Walters v. Boston City Council

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

___________________________________

)

RASHEED WALTERS, et al. )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Civil Action

v. ) No. 22-12048-PBS

)

BOSTON CITY COUNCIL, et al. )

)

)

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

May 8, 2023

Saris, D.J.

After the decennial federal census, the Boston City Council

(“City Council”) voted 9-4 to approve a redistricting map on

November 2, 2022 that the Mayor signed into law. Plaintiffs, who

are Boston voters and civic associations, sued the City of Boston,

seeking a preliminary injunction that bars the use of the

redistricting map in the next municipal election, scheduled for

November 7, 2023. They allege violations of Sections 2 and 2031 of

the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 10301, the Open

Meeting Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 20, and the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argue that the

1 Plaintiffs waived their Section 203 claim at the evidentiary

hearing and are not likely to succeed on this claim.

enacted redistricting map was motivated by a desire to achieve

“racial balancing” among districts in the City of Boston. The City

contends that the City Council “appropriately considered race in

District 4 and elsewhere to ensure VRA compliance, and that other,

racially neutral and competing considerations were the Council’s

primary motivators.” Dkt. 25 at 14.

The Court held an evidentiary hearing over six days from

March 28 to April 5, 2023. Plaintiffs called Congressman Stephen

Lynch, at-large Councilors Michael Flaherty and Erin Murphy,

Rasheed Walters (a resident of Dorchester in District 4), Maureen

Feeney (a Dorchester resident now in District 4 following

redistricting), and Eleanor Flaherty Kasper (a Dorchester resident

now in District 3 following redistricting). Defendants called an

expert witness, Dr. Moon Duchin (“Dr. Duchin”), a Professor of

Mathematics at Tufts University and a principal investigator at

the Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group (MGGG) Redistricting

Lab. The Court also listened to over 15 hours of City Council

meetings uploaded onto YouTube, which were also submitted as

exhibits.2 No City Councilor testified for Defendants in support

of the enacted redistricting plan.

The Court ALLOWS the motion for preliminary injunction

(Dkt. 21). Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success in

2 Unfortunately, no transcripts of the City Council meetings were

provided.

showing that race played a predominant role in the City Council’s

redrawing of Districts 3 and 4 in the enacted map, and Defendants

have not demonstrated that the enacted redistricting map is

narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. However,

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on their

claims under the VRA and the Open Meeting Law. The ball is back in

the City Council’s court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. The Parties

A. Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs include individual residents and voters of Boston

across several districts,3 including Districts 2, 3, and 4, as well

as several civic organizations.4

3 Rasheed Walters is a District 4 voter; Rita Dixon is a District 5

voter; Shirley Shillingford is a District 8 voter; Maureen Feeney

is now a District 4 voter following redistricting; Phyllis Corbitt

is now a District 3 voter following redistricting; Eleanor

Flaherty Kasper is now a District 3 voter following redistricting;

Gladys Bruno and Zheng Huahua are voters residing in the Old Colony

Housing Development; and Carmen Luisa Garcia Terrero and Carmen

Garcia-Rosario are voters residing in the West Broadway Homes

Housing Development.

4 The South Boston Citizens Association, Martin F. McDonough

American Legion Post, St. Vincent’s Lower End Neighborhood

Association, and Old Colony Tenant Association are civic

associations whose members include residents and registered voters

of South Boston.

B. Defendants5

Defendants are the City of Boston, Michelle Wu in her official

capacity as Mayor, Eneida Tavares in her official capacity as

Commissioner of the Boston Election Commission, and the Boston

City Council. The Court refers to them collectively as “the City.”

The City Council, an elected municipal body, is composed of

thirteen members: four elected at-large, or city-wide, and nine

elected by district. Ruthzee Louijeune, Julia Mejia, Erin Murphy,

and Michael Flaherty are at-large City Councilors.

• Gabriela Coletta is the District 1 Councilor,

representing East Boston, the North End, and

Charlestown.

• Ed Flynn is the City Council President and District 2

Councilor, representing almost all of South Boston.

• Frank Baker is the Councilor for District 3, which

primarily contains Dorchester.

• Brian Worrell is the Councilor for District 4, which

contains Mattapan.

• Ricardo Arroyo is the District 5 Councilor,

representing Hyde Park and Roslindale.

• Kendra Lara is the District 6 Councilor, representing

West Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, and part of Mission Hill.

• Tania Fernandes Anderson is the District 7 Councilor,

representing Roxbury.

• Kenzie Bok is the District 8 Councilor, representing

Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Mission Hill, and part of

Fenway and Audubon Circle.

5 Lawyers for Civil Rights and K&L Gates LLP filed a brief in

support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Preliminary Injunction on behalf of the NAACP Boston Branch,

MassVOTE, the Massachusetts Voter Table, La Colaborativa, the

Chinese Progressive Association, the Massachusetts Immigrant &

Refugee Advocacy Coalition, and New England United for Justice.

See Dkt. 32 at 1-3.

• Liz Breadon is the District 9 Councilor, representing

Allston and Brighton.

II. The City Council’s Redistricting

A. The Census

The federal decennial census is conducted every ten years by

the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2020 census indicated that Boston’s

population grew 9.4% from 2010 to 2020. Growth did not occur evenly

across the entire city. Significantly, South Boston, which grew by

6,132 people, accounted for 10.6% of Boston’s population growth.

Boston’s demographic makeup also changed. Boston’s Hispanic

population grew 16.9%, making up 18.7% of the total population in

2020. The Asian population grew 37.8%, making up 11.2% of Boston’s

population. The non-Hispanic White population grew 3.8%, making up

44.6% of Boston’s population. The Black population fell by 6.4%,

dropping to 19.1% of Boston’s population.6

As a result of the census, redistricting was necessary to

meet the one-person, one-vote mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment

of the Constitution. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 553, 579 (1964)

(explaining that equal protection requires “substantial equality

of population” among districts). Significantly, District 2 was

6 These figures from the 2020 census data refer to single race

categories, e.g., Black or African American Alone, White Alone, or

Asian Alone. See Joint Ex. 10 at 5. Dr. Handley notes that the

Black and Asian statistics “under-represent the actual number of

Black and Asians in Boston because these counts do not include[]

respondents who indicated they were Black or Asian and one or more

other races.” Id. at 5 n.8.

overpopulated and needed to shed about 13,000 voters to meet this

constitutional requirement.

