Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplementary ReportMIGUEL DE G RANDY, P A Redistricting Consultants SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT REGARDING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON 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 : ( 3 0 5 ) 4 4 4 - 7 7 3 7 • Fa x : ( 3 0 5 ) 4 4 3 - 2 6 1 6 • www DeGrandyLaw.com Table of Contents Introduction 1 The Public Hearings 2 Legion Memorial Park Public Hearing 2 Miami City Hall Public Hearing 3 The Proposed Plan and Potential Alternatives 4 The Proposed Plan 4 Modeling Proposed Plan with Little River and/or Off -Biscayne Changes 6 Initial Modeling of Alternative Moving Entire Upper East Side into District 5 7 Initial Modeling of Alternative Keeping Entire Upper East Side in District 2 7 Summary And Conclusion 8 Organization Name Proposal Title Introduction On February 14, 2013, your redistricting consultants presented a proposed plan for redistricting the City of Miami Commission. At that time, several citizens testified regarding their desire to maintain the entire Upper East Side within one district and requested additional public hearings in that regard. The City of Miami Commission deferred consideration of the Proposed Redis- tricting Plan and instructed the redistricting consultants to hold two additional public hearings. During the February 14th meeting, the Commission requested that we report on the comments made at the public hearings and set forth for the Commission's consideration the potential pol- icy alternatives that may be available to address these concerns. Specifically, the Commission indicated that, prior to developing and presenting new redistricting plans, we present our find- ing and obtain additional policy direction from the Commission. Based on the above, your redistricting consultants provide the following report. As you will see in the summary of the two public hearings that follow, some changes can be made to the Pro- posed Plan to address concerns regarding some of the boundaries. However, in regard to the Upper East Side, the vast majority of speakers at the public hearing wish to implement a mark- edly different methodology from that followed by the redistricting consultants. The two meth- odologies cannot be reconciled. Therefore the different methodologies must be presented as al- ternative solutions. We remain mindful of the fact that the Commission did not direct the consultants to provide additional redistricting plans. However, the public testimony provided several different sugges- tions ranging from minor modifications to wholesale changes in the methodology. Representing all of those alternatives would require developing many different configurations which would not be possible in the time allowed before your agenda deadline. Nevertheless, many of the residents who testified specifically requested that the Commission be given alternatives to con- sider that would be consistent with the public input given. Therefore, to assist the Commission in determining what, if any, additional policy directives to provide, redistricting counsel believes that it would be of benefit to include a summary of initial modeling of the major different alternatives that result from the public hearing testimony. We caution, however, that because of the time limitations from the last public hearing to your agenda deadline, the results set forth below present only initial modeling analysis. If the Com- mission provides policy directive to proceed with any of the alternatives, we will conduct a full analysis of same and present that as a final proposal. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Supplementary Report 1 Below we present a summary of the testimony provided in the public hearings as well as the results of initial modeling of these alternatives with the resulting benefits or detriments of pro- ceeding with these different methodologies The Public Hearings The 2010 Census reports that there are 399,457 residents living in the City of Miami. Of that total population, around 12,800 or approximately 3.2% live within the area north of State Road 112 in District 2 -- an area generally referred to as the Upper East Side of Miami -- which is composed of 7 traditional neighborhoods. According to the Clerk's Office, over eight thousand notices were mailed to residents in Subareas 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 of the Proposed Plan advising them of the dates and times of the two public hearings. Approximately 150 to 170 residents appeared at the two public hearings. It should be noted that many of the residents who participated at the first public hearing were also present at the sec- ond public hearing. Below we present only a summary of the main themes presented during public hearing testimony. However, both meetings were tape recorded and the record of the proceedings are available for Commissioners to review prior to the scheduled March 14th Commission meeting. The first meeting was held on February 21, 2013 at Legion Memorial Park and the second public hearing was held on March 4, 2013 at Miami City Hall. Legion Memorial Park Public Hearing The turnout at the Legion Memorial Park public hearing on February 21, 2013 ranged between 105-120 people, constituting the largest turnout of any of the previous public hearings. Ap- proximately 45 people chose to speak on the record. Several residents commented on the diversity of the Upper East Side, noting it is about one- third African -American, one-third Hispanic, and one-third single race white. Some of the residents' comments reflected a desire to modify the proposed boundaries of Dis- trict 2 and District 5 in the Proposed Plan. For example, some residents indicated that the south- ern boundary of Shorecrest should be the Little River and not NW 79th Street. Additionally, residents commented that Biscayne Boulevard should not be the east/west boundary separating District 2 from District 5 because slicing Biscayne Boulevard in half would have the effect of breaking up the Historic MIMO Commercial District. Some suggested the use of the East Coast Railway as a better boundary, or to maintain the existing boundary at NE 4 Court. