Hey, there! Log in / Register

Federal judge tosses changes in City Council district lines; council might have less than three weeks to draw new ones

A federal judge today ordered city officials to stop their preparations for the fall district council elections, ruling that the maps approved last fall are illegal because they relied on race to draw the boundaries between two largely Dorchester districts without proof racially based solutions were needed in Boston.

"The ball is back in the City Council’s court," US District Court Judge Patti Saris ruled. "Defendants are enjoined from using the enacted map in municipal elections."

Saris's injunction is a partial victory for a group - funded in part by at least three city councilors who voted against the plan - who sued to block the changes. However, Saris concluded that while the group had proven their case when it came to the use of race conclusively enough for her to issue an injunction, they failed to prove that the 9-4 council majority deliberately violated the federal Voting Rights Act rather than engaging in "a good faith misunderstanding" of the law.

Saris also rejected the group's request that she appoint a special master to draw district lines based on the 2020 census, ruling that she did not thing the council majority acted out of any ill will and that the council remained the best option for re-drawing lines in time for the September preliminaries and November final election.

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.

She acknowledged this means the council and the city elections department will have to move fast, since May 23 is the current deadline for submitting nomination papers for district seats.

Saris also concluded that several public meetings held to discuss redistricting without sufficient advance public notice would not ultimately prove to be a violation of the state Open Meeting Law because the council ultimately "cured" the issue by holding a series of well and legally publicized City Hall hearings on redistricting.

The council moved to redraw the lines used to elect the city's nine district councilors after the 2020 Census numbers showed that District 2 - largely South Boston, including the emerging Seaport - now had too many residents and needed to shed voters.

In an effort to deal with that while maintaining "opportunity" districts in which minority candidates would have a good chance of winning, while also not "packing" too many minority voters into one district, the plan approved by the council shifted a number of precincts around, moving some District 2 precincts into District 3, such as two of its largest housing projects, and moving District 3's largely white Cedar Grove and part of its also largely white Adams Village into District 4.

Saris concluded the effort to maintain Districts 3, 4, 5 (Hyde Park, Mattapan, Roslindale) and 7 (Roxbury) as minority "opportunity districts," while well meaning, likely violated federal equal-protection laws because councilors never showed "a compelling interest" to use race as a reason to draw district lines a particular way. She noted that none of the city councilors who discussed keeping districts as minority "opportunity districts" testified in hearings she held and that none appeared to provide such specifics during council hearings on redistricting.

Because the City Council has failed to produce a “strong basis in evidence” of a [Voting Rights Act] 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. ...

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.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete ruling (includes maps)924.59 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Quietly celebrate the success they wanted- Baker out- and come up with a less drastic map.

up
Voting closed 0

Any voter find this surprising?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm surprised. Who'd think a judge based in Boston would decide against Gerrymandering?

up
Voting closed 0

Chalk one up for the good guys.

up
Voting closed 0

The white grievance councilors aren't exactly the good guys here.

up
Voting closed 0

Reverse racism is also racism.

up
Voting closed 0

Would be even better if Baker reconsiders, we need some sane folks on the council so we don’t end up like SF.

up
Voting closed 0

Are divided over the decision those on the left side ot the tracks support the ruling those on the right side of the tracks oppose the decision.

up
Voting closed 0

It sounds like neither the City (Mayor's Office) nor the Council even bothered to defend this thing.
"No City Councilor testified for Defendants in support of the enacted redistricting plan."

"Significantly, no City Councilor testified to explain the enacted map..."

"However, when a line-drawing body invokes the VRA to justify race-based districting, it must show ... that it had a ‘strong basis in evidence’ for concluding that the statute required its action.” ... Because the City Council has failed to produce a “strong basis in evidence” ... it cannot demonstrate that the enacted map was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest."

"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." (from the defendants)

So nobody spoke up. They provided no data or fact-based arguments - just youtube videos of the council hearings...? They didn't even provide input on how they can move forward from this given the compressed time frame. It's not like they were dealing with some neocon Judge brought up from a red state. I'm sure if even given SOMEthing to work with she could have pushed a bit, but when the defendants can't even be bothered to speak up... that's a bit pathetic.

Feels like a big "nevermind."

up
Voting closed 0

The recent ruling regarding redistricting has some unclear language that leaves me feeling uncertain. They claim that race is a factor to consider, but not the dominant factor. However, they do not specify exactly how much weight should be given to race. Additionally, it is unclear why District 3 is affected when it has a nearly equal demographic of white residents both before and after redistricting.

Furthermore, Saris suggests that race can be used if there is a "compelling interest" but the City Council has failed to provide evidence of a Voting Rights Act violation to justify drawing lines based on race. As a result, the plaintiffs will not receive an independent map drawer as they had requested.

Saris states that the City Council is in the best position to redraw the lines, considering traditional districting principles and the Constitution. However, the role of race in redistricting is complex and in flux, making this a difficult decision for all involved.

Overall, this ruling seems to be causing some confusion and frustration. It is likely that the City Council will revert to their original Unity Map (which stretches D3 from the Neponset to the Fens), which may have more drastic changes and need to be passed hastily. This situation has backfired on the plaintiffs, and the City Council can wait until the last minute to release any new maps. They're not going to put forward the Murphy Map, they can simply don't have to.

Quotes that seem dubious or unclear from Sairs:

“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.”

If that's true then why is District 3 even affected when its 47% white both before and after redistricting?

You can use race if you demonstrate a "compelling interest"... such as...?

"Because the City Council has failed to produce a “strong basis in evidence” of a [Voting Rights Act] 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"

"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."

What a wishy-washy ruling, wow

It's back and forth with her, and this is a really bad ruling for that reason IMO.

up
Voting closed 0