Complicating the redistricting challenge was the

reprecincting process, which had just been completed for the first

time in almost 100 years. In April 2022, the Board of Election

Commissioners adjusted voting precinct boundaries, increasing the

number of precincts in the city from 255 to 275. Reprecincting

resulted in sixteen “split precincts,” or precincts that

impermissibly crossed the boundaries of multiple existing City

Council districts. Joint Ex. 6 at 11.7 To facilitate the

redistricting, the City Council initially agreed on a “baseline

map” that assigned each split precinct to one district. Id.

However, the “baseline map” could not be used as the final enacted

map because the population was still imbalanced among the

districts. Id. at 12; Dkt. 74 at 93:20-25. The parties agree that

due to population growth and reprecincting, it was impossible for

the enacted map to be identical to the 2012 map (the “benchmark

map”).

As a result of the population growth, the ideal population

for each district was 75,072 residents. Dkt. 74 at 128:20-23; see

7 Record citations include documents on the docket (e.g., Dkt. 50),

evidentiary hearing transcripts (Dkts. 71-76) and exhibits from

the Joint Exhibit List submitted at the evidentiary hearing (e.g.,

Joint Ex. 6). Video citations include approximate timestamps

(e.g., 1:23:45 refers to 1 hour, 23 minutes, and 45 seconds into

the video).

Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 579. However, District 2 (South Boston)

deviated from the ideal size by 13,481 residents, a deviation of

approximately +18.0%, and District 3 (Dorchester) deviated from

the ideal size by 6,511 residents, a deviation of

approximately -8.7%. District 4 (Mattapan) had approximately

71,811 residents, 3,261 people under the ideal size, a deviation

of approximately -4.3%.

B. The Redistricting Process

The City Council began the redistricting process in

September 2021, with Councilor Arroyo from District 5 (Hyde

Park/Roslindale) chairing the Committee on Redistricting

(“Committee”). The Committee was formally established in January

2022, and held virtual meetings on March 24, March 31, and April 7,

2022, during which attendees offered public testimony. The

Committee held an in-person meeting on August 4, 2022.

On August 31, 2022, Councilor Breadon from District 9 (Allston

and Brighton) replaced Arroyo as Chair. Councilor Worrell from

District 4 (Mattapan) became Vice-Chair. Councilors Arroyo, Mejia,

Flaherty, Murphy, and Louijeune were members of the Committee. The

redistricting process was rushed because the City Council strived

to establish new district boundaries by November 2022, one year

prior to the November 2023 municipal election, in light of the

one-year residency requirement for candidates running for City

Council.

The City Council held public meetings and working sessions to

hear testimony, review various maps, and discuss traditional

districting principles and legal requirements under the U.S.

Constitution, the VRA, and the City Charter. These meetings were

held on September 16, September 20, September 23, September 26,

September 27, September 29, September 30, October 17, October 20,

October 21, October 24, and October 25. Five plans were submitted

and referred to the Committee:

• Docket No. 1186: sponsored by Councilors Arroyo and

Fernandes Anderson and referred on September 28, 2022.

• Docket No. 1215: sponsored by Councilor Murphy and

referred on October 5, 2022.

• Docket No. 1216: sponsored by Chair Breadon and

Councilor Worrell and referred on October 5, 2022.

• Docket No. 1273: sponsored by Councilor Baker and

referred on October 19, 2022.

• Docket No. 1275: sponsored by Chair Breadon and

Councilor Arroyo and referred on October 19, 2022.

• Docket No. 1351: sponsored by Councilor Flaherty.

The City Council voted to adopt redistricting principles on

October 19, 2022. These guidelines state that:

Proposed maps should be drawn to ensure population

equality and avoidance of excessive deviation, have

compact and contiguous boundaries, avoid over-

concentration of protected groups, preserve communities

of interest, provide voters of protected groups

opportunities to achieve proportionality by electing

their candidates of choice, and prohibit favoring of

incumbent residency.

Joint Ex. 1A at 2 (emphasis added).

On November 2, 2022, Chair Breadon issued a report

recommending that the City Council adopt Docket No. 1275, which

she sponsored with Councilor Arroyo. See Joint Ex. 6 at 26-27

(summarizing the precincts moved in Docket No. 1275 and the

rationale for the changes). The report, over 25 pages in length,

provides an explanation of the City Council’s redistricting

process, including relevant law, census data, statistical

analyses, timelines, breakdowns of the proposed and recommended

plan, and future recommendations. See id.

Docket No. 1275 is largely similar to the “Unity Map,” which

was a map supported by various civil rights and advocacy groups.

At-large Councilor Murphy testified that the Unity Map was

presented at a media event on City Hall Plaza on October 18 that

was attended by Chair Breadon and Councilors Arroyo, Mejia, and

Fernandes Anderson -- all members of the Committee. Murphy

testified that she was not notified about the event.

On November 2, 2022, the City Council voted in favor of Docket

No. 1275 by a vote of 9-4. Mayor Wu signed the enacted map into

law on November 7, 2022.

C. City Council’s Subject Matter Experts

Although the City Council did not retain any experts to help

draw district lines, it received presentations from redistricting

experts. The City engaged Attorney Jeffrey Wice (“Attorney Wice”)

and Dr. Lisa Handley (“Dr. Handley”) to advise the City Council.

Attorney Wice is an Adjunct Professor/Senior Fellow at New

York Law School, a specialist in legislative redistricting, and a

co-editor of the National Conference of State Legislatures’ 2020

Redistricting Handbook. Attorney Wice provided a memo on key

federal and local districting principles. Significantly, in

response to a question about whether District 4 violated the VRA

in the benchmark map, he informed the City Council that, to the

“best of [his] knowledge,” there was “no risk of a [VRA]

violation.” Joint Ex. 24 at 1.

Dr. Handley has over 35 years of experience in advising

jurisdictions on minority voting rights and redistricting issues.

She has served as an expert in “dozens of voting rights cases,”

providing her expertise to clients like the U.S. Department of

Justice, national civil rights organizations (including the ACLU),

international organizations, and state and local jurisdictions.

Joint Ex. 10 at 1. Dr. Handley has also co-authored a book,

Minority Representation and the Quest for Voting Equality, co-

edited a volume on redistricting, and published research on

redistricting in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Handley submitted a

report to the City Council entitled “An Analysis of Voting Patterns

by Race and an Assessment of Minority Voters’ Opportunities to

Elect Candidates in Recent Boston Municipal Elections.” Id.

In her presentation on October 25, 2022, Dr. Handley stated

that an opportunity district is a district that provides minority

voters with an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

Determining if a district allows for minority voters to elect their

candidates of choice is a functional, district-by-district

analysis that requires an evaluation of recompiled election

results and voting patterns. It is not tied to any specific

demographic targets or percentages of voters in that district.

