Grace, Inc. v. City of Miami
| Decision Date | 03 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-24066-KMM |
| Parties | GRACE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on February 10, 2023.[1] (ECF No. 26).[2] Defendant City of Miami (the “City”) filed a response in opposition (ECF No 36), to which Plaintiffs filed a reply (ECF No. 39). The matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable K Michael Moore, United States District Court Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and/or to issue a report and recommendations regarding the Expedited Motion. (ECF No. 27). Accordingly I convened an Evidentiary and Preliminary Injunction Hearing on the Expedited Motion on March 29, 2023. (ECF No. 48). Having considered the Expedited Motion, Response, Reply, the evidence and argument advanced at the March 29, 2023 hearing the record as a whole, and being otherwise fully advised, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Expedited Motion (ECF No. 26) be GRANTED.
This is an action alleging racial gerrymandering in the redistricting of the five commission districts for the Commission of the City of Miami (the “Commission”) in Miami, Florida, following the 2020 United States Census (“2020 Census”).
As background context for the discussion that follows, the Commission is a five-member governing body for the City, whose members are elected from single-member, numbered districts. On March 24, 2022, the Commission passed Resolution 22-131 (the “Enacted Plan”), which provides the new jurisdictional boundaries for the five Commission districts-Districts 1 through 5 (together, the “Commission Districts”). (ECF No. 24-1). For visual reference, a map of the Commission Districts adopted in the March 24, 2022 Enacted Plan is provided on the following page.
(Image Omitted)
Plaintiffs commenced this action in this Court on December 15, 2022, invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 1). The operative complaint asserts one claim for relief, arising under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. See (ECF No. 23 at ¶¶ 358-365) (“Am. Compl”). Plaintiffs allege in their First Amended Complaint that race was the predominant factor in the redrawing of each of the five Commission Districts adopted by the City in the Enacted Plan following the 2020 Census. Plaintiffs aver that, because the City is not able to establish that the City's use of race in drawing the Commission Districts was narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest, the five Commission Districts constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (i) a declaration that the five Commission Districts drawn and adopted in the most recent redistricting process are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (ii) a preliminary and later a permanent injunction enjoining the City and its officers and agents from calling, conducting, supervising, or certifying any elections under the Enacted Plan; and (iii) an order requiring the City to hold special elections should adequate relief not be available prior to the next regularly scheduled election.[3]
Now, in their Expedited Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 26), Plaintiffs move to preliminarily enjoin the City, and its officers and agents, from calling, conducting, supervising, or certifying any elections under the Enacted Plan, beginning with the general elections scheduled for November 2023, until the entry of final judgment in this case.
As set forth in greater detail below, the record before the Court contains substantial evidence that the Commission Districts are racial gerrymanders in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is without meaningful dispute that race predominated the City's drawing of District 5, ostensibly in effort to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Race was the predominant factor the Commission considered in the redrawing of each of the five Commission Districts. The Commissioners expressly prioritized preserving the cores of the existing districts to preserve the Commission's composition of three Hispanic commissioners, one Black commissioner, and one white or “Anglo” commissioner. Based on this and other evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed in establishing that the City designed the Enacted Plan to preserve the Hispanic super-majorities in Districts 1, 3, and 4, and to preserve District 2 as an “Anglo access” district. The City does not argue that the Commission's use of race in this way to draw those districts was narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest. Moreover, Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed in establishing that the Commission's consideration of race in the drawing of District 5 was not narrowly tailored to comply with the Voting Rights Act, because the record in this case does not reflect that the City had an evidentiary basis for the selection of a Black Voting Age Population quota of 50% for that district. Because the Court also finds that Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction, and because the balance of the equities weighs in favor of the entry of a preliminary injunction, the undersigned recommends to the District Court that the City be preliminarily enjoined from conducting any elections under the 2022 Enacted Plan.
A summary of the briefing on the Expedited Motion follows.
Plaintiffs first argue in their Expedited Motion that they have standing[4] to assert the cause of action here raised because the individual plaintiffs reside in the challenged districts and because the organizational Plaintiffs have members residing in each of the challenged districts.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of their racial gerrymandering claim, because the direct and circumstantial evidence in the legislative record shows that race predominated in the City's redrawing of the five Commission Districts, and the City's consideration of race in that process does not withstand strict scrutiny.
As direct evidence that race predominated in the City's 2022 redistricting process, Plaintiffs cite to the Commissioners' explicit statements at transcribed, public meetings of the Commission that the Commissioners' objective in the most recent redistricting process was to preserve the existence of three Hispanic seats, one Black seat, and one “Anglo” seat on the Commission. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to: (i) the Commission's creation of an “Anglo-Access District” as District 2; (ii) the imposition of an arbitrary minimum Black Voting Age Population (“BVAP”) quota of 50% in District 5 for compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”);[5] (iii) the packing and treatment as fungible of Hispanic residents into Districts 1, 3, and 4; and (iv) the subordination to race of traditional redistricting criteria (e.g., neighborhoods, compactness, and manmade and natural boundaries).
As circumstantial evidence that race predominated in the City's 2022 redistricting process, Plaintiffs cite to the racial demographics and shapes of the geographic areas that were moved among the districts as between the City's 2013 redistricting plan and the 2022 Enacted Plan, and the rejected alternative map configurations considered leading up to the adoption of the Enacted Plan.
According to Plaintiffs, the predominance of race in the City's redistricting process does not withstand strict scrutiny. In this regard, Plaintiffs argue that the City did not have a strong basis in evidence for the maintenance of District 2 as an “Anglo access district”; for maximizing the population of Hispanic residents in Districts 1, 3, and 4; or for selecting a BVAP floor of 50% for District 5.
Third, Plaintiffs argue that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction because the harm to their fundamental right to vote cannot be undone with monetary remedies. And fourth, Plaintiffs assert that the balance of the equities weighs in their favor, and that injunctive relief is in the public's interest.
In its Response, the City reiterates the argument advanced in its Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action, seemingly on the ground that the First Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading that does not specify whether any particular Plaintiff resides in any of the geographic areas or parcels moved between Commission Districts as part of the redistricting adopted in the Enacted Plan.
On the merits, the City argues that Plaintiffs are not substantially likely to succeed. The City asserts that the geographic shape and racial demographic make-up of the five Commission Districts have remained largely the same since single-member districts were instituted in the City in the late 1990s. According to the City, the districts were not improper when they were instituted, and Plaintiffs' citation to the legislative record from 2022 does not establish racial motive now. Rather, the City argues that Plaintiffs cannot establish “packing” because the specific geographic areas that were moved to create the Commission Districts did not result in the movement of a significant number of voters into or out of a particular district. Moreover, the City...
To continue reading
Request your trial