate Sink. And yet, two years prior, in the 2008 Presi- dential Election, President Obama won the district by just one -tenth of one percent, which mirrored the registration numbers between Republicans and Democrats. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 83 SLIDE 29 - "DISTRICT 2" District 2 20%Above Ideal Population SLIDE 30 - "DISTRICT 2 DEMOGRAPHY" District 2 Demography 100% 75% ■Hispanic ■lads ■.. Looking now at District 2, we see that it is the most malapportioned district with a population approximately 20% over the ideal population numbers. District 2 is also the most ethnically diverse district in the City, with approximately 52% of its residents self -identified as Hispanic, 15% as Black, and almost 32% self -identified as White. Not seen in this chart but worthy of note is that the Hispanic population of District 2 grew by several percentage points in the last ten years with proportional decreases in the other two groups. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 84 SLIDE 31 - "VOTER REGISTRATION BY ETHNICITY" We see a marked change in these numbers when we look at percentage of registered Voter Registration by Ethnicity voters in District 2. Hispanic residents actu- 00% ally decrease from 52% to 40% while Whites 75% increase from 32% to 40%. Blacks remains the Sox same at 13% of all registered voters in the 40 40 15% district. 13 00 IN ■ black ■ White SLIDE 32 - "PARTY REGISTRATION" 50.000 37500 25,000 12.500 Party Registration • Total P Dcnn«rats Republicans • No Pam Mil. Commissioners, these numbers tend to indi- cate that the district may have a large num- ber of non -citizen Hispanic residents. District 2 has the highest number of regis- tered voters of all the districts. In District 2 we find that of the 46,000 regis- tered voters, Democrats outnumber Republi- cans by an almost 2 to 1 margin. District 2 is also the district with the highest percentage of voters with no party affiliation. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 85 SLIDE 33 - "2010 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION" r2010 Gubernatorial Election 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ■ 5mk.D ■ Seo¢.0. 2008 Presidential Election 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% OX ■ Obama . D ■ McCain . % Looking now at the 2010 Gubernatorial Election, we find that candidate Sink won overwhelmingly in the district with 66.3%, to Governor Scott's 31.9%. SLIDE 34 - "2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELEC- TION" We also find virtually the same percentage numbers in the 2008 Presidential election with President Obama winning the District with 67.9% to Senator McCain's 31.4%. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 86 SLIDE 35 - "DISTRICT 3" District 3 3% Bean Ideal Populi[ion SLIDE 36- "DISTRICT 3 DEMOGRAPHY" District 3 Demography 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Ilimirre w7it.F- • Hispanic • Black - Wilde Moving to District 3 we see that much like District 1 it is approximately 3% below the ideal population according to the 2010 Cen- sus numbers. Slightly over 90% of the residents of District 3 self -identify as Hispanic; 5.3% as Black, and 7.2% as White. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 87 SLIDE 37 - "VOTER REGISTRATION BY ETHNICITY" Slightly over 80% of the registered voters in the district are Hispanic, 6.1% White and Voter Registration by Ethnicity 0 0 8.5% Black. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% • Hispanic ■ Black ■ Whit. SLIDE 38 - "PARTY REGISTRATION" 30.000 22.500 15.000 7.500 a Party Registration IN Tie ■ Dememu • Republican • No Party AR_ District 3 has the lowest number of regis- tered voters of all five districts. Of the total number of registered voters in District 3, almost 10,000 are registered as Republican; and almost 8,500 are registered Democrats. There are more than 7,300 vot- ers with no party affiliation. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 88 SLIDE 39 - "2010 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION" 2010 Gubernatorial Election 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 11111 0% • Smk.D • Seoa -R SLIDE 40 - "2008 Presidential Election" 2008 Presidential Election 100% • Obama -D • t<Cain -R Looking at the 2010 Gubernatorial Election, we see that Governor Scott won the district with close to 58% of the vote. In the 2008 Presidential Election, Senator McCain won in District 3 with approxi- mately 54% of the vote to President Obama's 45% of the vote. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 89 SLIDE 41 - "DISTRICT 4" District 4 1% Above Ideal Popula (ion SLIDE 42 - "DISTRICT 4 DEMOGRAPHY" District 4 Demography 100 75 50 25 0 • Hlspank • Black ■ VVMm District 4 in the current plan is the district with the least deviation, at roughly 1% above the ideal population, based on the 2010 Census numbers. It is also the most Hispanic district with 92% of residents self -identifying as Hispanics, 6.7% self -identified as White, and approxi- mately two and a half percent as Black. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 90 SLIDE 43 - "VOTER REGISTRATION BY ETHNICITY" Voter Registration by Ethnicity 100% 7S% so% 2s% ,,rr•. 0% ■ Hispanic • !lack ■ %Mau SLIDE 44 - "PARTY REGISTRATION" Party Registration 40,000 30,000 20.000 10,000 r=«r111111111111111rs ■ Tod • D.m n • Rapublicaas • No Arty MY. Over 83% of registered voters in District 4 are Hispanic, slightly over 11% are White, and less than 1% are Black. District 4 is the third highest district in voter registration, just slightly below District 5. Registered Republicans outnumber regis- tered Democrats in District 4 by an almost 2 to 1 margin, with slightly over 9,000 citizens with no party affiliation. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 91 SLIDE 45- "2010 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION" 2010 Gubernatorial Election 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% In IN o% • s -o IN kart •a SLIDE 46 - "2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION" T2008 Presidential Election 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 649 ■ owm,.D ■ McCGm.0. Looking at the 2010 Gubernatorial Election, we see that Governor Scott won the district with almost 65% of the vote. Similarly, in the 2008 Presidential Election, Senator McCain won the district by almost 65% of the vote. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 92 SLIDE 47 - "DISTRICT 5" District 5 16%Below Ideal Population SLIDE 48 - "DISTRICT 5 DEMOGRAPHY" District 5 Demography 100% 7S% 25% 0% ■ Hnynk Black W WMre And now last but certainly not least we turn to District 5 — which is the second most malapportioned district in the current plan with a population approximately 16% be- low the ideal district population, according to the 2010 Census numbers. Almost 76% of the residents of District 5 self - identified as Black, with close to 24% self - identified as Hispanic and 3.7% as White. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 93 SLIDE 49- "VOTER REGISTRATION BY ETHNICITY" Voter Registration by Ethnicity 100X 75X 50% 25% 0% ® 1111.—"lr • ■ Back r Whit. SLIDE 50 - "PARTY REGISTRATION" 40.000 30.000 30.000 10.000 0 Party Registration • Tow ■ Mama= ■ mere. ■ No Party Ar,. In terms of voter registration we find a sig- nificant drop in the Hispanic percentage number in comparison to the total Hispanic population indicating a high percent of non - citizen Hispanics. Over 73% of registered voters self -identified as Black, and 4.7% as White. District 5 is the second highest in registered voters, with just 18 voters more than in Dis- trict 4. And you can see that registered Democrats are the overwhelming majority in District 5, with only 2,241 registered Republicans in the District, who are outnumbered more than 2 to 1 by voters with no party affiliation. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 94 SLIDE 51- "2010 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION" 2010 Gubernatorial Election 80011.1110.1 • Sink •D ■ S:o¢-0. SLIDE 52 - "2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION" 2008 Presidential Election Again, looking now at the 2010 Gubernato- rial Election, we find that candidate Sink overwhelmingly won the District with over 91% of the vote. Likewise, in 2008, President Obama won the District with 94.5% of the vote. END: Commissioners, that concludes my portion of the presentation. Thank you for your time. And with that, I will turn it back to Mr. De Grandy for the final portion of our presentation. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 95 Standards and Policy Directives SLIDE 53- "STANDARDS AND POLICY DIRECTIVES" Thank you, Pablo. STANDARDS & POLICY DIRECTIVES As you can see from just two sample elec- tions we have reviewed, there are marked differences among the two different minor- ity groups in the City with respect to their party registration, voting patterns and pre- ferred candidates, indicating that there is significant polarized voting in the City. During this final portion of the presenta- tion, I would like to respectfully engage you in a discussion regarding "Standards and Policy Directives" to be utilized in creation of your plan. The issues on which we need input are found on Page 5 of the written report we submitted to you at the end of last month. SLIDE 54 - "DEVIATION" Deviations • Whetter the districts should he drawn within the deviations permiued by law or whether they should he drawn to approximate population equality • Whether District 5 should be overpopulated and District 2 should be underpopulated to account for expected population changes over the next decade. • Whether Districts I, 3, and 4 should be left in their current configuration or whether their populations should also be rebalanced. For purposes of discussion, I have grouped them into three categories based on their relationship to each other. The first grouping of issues deal with the potential deviation from the ideal popula- tion in your new plan. The first issue in that regard is whether the districts should be drawn within the devia- tions permitted by law, which means within an overall deviation of no more than 10%, or whether they should be drawn to approximate population equality. In other words, within plus or minus 1% of the ideal population. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 96 The direction you may provide on this issue is dependent on the policy guidance you give us on the next two points. The second point is whether we should intentionally overpopulate District 5 and underpopulate District 2 to account for expected population changes over the next decade. This is what we did in the 2000 Cycle. Basically, we had gathered data from your Planning Department and other sources which indi- cated near and mid-term significant population growth in District 2 and little, if any, population growth in District 5. Therefore, when we did your 2000 Plan, we intentionally underpopulated District 2 and over- populated District 5 in the hope that over the course of the decade, the plan would maintain a relative balance. Of course, we could not have foreseen in 2002 that there would be a building boom as signifi- cant as that which existed until approximately 2007 or 2008. And even if we could have, we were constrained by law to stay within the 10% overall devia- tion range. Therefore, despite our best efforts in that regard, as you now know, District 2 is now signifi- cantly overpopulated and District 5 is significantly underpopulated. Based on the preliminary data that we are now looking at, it's my personal opinion that even if we try to account for expected population growth in District 2 over the next decade, it is likely that this district's population will continue to grow significantly and be malapportioned again by 2020. The third issue relative to deviation is whether Districts 1, 3 and 4 should be left in their current configuration or whether their populations should also be rebalanced. As I discussed at the beginning of our presentation, these three districts are within acceptable parameters and therefore - from a legal perspective - there is no mandate to change their con- figuration as long as District 2 and District 5 are re -balanced. Therefore, whether we modify Districts 1, 3 and 4 is a policy issue for you to decide. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 97 SLIDE 55 - "TRADITIONAL REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES" Traditional Redistricting Principles • Whether the pmposed plan should attempt to preserve the core of existing districts in order to minimize potential voter confusion. • Whether the proposed plan should use natural and man-made features, to the extent possible, as the boundaries of the districts. • Whether the proposed plan should attempt to keep communities of interest intact, to the extent that it is feasihle. Your Charter does not contain any stan- dards to be employed in crafting a Single - Member District Plan. Most jurisdictions don't. Recently, the State of Florida enacted Redis- tricting Standards for use in Congressional and State Legislative Districts, but these standards do not apply to County or Mu- nicipal Redistricting Plans. Therefore, we seek policy guidance from you as to traditional Redistricting principles that you would like us to employ or emphasize in creation of your plan. The principles that were adopted by the City Commission in 2002 and that we utilized for the current Redistricting plan are listed on Page 20 of the written report that we provided you with. Some of those — like the directive to include whole precincts in a district, wherever possible — are not really relevant during this cycle, because the Department of Elections does not plan to re -precinct until 2013, and we plan to present a final product to you before the end of this year. Of the principles that were used in the last cycle, we would recommend that at a minimum, you direct that we attempt to preserve the core of existing districts in order to minimize potential voter confusion. This criterion is of significant concern in an area like the City of Miami, which has a large eld- erly or non-English speaking population. Next is whether the proposed plan should use natural and man-made features to the extent possible as the boundaries of the districts. This also helps to minimize voter confusion and pro- vide clear delineation between the different districts. Finally, we need your direction on whether the proposed plan should attempt to keep commu- nities of interest or traditional neighborhoods intact to the extent that it is feasible. There are different parameters that we can use in that regard, depending on your direction. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 98 SLIDE 56 - "MIAMI NET NEIGHBORHOODS" Miami NET Neighborhoods p ,E, Colo. SLIDE 57 - "TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS" For example, if you so direct, we could be guided by your Miami Net Neighborhood parameters that might provide better serv- ice coordination if they are - to the best ex- tent possible - kept whole within one dis- trict. We could also use the traditional neighbor- hoods within the City of Miami, if you di- rect us to do so. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 99 SLIDE 58 - "PROCESS" Process • Whether a meeting or meetings should he held to gather input on the factors that the public feels are important before a proposed map is created. • Whether a single proposed map should he prepared and presented to the Commission, or whether there should be multiple maps. Finally, the third group of issues upon which we need policy guidance are process issues. These include whether you would like us to hold public meetings to gather citizen input, and if so, how many meetings and at what location. In the last Redistricting cycle, the Commis- sion directed that we hold three public hear- ings in the North, Central Area, and South portions of the City. A total of 75 residents participated in providing input. Because the City is not that geographically disbursed, we would recommend that if you choose to have public hearings, that we conduct them here at City Hall. First, this venue will be more convenient for your staff, including the Clerk's Office that needs to staff the meeting and take minutes. Also, you have the ability in this Chamber to broadcast those meetings and reach a wider group of citizens that can be informed and engaged in the process. Last, we need direction from you as to whether at the end of this process, you would like us to present you with one single proposed map, or whether there should be multiple plan presented for your consideration. Our recommendation is that you direct that we bring you one proposed plan, keeping in mind of course that it is within your sole providence to direct any amendments to the draft plan if you think there should be modifications to the product that we present to you. However, if you chose to see different methodologies or approaches to crafting a plan, we would recommend that - at most - you direct us to bring you two plans for your consideration. With that, Mr. Chairman, we'd like to thank the Commission, the Mayor and the Manager for placing your trust in our ability to serve you in this regard. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 100 At this point, my suggestion is that you take the three groupings of issues one -by -one. Of course, we will be available to address any questions you may have during your discussions of these policy directives. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Redistricting the Commission 101