On a volunteer basis, Dr. Duchin also presented districting

principles to the City Council on October 21, 2022 and provided a

brief memo in conjunction with the presentation. In her

presentation to the City Council, she described the relevant

“traditional districting principles” as population balance,

compactness, contiguity, racial fairness (which is governed by

both the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution),

and respect for “communities of interest” (which means that “when

there’s an identifiable community with shared interests, that

should be kept whole when possible or treated in some way that

amplifies the voice [of] government”). Dkt. 74 at 53:25-54:1-5.8

She also told the City Council about the related districting

principles of respect for incumbency and core retention. Core

retention refers to the principle that “districts from the

benchmark configuration should resemble the districts from the

8 The Court will use “traditional districting principles” to refer

to both required and non-required districting criteria. The City

Charter contains slightly different districting principles than

those presented by Dr. Duchin. Notably, although the Charter does

not require the consideration of communities of interest, it

requires the districts to “be drawn with a view toward preserving

the integrity of existing neighborhoods.” Joint Ex. 1-O at 2.

newly enacted plan.” Id. at 54:10-12. Dr. Duchin advised that it

was important to identify communities of interest at the beginning

of the process because redistricting involves dividing

neighborhoods.

Dr. Duchin emphasized to the City Council that total

population analyses do not tell the whole story and warned against

“chas[ing]” racial percentages as a goal. Dkt. 75 at 7:13. In her

opinion, a redistricting process would need to look at both voter

turnout and voting history as part of an “effectiveness analysis”

to determine whether protected minority voters have the

opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. Dkt. 74 at 78:16-

22. She explained that an “opportunity district” analysis involves

an examination under the three-part test in Thornburg v. Gingles,

478 U.S. 30, 46-51 (1986). She opined to the City Council that,

based on her analysis, District 4 remained an “effective”

district, although she did not conduct an analysis to determine

whether District 4 was “packed.” Dkt. 75 at 63:21-23, 17:5-6. She

emphasized to the City Council that it was a “mistake to rely on

demographic targets at all.” Dkt. 74 at 109:11.

D. Opportunity Districts

One of the City Council’s stated redistricting goals at the

meetings and working sessions was the maintaining and

strengthening of “opportunity districts.”9 In both the benchmark

and enacted maps, there are four majority-minority districts in

Boston: Districts 3, 4, 5, and 7.

In the hearings and working sessions, the majority of

Councilors stated they wanted to maintain and strengthen

District 3 as an “opportunity district,” and avoid “packing” more

Black residents into District 4 out of concern about violating the

VRA. For example, on October 17, 2022, Worrell stated that his

“goal has always been to preserve the historical districts of

color, maintain opportunity districts, and also grow in those

opportunity districts, where that opportunity has yet to be

realized . . . .” Joint Ex. 16, Tab 3 at 00:40:47.

On October 25, 2022, following the expert presentation, Chair

Breadon opposed a plan that would keep several majority White

precincts in District 3 and decrease the percentage of White

residents in District 4 to make up only 7.5% of the district. Chair

Breadon explained that “the whole idea is to try to increase

diversity in District 4, and then also increase the opportunity

for . . . communities of color in District 3 to elect the

candidates of their choice, so reducing the number of White

9 Plaintiffs highlight an email sent by one of Chair Breadon’s

staff members, sent a few weeks before the announcement of the

Unity Map. The email states that the “top objective was to create

a 4th minority-opportunity district of at least 60% Voting Age

Population . . . . [T]his could also be achieved with just moving

7 precincts, but we decided to go bold[.]” Joint Ex. 24 at 9.

population in District 4 is certainly contrary, and would even be

increasing the packing in District 4.” Joint Ex. 16, Tab 6 at

1:46:26.

On November 2, 2022, the day of the vote, Bok applauded the

fact that the enacted map strengthened District 3 as Boston’s

fourth opportunity district, given that Boston is a city with a

majority-minority population. As she explained, “one of the really

important aspects” of the map was to strengthen “a fourth

opportunity district in District 3 [which] the residents of Boston

deserve . . . in a majority city of color.” Joint Ex. 27 at 2:55:14.

At the October 21 working session, Arroyo stated that in order

to unpack District 4 and maintain District 3 as an opportunity

district, the City Council had to move precincts to the east of

District 4 into the district. Joint Ex. 16, Tab 5 at 2:22:40. In

his view, District 3 was an opportunity district that the City

Council needed to strengthen, not weaken. Joint Ex. 16, Tab 6 at

1:39:40. On the day of the vote, Arroyo, as co-sponsor of the

enacted map, reiterated that the City Council’s goal was to

maintain opportunity districts, stating that the enacted map “goes

out of its way to make sure that [the City Council is] creating

and strengthening opportunity districts[.]” Joint Ex. 27 at

2:28:11, 2:29:30.

E. The Enacted Map10

The enacted map was largely based on the Arroyo-Breadon

proposed map (Docket No. 1275). There are four precinct changes

that were made in the enacted map that are significant to the

current dispute.

First, the enacted map unified the Vietnamese community in

Fields Corner, which the parties called the Boston Little Saigon

Cultural District (or “Little Saigon”), by moving precincts 16-1

and 16-3 from District 4 to District 3. Historically, precincts

16-1 and 16-3 were located together in District 3 (i.e., in the

district plans of 1983, 1993, and 2002), prior to being moved to

District 4 in 2012.

Second, the plan unified neighborhoods in Roslindale by

shifting precincts 18-7 and 19-12 from District 4 to District 5.

This change resulted in a population deficit in District 4.

Third, the communities of the Anne Lynch Homes at Old Colony

and the West 9th St. Apartments in precincts 7-5 and 7-6 were moved

from District 2 to District 3. Congressman Stephen Lynch and at-

large Councilor Flaherty testified in opposition to this shift,

arguing that it divided public housing developments -- long-time

neighborhoods and communities of interest. Congressman Lynch

testified that the public housing developments had more political

10 The enacted map, Dkt. 5B, is in Appendix A. A close-up map of

Districts 2, 3, and 4 is in Appendix B.

“clout” when they were linked together, not divided. Dkt. 74 at

19:9-19. Kasper, president of the St. Vincent’s Parish Civic

Association, testified that the movement of precincts from

District 2 to District 3 would split up certain civic

organizations, threatening their ability to support residents

because they would not be able to “function” as well across

district lines. Dkt. 73 at 17:2-10.

Fourth, the City Council moved Dorchester precincts 16-8,

16-11, 16-12, and 17-13 (referred to by the parties as “the boot”)

from District 3 to District 4. These precincts constitute the Cedar

Grove neighborhood and parts of Adams Corner/Adams Village.

