Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Report - Proposed Redistricting PlanMIGUEL DE G R A N D Y, PA Redistricting Consultants FINAL REPORT REGARDING THE PROPOSED REDISTRICTING PLAN Presented to the City of Miami City Commission Miguel A. De Grandy, Esq., Pablo Tam.ayo, Esq., & Stephen M. Cody, J.D. 8 0 0 Douglas Road, Suite 850 , Coral Gables , FL 33134 - -telephone :(305)444-7737•Fax:(305)443-26I6• www.DeGrandyLaw.com Introduction On February 14, 2013, your redistricting consultants presented a Proposed Redistricting Plan to the City Commission at its Commission meeting. During that public meeting, several citizens made presentations regarding their desire to maintain the entire Upper East Side within one district. The City of Miami Commission deferred consideration of the Proposed Redistricting Plan to provide an opportunity for these residents, and any other residents interested in the process, to provide additional input. In compliance with the directives of the City Commission, your redistricting consultants held two public hearings. One was held at Legion Memorial Park on February 21, 2013. The second was held at Miami City Hall on March 4, 2013. On or about March 6, 2013, your redistricting consultants provided the City Commission with a written Supplemen- tary Report to the City of Miami Commission Regarding the Public Hearings on the Proposed Redistricting Plan. On March 14, 2013, the redistricting consultants made an oral presentation to the City Commission outlining the relevant parts of the written report and providing proposed alternatives for the City Commission's consideration. During this public meeting, the City Commission provided an additional opportunity for any residents to address the Commis- sion regarding the plan. Changes to the Proposed Redistricting Plan Once the public hearing was closed, the City Commission engaged in discussion and debate regarding the Proposed Plan. As a result of that discussion, the City Commission directed that four additional changes be made to the Pro- posed Redistricting Plan. The four changes are described below. All of the changes are consistent with traditional Redistricting principles and the Commission's policy directives. Modification of the Boundary of the Shorecrest Traditional Neighborhood Consistent with some of the public testimony that was presented, the City Commission directed that the redistricting consultants modify the boundaries of Subarea 6 in the Proposed Plan in order to shift the Southern boundary of the Shorecrest traditional neighborhood from 79th Street South to the Little River. Both the public testimony and some of the maps that can be found in the public record identify the Little River as the Southern boundary of the Shorecrest traditional neighborhood. In the Proposed Plan, Subarea 6 moves in its entirety from District 2 to District 5. Therefore, this change is consistent with maintaining the entire traditional neighborhood of Shorecrest within one district. Elimination of Movement of Subarea 12 Subarea 12 was originally moved from District 5 to District 1 in furtherance of the directive of the City Commission to use well -recognized man-made and natural boundaries to define the districts. The original movement had the result of shifting the boundary between both districts in an easterly direction to coincide with I-95. During the Com- mission discussion, it was noted that part of that movement had the effect of taking a portion of the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA out of District 5, which would be inconsistent with the Commission's directive to try to maintain the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA as a Community of Interest within District 5. There was addi- tional discussion regarding the fact that this area was also part of historic Overtown, and therefore 'should remain together in District 5 with the rest of the Overtown area. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Modifications to the Proposed Plan 1 As noted by the redistricting consultants, there are often competing principles that must be balanced in the process of Redistricting. In that regard, it is the Commission's prerogative to determine the correct balance of these competing principles. The decision to eliminate the movement of Subarea 12 is consistent with the Commission's directive to maintain traditional (historic) neighborhoods within one district, and to maintain the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA as a community of interest within one district, to the best extent possible. Inclusion of Additional Historic Overtown Area Into District 5 During the discussion it was also noted