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Supplementary Report 2 However, the overwhelming testimony at the hearing was to keep the Upper East Side intact; regardless of whether it be left in District 2 or moved into District 5. Many of the residents ex- plained that although the Upper East Side consists of several different and diverse traditional neighborhoods, those residents view themselves in the Upper East Side as one whole commu- nity of interest. One of the residents who spoke at the hearing asked for a show of hands of the residents that were present as to whom believed that the Upper East Side should be kept to- gether. All the residents that were present raised their hands. In summary, there is no question that there was a united sentiment expressed by the citizens who appeared at the Legion Park public hearing to maintain the entire Upper East Side of the City of Miami in one district, whether it be District 2 or District 5. Miami City Hall Public Hearing The turnout at the public hearing held at Miami City Hall on March 4, 2013 was estimated at approximately 45 people, and of those residents, approximately 29 people chose to speak on the record. Most of the residents in attendance at this hearing were the same people who attended and spoke at the Legion Memorial Park public hearing. Virtually all of those residents who spoke indicated that they wanted the Upper East Side to remain either in District 2 or District 5. How- ever, there were also a few residents who wanted the Upper East Side to remain in District 2 be- cause they felt like the District 2 Commissioner has shown a great interest in the Upper East Side community. One resident felt that the Upper East Side should be moved into District 5 be- cause the Upper East Side residents could help to improve District 5. Another resident again asked for a show of hands of those in attendance who agreed that the Upper East Side should remain intact within one district. All citizens in attendance raised their hands. In addition to the overriding sentiment of keeping the Upper East Side intact, there were also a few residents who reiterated that if the Upper East Side residents can't remain together, then they would want the Little River to serve as the northern boundary separating District 2 from District 5 instead of using 79th St. Moreover, some residents also spoke out against using Bis- cayne Boulevard as the dividing boundary between District 2 and District 5 and some sug- gested either using NE 4th Court or the East Coast Railway as the District 2 western boundary. In summary, it is fair to say that in both public hearings there was a unanimous expression of support for the proposition that the entire Upper East Side should remain intact within one dis- trict. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Supplementary Report 3 The Proposed Plan and Potential Alternatives Neither the proposed plan nor the potential different alternatives are "right" or "wrong". They simply present a different approach or methodology to rebalancing the population of the differ- ent districts. The Proposed Plan meets the 14th Amendment constitutional directive to design districts that are "substantially equal in population". The alternatives requested in the public hearing can also be designed to meet this constitutional imperative, although some may result in higher overall deviations than others. Similarly, the proposed plan meets the requirements of the Vot- ing Rights Act to ensure that the African -American community in the City of Miami — which is compact and politically cohesive — has an equal opportunity to elect its candidate of choice. Likewise, we believe that the potential alternatives can be designed to meet that objective, al- though they result in a lower total and voting age African -American population. The Proposed Plan The proposed Redistricting Plan presented to the City Commission on February 14th meets both constitutional and statutory requirements. Specifically, the proposed Redistricting Plan has an overall deviation of less than 6%, well below the accepted overall deviation of 10%. The pro- posed plan presents a "balanced approach" to equalizing population among the districts. The need to rebalance population results exclusively from the over -population in District 2 and the under -population in District 5. In other words, Districts 1, 3 and 4 are all well within constitu- tional parameters and would otherwise require little, if any, change. However, the fact remains that District 2 is 20% overpopulated and District 5 is 16% under populated, thereby requiring significant movements of population from one district to another. Within the constraints of the law and the policy directives, your redistricting consultants de- cided on a balanced approach, whereby we began on the North border of Districts 2 and 5 and began redistributing population throughout the border moving south, in order to achieve a re- balancing of both districts. This approach resulted in moving approximately 6,400 residents that lived north of State Road 112 from District 2 to District 5 and 5,500 that lived south of the State Road 112 from District 2 to District 5. Additionally, close to 2,000 more residents were moved from the southern edge of District 2 into District 4. The additional movement of popula- tion from District 2 into District 4 was necessary in order to bring the deviation of District 2 down to 3.17%. In total, around 7,500 residents living south of the 112 expressway were taken out of District 2, and over 11,900 residents were moved from District 2 to District 5. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Supplementary Report 4 In utilizing this balanced approach, your Redistricting consultants complied, to the best extent possible, with Commission policy directives. In that regard, districts were drawn with sufficient flexibility to result in a deviation, but not one which would exceed constitutional parameters. Districts all maintained, to the greatest extent feasible, the core of existing districts. Where possible, new district lines were drawn using well-known natural and made -made boundaries, and districts were drawn in a manner intended to try to keep traditional neighbor- hoods and communities of interest within one district, wherever possible. Therefore, when a population movement was necessary, an attempt was made to bring in a whole traditional neighborhood from one district to another. Such is the case with Shorecrest, as well as other ar- eas. In particular, this balanced approach also allowed your redistricting consultants to main- tain communities of interest within one district; particularly CRA areas, so that now the vast majority of the Overtown Park West CRA is in District 5 and the vast majority of the Omni CRA is in District 2. The interpretation and