Precinct 16-9 is also part of the Adams Corner/Adams Village

neighborhood, but it remained in District 3 under the enacted map.

Councilor Flaherty described the residents of the boot as a

majority White “super-voting” bloc that turn out to vote even “in

a hurricane.” Dkt. 71 at 84:12-14.

Rasheed Walters, a long-time resident of District 4, objected

to the move of the boot because he was concerned it would dilute

the Black vote in District 4. Walters testified that District 4

was “drowning in the ocean of gentrification.” Dkt. 72 at 13:20.

In his view, gentrification caused the Black population in

District 4 to decrease from 61% to 52% since 2012. He stated that

the addition of “super-voting [W]hite precincts” to District 4

would allow White voters to “determin[e] the political destiny and

political representation of [B]lack residents.” Dkt. 72 at 19:4-

5, 23:18-19.

Two other witnesses, Maureen Feeney and Councilor Murphy,

testified that historic neighborhoods were being divided by the

shift of the boot from District 3 to District 4. Feeney stated

that when she was a City Councilor and Chair of the Committee on

Redistricting in 2002, one of her goals was to strengthen the Black

majority in District 4. The move of the boot into District 4

concerned her because it threatened District 4 voters’ ability to

“be able to elect the person they feel would best represent them,

and [] in District 4 it’s quite clear that [] would be someone who

is of the [B]lack race[.]” Dkt. 72 at 46:18-24. In addition, the

move would mean the loss of Adams Village, the “heart” of

District 3 and a “vibrant business district.” Dkt. 72 at 49:11,

40:20-21. Feeney testified that this move would impact the

availability of funding and opportunities in District 3 and have

a “devastating impact” on the Cedar Grove Civic Association.

Dkt. 72 at 40:11-23. Murphy similarly described how the move of

the boot to District 4 “cuts right up the middle of Adams Corner,”

which is the “heart” of District 3. Dkt. 73 at 37:16, 38:8.

F. Population and Racial Demographics

At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Duchin helpfully provided

population and racial demographic data relevant to redistricting.11

As explained above, the threshold problem was that District 2

(South Boston) was overpopulated by 18% beyond the ideal district

size and needed to shed excess population. The enacted map

addressed this overpopulation by making changes to certain

neighboring districts. Dr. Duchin described these changes,

starting with District 2. Four precincts (3-15, 6-1, 7-5, 7-6) and

one split precinct (8-6) were moved from District 2 to District 3.

In total, 9,830 people were reassigned from District 2 to

District 3. About two-thirds of the shifted population was White:

precinct 3-15’s population is “two-thirds White,” precinct 8-6 is

“plurality White,” 6-1 is “heavily White,” precinct 7-5 is “heavily

White,” and precinct 7-6 is about “half White.” Dkt. 74 at 69:11-

15. Not surprisingly, the shift in population to the south had a

cascading effect on other districts.

Based on the census data, District 3 (Dorchester) was about

7,000 residents underpopulated, or about 9% short of the ideal

size, and needed to grow to take care of the deficit. By moving in

five precincts from District 2 (South Boston), District 3 now had

11 Dr. Duchin’s data relied on total population data, rather than

voting age population. Many of the City’s statistics, as well as

the City Council’s and Dr. Handley’s data, use voting age

population.

an excess population of about 3,000 people. District 4 (Mattapan)

also needed to grow because “it was almost at the legal limit in

terms of being underpopulated.” Dkt. 74 at 71:18-20. In other

words, District 4 was barely within the “national standard” of

5% deviation from the ideal population size. Id. at 71:23-24.

The City Council moved the boot, the four precincts in the

southwest part of Dorchester (16-8, 16-11, 16-12 and 17-13), into

District 4. Precinct 16-8 has a total population of 3,042 that is

slightly over half White. Precinct 16-11 has 1,138 people, of whom

more than two-thirds are White, and Precinct 16-12 has 1,590

people, of whom nearly all are White. Precinct 17-13 has a total

population of 1,796 that is about half White. Altogether, 7,566

residents were reassigned from District 3 to District 4. Because

the precincts moved in from District 2 and the precincts moved out

of District 3 were both about two-thirds White, the number of White

residents in District 3 remained “virtually identical” in the

benchmark and enacted maps. Dkt. 74 at 75:20-22. Under the

benchmark map, White residents accounted for 41.5% of the voting

age population (“VAP”) in District 3; under the enacted map, White

residents accounted for 41.9% of the VAP.

Two precincts, 16-1 and 16-3, were moved from District 4 to

District 3. Precinct 16-1 has a total population of 2,142, with

Asian residents constituting the largest demographic group, about

a third of the population, in that precinct. Precinct 16-3 has a

total population of 2,518, with a plurality Black population of

840 people and a significant Asian population of 685 people. In

total, 4,660 people moved from District 4 to District 3.

Essentially, the enacted map moved predominantly White

precincts from District 3 into District 4, and predominantly

minority precincts from District 4 into District 3. However, as

Dr. Duchin pointed out, the racial composition in District 3

remained roughly the same due to the influx of White voters from

District 2. In comparison to the benchmark map, under the enacted

map in District 4, the VAP of White voters increased from 10.6% to

14.5%; the VAP of Black voters remained constant, decreasing only

from 52.6% to 52.1%; and the VAP of Asian voters decreased from

5.7% to 4.3%.

The City Council made other moves. Precinct 14-5, a heavily

Black precinct in the Mattapan neighborhood, was moved from

District 5 to District 4. Two precincts in the Roslindale area,

19-12 and 18-7, were reassigned from District 4 to District 5.

Precinct 19-12’s population is more than half White and precinct

18-7’s population is nearly equal parts Black and Hispanic.

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. Preliminary Injunction

“To grant a preliminary injunction, a district court must

find the following four elements satisfied: (1) a likelihood of

success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent

interim relief, (3) a balance of equities in the plaintiff’s favor,

and (4) service of the public interest.” Arborjet, Inc. v. Rainbow

Treecare Sci. Advancements, Inc., 794 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir.

2015).

II. Voting Rights Act

Under Section 2 of the VRA:

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or

standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or

applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner

which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of

any citizen of the United States to vote on account of

race or color . . . .

52 U.S.C. § 10301(a).

A line-drawing body violates Section 2 of the VRA if, “based

on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political

processes leading to nomination or election in the State or

political subdivision are not equally open to participation by

members of [a minority group] in that its members have less

opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in

the political process and to elect representatives of their

choice.” Wis. Legislature v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, 142 S. Ct.

1245, 1248 (2022) (quoting 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b)).

