Supreme Court sides with Miami commissioners in ongoing redistricting dispute

MIAMI – The U.S. Supreme Court dealt another blow to plaintiffs in the ongoing legal battle over Miami’s political redistricting Thursday.

In a brief order, the court denied the group’s request to lift a federal appeals court’s stay in the case, meaning a city commission district map selected by commissioners themselves, rather than one drawn by the plaintiffs, will be used in the November general election.

The plaintiffs are made up of the NAACP and other community groups and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

They successfully argued that commissioners’ original map was was unconstitutionally racially-gerrymandered and a federal district court judge ordered commissioners to draw a new one, which commissioners did earlier this summer.

That same judge said that new map made insufficient changes and remained racially-gerrymandered, however, and ordered the plaintiffs’ map be used in November. But city officials successfully got an appeals court, and now the Supreme Court, to side with them.

That allows the city’s redrawn map, which made minor adjustments to district boundaries, to remain in place.

“City of Miami residents won big today as our nation’s highest court recognized that political shenanigans by special interest groups will not be tolerated by an impartial Supreme Court,” District 1 Commissioner Alex Diaz de la Portilla said in a statement. “They said enough is enough and I agree. Our City Commission approved maps meet constitutional standards and protect our City of Miami neighborhoods. End of story.”

The ACLU released a statement regarding the decision Thursday:

“This decision by the Supreme Court is disheartening and a blow to the residents of Miami and our democracy. Unfortunately, that Court has chosen to temporarily permit blatantly gerrymandered maps that divide our communities along racial lines, compromising our right to fair representation. This decision has taken us a step back, stripping Miami residents of their voice and ability to be adequately represented, regardless of their race.

“Even so, the fight is not over. While we are disappointed in this decision, it only impacts the November 2023 municipal election. We look forward to proving our case at trial in January so that Miamians will be able to live in fair districts starting in 2025. Communities across Miami have worked tirelessly to make their voices heard, and we won’t stop now.”

Carrie McNamara, ACLU staff attorney

In the meantime, legal analyst David Weinstein called the high court’s decision a “short term win for the city.”

“It is interesting to note that Justice Thomas did in fact refer the application to the entire Court. This does not mean that they have rejected the district court’s order, but simply that they do not want to overturn the circuit court’s order on the stay.”

Weinstein added that with the full trial in the case set to proceed on Jan. 29, “the results of that trial will, in all likelihood, result in yet another new redistricting map.”

Litigation also continues in a second case related to the maps. It accuses city commissioners of purposely drawing the new boundaries to exclude the Grapeland Heights home of a candidate challenging Diaz de la Portilla.

Miguel Angel Gabela’s lawsuit accuses the city of violating a new state statute that prohibits municipal districts “drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a candidate for member of the governing body or an incumbent member of the governing body based on the candidate’s or incumbent’s residential address.”

It also accuses the city of violating its code, the county’s Bill of Rights and Florida’s Sunshine Law by failing to provide adequate notice of the meeting to adopt the new map.

It also says the city violated the state’s Sunshine Law and the state constitution by having its consultant, Miguel De Grandy, meet privately and individually with commissioners in order to “amalgamate” their input on a new map.