implementation of the policy directive to maintain traditional neighbor- hoods and communities of interest within one district presents the greatest issue of disagree- ment of the Upper East Side residents with the Proposed Redistricting Plan. The residents' po- sition is that the entire Upper East Side should be looked at as one single community of interest, as opposed to the approach taken by the redistricting consultants of viewing the Upper East Side area as a collection of traditional neighborhoods, including Shorecrest, Palm Grove, Belle Meade, Bayside, Morningside and others. As stated before, neither approach is correct or incor- rect. In fact, the Upper East Side is a compilation of traditional neighborhoods. However, the entire Upper East Side can also be looked at as a singular community of interest, depending on the approach and methodology utilized. The balanced approach utilized by your redistricting consultants resulted in a plan with the highest overall total African -American population in District 5 at 70.09%, as well as the highest overall African -American voting age population at 67.85%. It should be noted that one citizen made an allegation to the effect that the proposed plan results in racial gerrymandering. Such is simply not the case. It is a geographic/demographic fact that as one moves from West to East on the border between Districts 2 and 5, the percentage of the African -American population de- creases. Therefore, if one employs a balanced approach of taking roughly equal population north and south of the 112 running between the border of Districts 2 and 5, this approach will necessarily result in a higher percentage of African -American population in District 5. Even so, the African -American population percentage decreased over 5 percentage points from current numbers as a result of the redistricting recommendation in the Proposed Plan. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Supplementary Report 5 Nevertheless, this approach was implemented using traditional Redistricting criteria directed by the Commission which included maintaining traditional neighborhoods within one district and communities of interest including the CRAs, to the best extent possible, and utilizing well - recognized natural and man-made boundaries. Therefore, the case law clearly supports the proposition that such approach does not constitute racial gerrymandering because movements between Districts 2 and 5 are necessitated by a constitutional imperative to rebalance popula- tion, the movements are made in the boundary area of the districts that must be rebalanced, and each movement can be explained based on race -neutral criteria employed. Modeling Proposed Plan with Little River and/or Off -Biscayne Changes As set forth above, some citizens indicated that if the proposed plan were to be implemented, some additional changes should be made, including moving the southern boundary of Shorecrest from 79th Street to the Little River, and moving the boundary of the Districts as it progresses north to south of Biscayne Boulevard so that the entire MIMO commercial area re- mains within one district. Initial modeling indicates that some of these changes can be accomplished without significantly increasing overall deviation and without significant reduction in African -American total or vot- ing age population in District 5. Other variations may require significant changes. For example, only changing the boundary of Shorecrest slightly south to the Little River would result in reducing the overall deviation by one or two tenth of a percent. It would also result in approximately 69.7% total African -American population and 67.4% voting -age population. Dif- ferent maps can be found which alternatively site the southern boundary of Shorecrest at 79th Street or at the Little River. Therefore, making that one change to move the southem boundary of Shorecrest south to the Little River satisfies the concerns of some residents to maintain both sides of 79th Street within one district, and is consistent with policy directive of maintaining traditional neighborhoods intact within one district. As to the second change — moving off Biscayne Boulevard to maintain all of the MIMO com- mercial area within one district — the change in total and voting age African -American popula- tion would depend on where the dividing line is drawn. If the boundary is moved one block west from the Proposed Plan's configuration, the change may result in a reduction of over 1000 residents in District 5 compared to the Proposed Plan, but still within acceptable overall devia- tion parameters. (It should be noted that implementing both the Shorecrest move to the south and this alternative may equalize the deviation, since the Shorecrest movement would increase the population in District 5 while the movement to the west of Biscayne would decrease it.) Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Supplementary Report 6 However, if the Biscayne Boulevard boundary in the Proposed Plan is moved all the way west to the railroad, the change would be significant and may require adjustments in other areas to compensate for a reduction of over 2800 residents in District 5. If such population were not re- placed, the overall deviation may increase substantially. Moving the proposed boundary between Districts 2 and 5 off Biscayne Boulevard is not consis- tent with the Commission directive to use well-defined natural and man-made boundaries if such movement involves only one block. However, to the extent that the Commission deter- mines that the MIMO commercial area is a community of interest, such movement would be consistent with the goal of maintaining communities of interest intact within one district. Initial Modeling of Alternative Moving Entire Upper East Side into District 5 In this model, District 5 would become the most populated district at close to 6% over the ideal population number. Therefore, it results in the greatest change and potential disruption in elec- toral patterns in this district. The total deviation would approximate or exceed the 10% thresh- old. However, by eliminating some or all of the movement of the 1,984 residents from the southern end of District 2 into District 4, overall deviation may be reduced to around 8.5%. In the event that the Commission makes a finding that the entire Upper East Side is a commu- nity of interest and must be kept whole within one district, such finding would be consistent with the Commission's directive to maintain