The Supreme Court set forth the framework for analyzing voter

dilution claims in Thornburg v. Gingles. 478 U.S. at 46-51.

Plaintiffs must establish that three “preconditions” are met: (1)

the minority group must be “sufficiently large and geographically

compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district”; (2)

the minority group must be “politically cohesive”; and (3) a

“significant bloc voting by non-minorities” must exist. Vecinos De

Barrio Uno v. City of Holyoke, 72 F.3d 973, 979 (1st Cir. 1995)

(citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50-51).

The Supreme Court has reiterated that “unless each of the

three Gingles prerequisites is established, ‘there neither has

been a wrong nor can [there] be a remedy.’” Cooper v. Harris, 581

U.S. 285, 306 (2017) (quoting Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 41

(1993)). If the Gingles preconditions are met, then courts consider

the “totality of circumstances to determine ‘whether the political

process is equally open to minority voters.’” Wis. Legislature,

142 S. Ct. at 1248 (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 79).

Much of the City Council meetings focused on opportunity

districts. The term “opportunity district” has its roots in VRA

litigation:

A successful Gingles claim undoes the dispersal of

minorities by requiring the state to concentrate them in

a new, majority-minority district that will allow the

group, usually, to be able to elect its preferred

candidates. See Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 13

(2009) (plurality opinion). Such Section 2—required

districts are often described as “opportunity districts.”

See, e.g., LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 428-29 (2006);

Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, The South After Shelby

County, 2013 Sup. Ct. Rev. 55, 75 n.84 (2013).

League of United Am. Citizens v. Abbott, No. 3:21-CV-259-DCG-JES,

2022 WL 17683191, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2022).

III. Equal Protection Clause

“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

provides that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ U.S. Const., Amdt.

14, § 1. Its central mandate is racial neutrality in governmental

decisionmaking.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 904 (1995). The

Equal Protection Clause limits racial gerrymandering without

“sufficient justification” to separate voters on the basis of race.

Cooper, 581 U.S. at 291.

Courts “must be sensitive to the complex interplay of forces

that enter a legislature’s redistricting calculus. Redistricting

legislation, will, for example, almost always be aware of racial

demographics; but it does not follow that race predominates in the

redistricting process.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 915-16. Further, “[a]t

the same time that the Equal Protection Clause restricts the

consideration of race in the districting process, compliance with

the [VRA] pulls in the opposite direction: [i]t often insists that

districts be created precisely because of race.” Abbott v. Perez,

138 S. Ct. 2305, 2314 (2018). Therefore, courts must exercise

“extraordinary caution” in making a finding that a line-drawing

body has drawn district lines based on race. Miller, 515 U.S. at

916.

Courts analyze such Equal Protection Clause claims under a

two-step analysis. Cooper, 581 U.S. at 291-92. First, a plaintiff

must prove “either through circumstantial evidence of a district’s

shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative

purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the

legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters

within or without a particular district.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 916.

A finding of racial predominance means that the line-drawing

body “subordinated traditional race-neutral districting

principles,” such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for

communities of interest, to racial considerations. Id. While the

use of racial targets or demographic goals can be evidence of

predominance, a plaintiff must show that such goals “had a direct

and significant impact on the drawing of at least some of [the

district lines],” such that they predominated over traditional

districting principles. Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575

U.S. 254, 274 (2015). In addition, in conducting a racial

predominance analysis, a line-drawing body’s efforts to create

districts of equal population are not a factor to be used in

determining whether race predominates. See id. at 273-74. Rather,

the racial predominance inquiry is about which voters the

legislature decides to move in or out of a district to meet the

need for equal population, and whether race, as opposed to

traditional districting principles, predominated as a reason for

that decision. Id. at 273.

Second, if racial considerations predominated over other

factors, then the redistricting map must withstand strict

scrutiny. Cooper, 581 U.S. at 292. The line-drawing body must

“prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a ‘compelling

interest’ and ‘is narrowly tailored’ to that end.” Id. (quoting

Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. 178, 193

(2017)). The Supreme Court has “long assumed that one compelling

interest is complying with operative provisions of the [VRA].” Id.

Further, a redistricting plan drawn based on race is narrowly

tailored if the line-drawing body has “a strong basis in evidence

in support of the (race-based) choice that it has made.” Alabama,

575 U.S. at 257 (cleaned up). For example, a line-drawing body may

have a strong basis in evidence to draw a race-based map “in order

to comply with a statute when [it has] good reasons to believe

such use is required, even if a court does not find that the

actions were necessary for statutory compliance.” Id. at 278.

ANALYSIS

I. Likelihood of Success

A. Equal Protection Clause (Count III)

Plaintiffs argue that race predominated over traditional

districting principles, like preserving neighborhoods, when the

City Council (1) moved four largely White high-voter turnout

precincts (the boot) from District 3 to District 4 and (2) moved

the Anne Lynch Homes at Old Colony and the West 9th St. Apartments

from District 2 to District 3. Approximately 7,500 people were

moved from District 3 to District 4 – a significant number of

people.

As direct evidence of improper racial motivation, Plaintiffs

rely on the following quotes from City Council meetings:12

1. September 30, 2022 – Boston City Council Working

Session, available at [https://youtu.be/ShKQHyScOm4]

(last accessed January 27, 2023).

a. Co-author of the Unity Map Councilor Ricardo

Arroyo stated: “I think part of this was trying

to make sure that we kept . . . the racial

demographics essentially in line[.]” (at 47:05)

b. Councilor Bok stated: “. . . the Voting Rights

Act is racially conscious . . . because the

history in America is of being racially conscious

the other way, right, of trying to disenfranchise

people of color and that therefore although

communities of interest that are neighborhoods

are important, that may come in second, right,

to making sure that racial minorities have the

opportunity to have strong political power.” (at

1:09:36)

c. Councilor Lara stated: “It’s someone’s turn on

this map to be an opportunity district, it is

very obvious that is District 3, and the reason

why it’s not District 2, it’s because we build

the Seaport and we put 13,000 white people into

the Seaport.” (at 1:02:20)

d. Councilor Fernandes Anderson stated: “If this

was monopoly and the pieces in the districts were

houses and hotels and different types of objects

and they all had different colors, black, white,

brown, I think a ten year old would be able to

make all these districts an opportunity district

. . . A ten year old would be able to look at

this entire map and shift it and split it

evenly[.]” (at 1:29:12)

12 These YouTube quotes are unaltered from the text of Joint

Exhibit 7.

