A federal judge ruled that the City Council likely violated the Constitution when factoring race into the establishment of Boston’s new redistricting map, and issued a preliminary injunction to bar the map’s use in the November election.
U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris said in a Monday ruling that the council likely violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which bars laws requiring segregation of the races, when compiling the redistricting map that was approved last fall, by a 9-4 council vote.
“The court allows the motion for preliminary injunction,” Saris wrote. “Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success in 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.”
“The ball is back in the City Council’s court,” Saris continued, later adding, “In my view, the City Council is best positioned to redraw the lines in light of traditional redistricting principles and the Constitution.”
The Equal Protection Clause was one of three alleged violations cited by the plaintiffs, a group of residents led by Rasheed Walters, in their lawsuit against the City Council, which led to a week-long federal court proceeding that continued to divide the panel long after its April 5 conclusion. Walters is a former Boston Herald columnist who was not on staff.
The plaintiffs had also claimed alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Open Meeting Law, arguing that “the enacted redistricting map was motivated by a desire to achieve ‘racial balancing’ among districts in the City of Boston,” Saris wrote.
The city contended 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.”
Saris noted that the plaintiffs “have not demonstrated a likelihood of success” on their claims that the VRA and the Open Meeting Law were violated, adding that although it likely violated the Constitution,“the City Council acted in good faith in trying to comply with complex voting rights laws.”
Several councilors, although they were being sued, testified in support of the lawsuit, and spoke in favor of the judge’s ruling on Monday.
“I am pleased with the ruling because it supports my long-held belief that this map unfairly robbed District 3 and the citizens of Boston of its voice and was designed to weaken its position in Boston politics,” said City Councilor Frank Baker, who represents the district.
Baker opposed changes to his district and neighboring district four, which moved a chunk of southern Dorchester from D3 to D4. Advocates said the changes were necessary to add more white voters to avoid a situation of “packing” Black voters in D4, the Herald has reported.
“Gerrymandering is gerrymandering, whether in pursuit of progressive or conservative goals,” Baker said. “The court saw that an unfair map would deprive the residents of District 3 and the citizens of Boston of their time-honored role and stature.”
Councilor-at-Large Erin Murphy, who last month requested a copy of public records for 5,816 pages of inter-council redistricting correspondence that she said may have pointed to open meeting law violations that occurred during the fraught redistricting process, said Monday’s ruling was a “victory for transparency, accountability and the people of the City of Boston.”
“The United States District Court identified a deeply flawed process, and I welcome the opportunity to join my colleagues in rewriting more equitable voting districts that protect our constituents’ constitutional rights,” Murphy said. “The map that the council approved, over my objections and those of three other councilors, unfairly divided neighborhoods.”
The two co-sponsors of the map, Ricardo Arroyo and Liz Breadon, however, declined to comment. Arroyo deferred comment to Breadon, chair of the redistricting committee, who said, “I have not had the opportunity to read the ruling at this time.”
Council President Ed Flynn, who, along with Baker reportedly helped to fund the lawsuit, called for unity among a divided council, rather than speak in favor or against Monday’s court ruling.
“At this time, it is critical that we put our differences aside, come together, and do what’s best for the people of Boston by delivering positive leadership and focusing on long-standing redistricting principles,” Flynn said in a statement.
Glen Hannington, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said his clients were “very pleased with the court’s decision.
“We felt all along we had a strong case based upon the evidence and the witnesses that we presented,” Hannington said. “And as the judge says, now it’s back in the City Council’s court.”
He added, “The City Council has to figure this out among themselves — if they want to try to resolve it or keep the litigation going. I think the judge’s 43-page decision is telling.”