communities of interest within one district where possible. This alternative also allows for keeping the vast majority of the Overtown Park West CRA within District 5 and the Omni CRA within District 2. However, the initial modeling of an alternative which would move the entire Upper East Side into District 5 results in the greatest decrease of African -American total population of all the models to approximately 66% and voting age population reduction to 63.5% . This alternative has the effect of reducing African -American total and voting age population by around ten per- centage points from current numbers. Initial Modeling of Alternative Keeping Entire Upper East Side in District 2 In this approach, no change is made to the district boundary between District 5 and District 2 north of State Road 112. In the event that the Commission makes a finding that the entire Upper East Side is a community of interest and must be kept whole within one district, such finding would be consistent with the Commission's directive to maintain communities of interest within one district where possible. However, this results in the need to distribute approximately 6,400 residents from District 2 to District 5 south of State Road 112. Initial modeling of this alternative can be accomplished in Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Supplementary Report 7 several ways. One model moves the east -west boundary between Districts 2 and 5 all the way to Biscayne Boulevard from State Road 112 all the way south to the Park West area with addi- tional population taken south of the Park West area to the Miami River in order reduce the overall deviation. This results in an overall deviation of over 6%, a reduction in African - American total population to approximately 68% with a reduction in voting age population to approximately 65%. Such alternative also results in reducing the Hispanic population in District 2 from approximately 52.3% to 49.3%, with resulting reductions in Hispanic voting -age popula- tion from approximately 52.4% to 49.5%. Other models may not require an eastern shift all the way to Biscayne Boulevard, but additional population would have to be taken south of the Park West area to reduce the overall deviation. Those models produce similar reductions in African -American population percentages in Dis- trict 5 and Hispanic population percentages in District 2. District 2 had naturally grown in His- panic population over the last decade from approximately 46% to 52%. The Hispanic population reductions resulting from these models may enhance the probability of a legal challenge. This approach also diminishes the ability to maintain the Omni CRA in District 2 as a commu- nity of interest. This approach also makes District 5 more visually compact while thinning out the contours of District 2. It should be noted that your redistricting consultants are constrained to utilize official Census Bureau numbers in developing the proposed plans. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that there has been marked change in population in the higher density areas south of State Road 112 (like Midtown). Some evidence indicates that in 2010 when the Census was conducted, there was a higher vacancy rate in these areas, whereas today those areas are more significantly popu- lated. Anecdotal evidence would further indicate that the demographic mix of the new resi- dents is overwhelmingly non African -American. Therefore, percentages of African -American population set forth above could actually be lower at the present time. Summary And Conclusion At the outset, your redistricting consultants are well -aware that review of this report and poten- tial alternatives may create greater confusion. However, as we have said all along there are many ways to approach this project in order to arrive at a legally compliant result. The redis- tricting process involves a constant effort to balance competing interests and principles, often making it difficult or impossible to fully implement one single directive without compromising another. In this report we have tried to summarize the public testimony and provide you with potential alternatives to better inform you of the benefits and detriments of the different poten- tial solutions suggested during the public hearings. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Supplementary Report 8 In summary, it is undeniable that all of the citizens of the Upper East Side who attended the public hearings wish to maintain the Upper East Side as a single community of interest within one commission district. This presents a markedly different approach to redistricting and equalizing the population than the approach employed by your redistricting consultants. While some changes can be incorporated into the Proposed Plan to address some of the concerns — such as keeping 79th Street within one district and Biscayne Boulevard within one district — those minor changes will not satisfy the vast majority of the residents of the Upper East Side who wish to maintain all of the Upper East Side in one district. As set forth above, although neither of the two methodologies is right or wrong, they cannot be harmonized or reconciled. Therefore, the Commission must make a policy choice as to whether it wishes to proceed with a balanced approach or one which maintains the entire Upper East Side within one district. Finally, your redistricting consultants have been in contact with Miami -Dade County's Supervi- sor of Elections throughout this process. The Supervisor contacted me recently to express the need for urgency in concluding the redistricting process so that her work on re-precincting may continue and provide for an orderly election in November of 2013. Also, although your redis- tricting counsel firmly believes that the proposed plan or potential alternative models can be implemented in a manner that are constitutional and compliant with the Voting Rights Act, the possibility of a legal challenge to a redistricting plan always remains. Therefore, it is highly ad- visable to conclude the process as soon as possible in order to provide sufficient time to litigate and dispose of any challenge that may be presented prior to time for qualifying. Therefore, we respectfully urge you to provide final policy direction to us at the March 14th commission meet- ing so we can bring back a final plan for your adoption at your first commission meeting in April. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Supplementary Report 9