2. October 7, 2022 – Boston City Council Working

Session, available at [https://youtu.be/bcHqzUfkAYE]

(last accessed January 27, 2023).

a. Chair Liz Breadon stated “. . . we’re trying to

strengthen the, actually, we’re trying to

balance the racial minority, the total minority

numbers between District 3 and District 4 to try

to get a little more, increase the opportunity

in District 3. I think that’s really the crux of

it.” (at 45:55)

b. Council Arroyo stated: “District 4, frankly, and

I think the Voting Rights Act is clear on this,

cannot pack more people of color into it, it has

to become a more white district.” (at 1:34:40).

c. Councilor Mejia, discussed the negative racial

history of District 2 and 3 and stated “So if

[t]he goal and the exercise is for us to move

forward in an equitable way, I just think that

we need to just be super mindful of staying here

in the present because bringing into this

conversation neighborhoods like Savin Hill to my

colleague’s reference was very different in

1981, 1982, 1983, so let’s just try to remain

focused on the here and now and the racial makeup

of the city that we’re living in today.” (at

1:57:20).

3. October 17, 2022 – Boston City Council Working

Session, available at [https://youtu.be/HFrYE2zUPNg]

(last accessed January 27, 2023).

a. Councilor Breadon stated: “Both District 5 and

District 3 are opportunity districts, and we need

to ensure that they continue to be opportunity

districts and strengthen them.” Councilor Baker

responded: “And so opportunity being 60% of non-

white?” Councilor Breadon responded: “60% of

non-white or ideally pushing it up higher than

that up to 65.” Council Baker queried: “Ideally,

as a political aspiration?”. Councilor Breadon

responded: “Yes.” (at 1:09:07)

b. Councilor Breadon stated: “It’s my understanding

that a white population of 9% in District 4 is

not a high enough percentage.” (at 1:12:43)

c. Councilor Bok stated: “It’s one thing to talk

about neighborhoods, it’s another thing to talk

about multiple distinct neighborhoods being a

block together in a way that then sort of

definitionally creates racial blocks across

multiple neighborhoods of the city as being like

a block in and of themselves because then

inherently you’re not going to be able to define

a desegregating map.” (at 1:19:30)

d. Councilor Bok stated: “We clearly can’t have maps

that make District 4, that reduce its white

population, and I would say we clearly can’t have

maps that increase District 3’s white

population, those are very simple guardrails.”

(at 1:18:08).

4. October 20, 2022 – Boston City Council

Redistricting Meeting, available at

[https://youtu.be/huEpOC3Mn9s] (last accessed January

27, 2023).

a. Councilor Fernandes Anderson stated: “The

redistricting process seems so contrived,

doesn’t it, and there’s a lot of sort of mystical

nuances to it. What exactly is happening in the

back door it’s so political, it’s becoming so

racial – wait – in fact it is racial, it’s the

one thing that we can actually prioritize in this

process.” (at 1:47:30)

b. Councilor Fernandes Anderson discussed Boston’s

history of segregation and stated “Racial

tension? Yeah, that’s right. That’s a good thing.

Let’s talk about it because you know it’s due

time. And so if we’re here and you’re not used

to it and you’re uncomfortable, that is a good

thing, let’s have those conversations and talk

about how we create true equity across the board

for everyone, it’s just something that we’re not

used to[.]” (at 1:49:48).

Joint Ex. 7 at 1-3.

Plaintiffs also emphasize the voting history of the precincts

the City Council chose to remove from District 3 to strengthen it

as an opportunity district. While the VAP of White voters in

District 4 marginally increased from 10.5% to 14.5%, the residents

in the boot have large voter turnout percentages: the residents

are super-voters. For example, the voter turnout in 2021 was 50.6%

in precinct 16-8, 48.4% in precinct 16-11, 70.1% in precinct 16-

12, and 43.7% in precinct 17-13. In contrast, the voter turnout

for precincts added to District 3 was about half of that for the

same election.

Defendants argue that these quotes are mere “snippets.” They

rely primarily on the expert testimony of Dr. Duchin to prove that

the City Council’s enacted map does not exhibit any statistical or

demographic evidence of racial gerrymandering. Dr. Duchin

testified that signs of racial gerrymandering, such as significant

demographic changes or split precincts, are not present in the

enacted map. Rather, the enacted map has one of the highest rates

of “core retention” Dr. Duchin has seen in the country. Dr. Duchin

inferred that core retention must have been a high priority for

the City Council. According to Dr. Duchin, the districts in the

enacted map are also contiguous and compact.

Dr. Duchin also opined that the enacted map did not improve

“the effectiveness in District 3 from a [B]lack voting point of

view.” Dkt. 74 at 125:4-5. Based on her analysis of past elections,

to the extent the City Councilors were motivated by a desire to

improve the effectiveness of Black voters in electing their

candidates of choice, they did not succeed. In her opinion,

Plaintiffs have not established a VRA violation because District 4

remains “effective for [B]lack voters to elect their candidates of

choice.” Dkt. 74 at 47:18-19. Plaintiffs have also failed to

establish an Equal Protection Clause violation because of the

absence of statistical or demographic evidence of racial

gerrymandering in Districts 2, 3, and 4. Dkt. 74 at 47:20-48:2.

However, Dr. Duchin did not conduct a Gingles analysis.

Dr. Duchin further highlights that there is no significant

change to the racial demographics in Districts 3 or 4. She

acknowledges, however, that she did not watch the City Council

working sessions or hear the race-based comments made by City

Councilors. Her conclusions are based on the statistical evidence.

After a review of the record, I find that Plaintiffs have met

their burden of proving a likelihood of success on their claim

that a majority of Councilors relied on race as the predominant

consideration in drawing the boundaries between Districts 3 and 4.

Plaintiffs have provided direct evidence of the City Council’s

racial motivation to strengthen District 3 as an opportunity

district and address concerns regarding “packing” in District 4.

Contrary to the City’s argument, discussions about racial

demographics were not isolated “snippets” made by a few City

Councilors. Defendants argue that the predominant goal was “core

retention,” but the concept of “core retention” was not a focus of

discussion in either the City Council working sessions or Chair

Breadon’s report.

The City also argues that Chair Breadon’s report demonstrates

that other important goals, such as the preservation of

neighborhoods between Districts 3 and 4 (e.g., Little Saigon, Cedar

Grove, and the Neponset/Port Norfolk and St. Ann’s communities),

align with traditional districting principles. While this is true,

these traditional principles were secondary to the overarching

goals of strengthening District 3 as an opportunity district and

compliance with the VRA by “unpacking” District 4. These goals had

a “direct and significant impact” on District 3 and 4’s border.