that there was an additional area east of Proposed Subarea 13, that also en- compassed the area known as historic Overtown. This additional area is bounded by Northwest 22nd Street to the North and 14th Street to the South, the proposed boundary of Subarea 13 to the West and Northwest 1st Avenue to the East. Initially, redistricting consultants had shifted the existing border only slightly to the east in Subarea 13 to coincide with the boundaries of the Omni CRA. However, the Commission determined that in this instance, the policy direc- tive to keep traditional (historic) neighborhoods within one district would override the policy directive of maintain- ing as much of the Omni CRA as possible as a "community of interest" in District 2. This policy directive — which resulted in shifting the border of Subarea 13 for two additional blocks in an easterly direction — is consistent with the policy directive of the Commission to maintain traditional neighborhoods within one district. Shifting Additional Population to District 3 During the discussion, there was a suggestion made to put additional population into District 3 in order to further reduce the overall deviation. In that regard, a direction was given to shift part of the southeastern boundary of Dis- trict 3 from the Metrorail line to Brickell Avenue using 13th Street as a northern boundary and 15th Road as a south- ern boundary. This shift resulted in lowering the overall deviation and therefore furthers the equal protection objec- tive of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. On the following page is a map showing the current districts with the Modified Proposed Plan as a red -line overlay. In addition, there are tables which provide relevant demographic data and deviation percentages. None of the minor changes described above affected the previous analysis of the plan with regard to its constitutionality and its compli- ance with the Voting Rights Act. Miguel De Grandy, 1'.a. Modifications to the Proposed Plan 2 P• CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION DISTRICTS Honorable Mayor Tomas Regalado - Citywide Commission District and Commissioners' Name 1. wnredo (Willy) Gort 2. Marc Samoa 3. Frank Carollo 4. Francis Suarez Pried by. qr durticrmno oema.n . o-l.a..xwnassoa oamcrs.couemn. wsra¢rNOP.CKes The table below summarizes the population breakdown of the Modified Proposed Redistricting Plan. 4 POP 2010 DEVIATION • ,'. ., i 5 x` DEV % � > `Q '� .�,x �.w"�,__ €�'"t �. c'tav `row o BLACK % Ix. `�,�,,' ,N9.,dts' ii s 'Ff;i % I ISPANIC� o .. .__"..' ._:_vG �m n WHITE t i"r.., .:5',, 1 78,031 -1,860 -2.33% 12.53 82.23 • 4.54 2 79,862 -29 -0.04% 10.29 51.24 34.96 3 78,343 -1,548 -1.94% 5.24 86.43 7.43 4 82,338 2,447 3.06% 2.65 89.81 6.68 5 80,883 992 1.24% 69.65 23.15 5.99 Total 399,457 5.39% The table below summarizes the voting age population of the Modified Proposed Redistricting Plan. �DIS'T P 210` ryY$BLACK 5 �% HISPANIC W 1 62,536 12.34 83.6 3.38 2 69,454 9.93 51.29 35.26 3 64,163 5.32 87.62 6.17 4 69,022 2.67 90.99 5.47 5 60,836 67.36 24.62 6.74 The Modified Proposed Redistricting Plan reduces overall deviation from 36.65 percent to 5.39 percent. Consistent with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act and the cases decided under it, it maintains a compact district with a politically cohesive African -American population and voting age population majority. Election analysis run shows that the candidates preferred by African American voters which were identified in the prior report, "Report on the Status of Redistricting and Proposed Redistricting Plan" would also receive sufficient support from those voters to win in the new district. Thus, it is anticipated that District 5, as reconfigured, will permit African -American voters to elect their candidate of choice. The Modified Proposed Redistricting Plan also maintains three districts which have solid Hispanic population and voting age population majorities and a fourth district that is also majority Hispanic population and VAP. Conclusion In summary, on April 11, 2013, the City Commission will be presented with a resolution that will contain metes and bounds descriptions of the proposed plan as revised on March 14th, as well as graphic depictions of each district, for its consideration and a,!eption. Adoption of this Resolution will resolve the current malapportionment issue that exists in the City's current districts and result in enactment of a new Redistricting Plan that is constitutional, consis- tent with well -recognized traditional redistricting principles, and compliant with the federal Voting Rights Act. Miguel De Grandy, P.A. Modifications to the Proposed Plan 4