Cooper, 581 U.S. at 300 (quoting Alabama, 575 U.S. at 274); see

Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 959-62 (1996) (concluding that race

predominated in several districts because one of the legislature’s

explicit goals was to create majority-minority districts, which

was never “seriously questioned,” and because the legislature

“neglected traditional redistricting criteria” and “manipulated

district lines”); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 906 (1996)

(explaining that the principal drafter of the enacted map testified

that the creation of two majority Black districts was the

“principal reason” for drawing two districts). On this record, the

Court finds a likelihood of success on the claim that race

predominated the City Council’s decision to move four precincts

with largely White super-voters from District 3 to District 4.

I further find that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a

likelihood of success in establishing that the movement of public

housing developments constituted race-based gerrymandering.

District 2 had to shed population and District 3 needed population.

While residents expressed concern that the enacted map split their

neighborhoods and diminished their political muscle, Plaintiffs

provided little evidence to support a claim that this move was

predominantly race-based.

The next question is whether District 3’s and 4’s lines can

survive strict scrutiny, i.e., whether they were narrowly tailored

to achieve a compelling interest. Cooper, 581 U.S. at 292.

Significantly, no City Councilor testified to explain the enacted

map, and Chair Breadon’s report does not address the City Council’s

desire to strengthen and maintain District 3 as an opportunity

district, or the desire to unpack District 4 -- themes consistently

repeated throughout the City Council meetings.

As an initial matter, a line-drawing body cannot use race as

a predominant factor in drawing district lines unless there is a

compelling interest, such as compliance with the VRA. See Cooper,

581 U.S. at 292. Certain Councilors frequently expressed concerns

that packing more minority voters into District 4 would raise a

possible VRA violation. Similarly, the City Council’s emphasis on

“opportunity districts” may reflect a good faith misunderstanding

that VRA compliance requires redistricting based on racial

demographics.

However, when a line-drawing body “invokes the VRA to justify

race-based districting, it must show (to meet the ‘narrow

tailoring’ requirement) that it had a ‘strong basis in evidence’

for concluding that the statute required its action.” Cooper, 581

U.S. at 292 (quoting Alabama, 575 U.S. at 278). Because the City

Council has failed to produce a “strong basis in evidence” of a

VRA violation to justify drawing District 3 and 4 lines primarily

based on race, it cannot demonstrate that the enacted map was

narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. See Alabama, 575

U.S. at 278.

Defendants argue that many of the City Councilors’ stated

racial goals preceded presentations from Dr. Duchin, Dr. Handley,

and Attorney Wice. It is true that after the expert presentations,

Chair Breadon referred to electoral “opportunity” and

“effectiveness,” and disavowed the use of demographic data. Even

then, many City Councilors continued to discuss race in proposing

various redistricting plans. For example, on October 25, several

Councilors continued to discuss race and reaffirmed their

adherence to the goal of strengthening District 3 as an opportunity

district. Critically, the City Council did not provide a factual

basis or expert analysis for its concerns about packing in

District 4. Instead, experts indicated to the City Council that

there were no VRA violations with the benchmark nor with the

enacted map.

On this record, Defendants have not established that

strengthening District 3 as an opportunity district or shifting

more White voters into District 4 to avoid packing serves a

compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to serve that end.

See Cooper, 581 U.S. at 306; Alabama, 575 U.S. at 278; cf. Miller,

515 U.S. at 921 (“[C]ompliance with federal antidiscrimination

laws cannot justify race-based districting where the challenged

district was not reasonably necessary under a constitutional

reading and application of those laws.”).

B. Voting Rights Act (Count II)

Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their claim that the

enacted map violated the VRA. Plaintiffs allege that the enacted

map dilutes the voting power of Black residents in District 4, of

White residents in District 3, “and of various other minority

groups whose tight-knit communities have been severed across

multiple districts, damaging their collective power to effect

meaningful change at the ballot box.” Dkt. 50 ¶ 179, at 21. At the

evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs’ primary VRA claim was that the

transfer of the boot, i.e., four predominately White, high-voter

turnout precincts, diluted the voting power of Black voters in

District 4. Plaintiffs also deny racial polarization exists in

Boston, an essential component to their voter dilution claim.

Compare Joint Ex. 9 ¶ 10, at 5 (explaining that the second and

third Gingles factors “call for demonstrations of racially

polarized voting”) with Dkt. 50 ¶ 177, at 21 (“There was no racial

polarization of voting blocs in either district that would require

redistricting based on race.”).

Even assuming that Plaintiffs established the first and

second Gingles factor with respect to Black voters in District 4,

there is no evidence in the record to support the third Gingles

factor, i.e., “that the [W]hite majority votes sufficiently as a

bloc” to defeat the preferred candidate of minority voters.

Gingles, 478 U.S. at 51. Quite the contrary: in District 4, the

preferred candidates of Black voters won in 2015, 2019, and 2021

in municipal elections.

Further, both Dr. Duchin and Dr. Handley independently

concluded that District 4 in the enacted map “would not undermine

the ability of Black voters in District 4 to elect candidates of

their choice.” Dkt. 46-1 ¶ 12, at 15. Because Plaintiffs are likely

to fail in satisfying all three of the Gingles preconditions,

Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their VRA claim.

C. Open Meeting Law (Count I)

Under Massachusetts’ Open Meeting Law (“OML”), “a public body

shall post notice of every meeting at least 48 hours prior to the

meeting, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.” Mass.

Gen. Laws ch. 30A, § 20(b). The OML was “designed to eliminate

much of the secrecy surrounding the deliberations and decisions on

which public policy is based.” City of Revere v. Mass. Gaming

Comm’n, 71 N.E.3d 457, 475 (Mass. 2017) (quoting Ghiglione v.

School Comm. of Southbridge, 378 N.E.2d 984, 987 (Mass. 1978)).

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts believes that “[i]t is

essential to a democratic form of government that the public have

broad access to the decisions made by its elected officials and to

the way in which the decisions are reached.” Id. (quoting Foudy v.

Amherst-Pelham Regional Sch. Comm., 521 N.E.2d 391, 394 (Mass.

1988)).

Even if there is a violation of the OML, “violations of the

open meeting law may be cured by subsequent ‘independent

deliberative action’ taken in a full meeting.” McCrea v. Flaherty,

885 N.E.2d 836, 841 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008) (quoting Pearson v.

Selectmen of Longmeadow, 726 N.E.2d 980, 985 (Mass. App. Ct.

2000)). Taking subsequent independent deliberative action “helps

to accomplish the purpose of the open meeting law,” but it cannot

be “merely a ceremonial acceptance” or “a perfunctory ratification

of secret decisions.” Id. (cleaned up).

Plaintiffs allege that the October 10, October 18, and

October 19, 2022 meetings violated the OML. Plaintiffs are likely

to prevail in showing that at least the October 19 meeting violated

the OML. Defendants acknowledge that a quorum of the City Council

attended the meeting and discussed redistricting, but that no

notice was provided at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.13

However, even if there were a violation of the OML, Defendants

are likely to prevail in establishing that they cured it. See

McCrea, 885 N.E.2d at 841 (explaining that “violations of the open

meeting law may be cured by subsequent ‘independent deliberative

action’ taken in a full meeting.”). After the October 19 meeting,

the City Council held five properly noticed meetings, hearings,

and working sessions regarding redistricting on October 20,

October 21, October 24 (working session), October 24 (hearing),

and October 25. Several meetings involved extensive discussions on

redistricting plans, while others had public testimony. At the

last meeting on November 2, 2022, the City Council voted on the

enacted map.

These meetings go beyond “merely a ceremonial acceptance” or

“a perfunctory ratification of secret decisions,” and consisted of

substantive debate and discussion regarding the redistricting

legislation. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed

on their Open Meeting Law claim.

II. Irreparable Harm

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they

will suffer irreparable harm if voting takes place based on a

13 Defendants do not concede that “deliberation” took place at the

October 19 meeting.

redistricting map that violates the Equal Protection Clause.

“Courts routinely deem restrictions on fundamental voting rights

irreparable injury” and “discriminatory voting procedures in

particular are ‘the kind of serious violation of the Constitution

and the Voting Rights Act for which courts have granted immediate

relief.’” League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769

F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. City of

Cambridge, 799 F.2d 137, 140 (4th Cir. 1986)). Requiring Plaintiffs

to vote under a redistricting map that violates the Equal

Protection Clause constitutes irreparable harm.

III. Balance of Equities

Of concern, the next election relying on the enacted map is

the November 2023 regular municipal election. The deadline for

submitting nomination papers for candidacy is currently May 23,

2023. At the evidentiary hearing, the parties were unclear if this

deadline could be extended by the Boston Election Commission, a

defendant in the case. There are also concerns regarding the one-

year residency requirement for candidates if the enacted map is

enjoined, in addition to well-founded election concerns regarding

the constitutionality of using the benchmark map in the next

election. Defendants argue that preserving the status quo by using

the benchmark map would result in “demonstrable, unconstitutional

vote dilution” due to the large population variance in that map,

which would violate the one-person, one-vote mandate. Defendants

also argue that an injunction would frustrate public reliance on

the City Council and cause confusion. Dkt. 25 at 25.

The Court does not take these concerns, in addition to

administrative and logistical harms, lightly. However, on balance,

constitutional concerns with the enacted map prevail.

IV. Remedy

On the last day of the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs asked

the Court to appoint a special master to oversee the redistricting

process. Chair Breadon’s report made several recommendations for

future redistricting committees, including petitioning the state

legislature to authorize the drawing of new precincts, ensuring

funding for experts, and establishing an “independent advisory

commission representative” to advise the City Council during

redistricting. Joint Ex. 6 at 27-28. During closing arguments, the

Court asked for supplemental briefing on possible remedies, such

as extending the deadline for filing nomination papers. However,

the Court received none.

“Relief in redistricting cases is ‘fashioned in the light of

well-known principles of equity.’” North Carolina v. Covington,

581 U.S. 486, 488 (2017) (quoting Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585). This

Court must “undertake an equitable weighing process to select a

fitting remedy for the legal violations it has identified, taking

account of what is necessary, what is fair, and what is workable.”

Id. (cleaned up). Federal court review of redistricting

“represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local

functions.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 915. Redistricting is primarily

the duty and responsibility of line-drawing bodies, and “is a most

difficult subject for legislatures,” necessitating the need for

line-drawing bodies to “have discretion to exercise the political

judgment necessary to balance competing interests.” Id. Courts

must presume good faith of line-drawing bodies, until a party makes

a sufficient showing otherwise. Id.; see also Jacksonville Branch

of NAACP v. City of Jacksonville, Case No. 3:22-cv-493-MMH-LLL,

2022 WL 7089087, at *48 (M.D. Fl. Oct. 12, 2022) (concluding that

the City Council did not act with “ill motive or bad intention,”

but despite perhaps having the “very understandable desire to

assure continued minority representation on the City Council,”

still likely violated the Equal Protection Clause).

In my view, the City Council is best positioned to redraw the

lines in light of traditional districting principles and the

Constitution. The role of race in redistricting is complicated and

in flux, and the Court finds that the City Council acted in good

faith in trying to comply with complex voting rights laws.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, ’ Motion for Preliminary

Plaintiffs

Injunction (Dkt. 21) is ALLOWED with respect to Count III

(violation of the Fourteenth Amendment). The Court does not find

a likelihood of success on the remaining counts. Defendants are

enjoined from using the enacted map in municipal elections.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS

Hon. Patti B. Saris

United States District Judge

City Council Redistricting . Docket #1275 Committee Report

November 2, 2022

Ee)

‘waerr

BN ey,

CLLRS EO ref CaS

pSnee” ELSES □□

LA! OC SEES x

Reg EO

| □

ERS) OP

SPP □□□ SG jee

Sa ogee

rat ai ar)

Caan

Eas?

Tes (J Current City Council District (2016)

oer)

04.08 4 ~ nae — i

Districti2

9-06 a0) Comeomeee

3 independence

3 038-02 ; 4

B-0 secs os

AG bos ik □□□ □□□

: or ake

08-05), >

Biompson

xt! 07-10 3-0 Signa

Uphatiss 13-02

2-08 43_9413-08 ine! serepeetr

Pm UT

wane

{14-01 |

home. hf Sk

ae ee ES □

| COB a

eer oe P\. 5.05 45 re

ikem

(LAE 4 | on Sar

a-0 Pf ce ee ee

eas Se 4 Boyche store) 5 -(

J aay 4107 oye 5-0

aero Ha ee ry 6-10

erie We eet feet Lae i a

ae” a a oot an

14.08 - Districti4é \ '7-08117-09. —"_)

gtr 4 2h any, i eee) □□ ee 5

AAW OF pe a - - pa

MO NS ar eer ee Maa

BAN TA \. Pea toed a

14-14gg ne re Ne ponsctenmmme ay

Sete SS TE eT ea

a. “ee me ey Ce bee Aeris gay

a Og OE ae ae he Se

: os PY i Pocetes FT —

Dacre so tee am Ct a ia

fF mie GRAN □□□ Me AT eo

ou fae ee ec a ae etn

I pon ea a

aa ee

c-

Yay