701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 | Miami, FL 33131 | T 305.789.7744 | F 305.679.

6422
Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com

Miguel A. DeGrandy
(305) 789-7535
miguel.degrandy@hklaw.com

February 9, 2021

Mr. Art Noriega

City Manager
City of Miami
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami Florida 33130

Re: Proposal to Perform Restricting Services for the City of Miami

Dear Manager Noriega:

In response to your request, I am happy to provide a preliminary proposal to the City of

Miami (the City) with regard to redistricting services. In my prior representations of the City, I
had my own boutique law firm and therefore had more flexibility to manage conflict issues.
However, I am now a partner at the international law firm of Holland & Knight LLP (the Firm).
As you know, our firm’s lawyers have several active matters in the City at this time and may
continue to do so in the future. Therefore, this proposal is contingent upon acceptance by the
City of the attached conflict waiver, as well as obtaining corresponding waivers from our
existing clients with pending matters before the City.

Background:

It is our understanding that the City wishes to do its decennial redistricting during 2021, in
order to have a new redistricting plan (the “Plan”) ready for the upcoming elections in November.
Qualifying for the November election occurs in September, thus the Plan would have to be
reviewed and adopted by the City Commission before the end of August. Usually, the block-level
population and demographic data needed to redraw congressional and legislative districts (the P.L
94-171 File) is published to the States by the Commerce Department no later than April 1st. This
is the data necessary to also do redistricting at the municipal level. Because of issues related to the
COVID pandemic, the Commerce Department has requested a 4 month extension until July 31st to
provide the required data file. We do not yet know whether the Congress will acquiesce, and
whether, even if they do, the P.L. 94-171 data may still be distributed on a roll out basis earlier
than that, as has been the case in previous decennial cycles. Nevertheless, this creates a very

1
exacting timeline to perform the services. Much of the work that usually takes over a year will
have to be compressed into a six-month timeline.

Because time is of the essence, we would strongly recommend that you request from your
previous redistricting counsel that they provide their work product to date, in order to quickly
determine what preliminary work may have already been done.

Scope of Services:

As noted above, completing a redistricting process in the time that may be available to do
so prior to the qualifying deadline will require frontloading much of the work. Below, we set forth
the proposed scope of services to accomplish redistricting in the time remaining to do so for the
2021 election cycle.

Upon being engaged, we will meet individually with each Commissioner to obtain input
from them as to the demographics of their constituency and other relevant issues related to
redistricting and to provide preliminary advice as to issues relative to the federal Voting Rights
Act, 14th Amendment principles applicable to municipal redistricting, and traditional redistricting
principles.

The Commission must act as a body to provide guidance to its redistricting counsel as to
redistricting principles or guidelines it wishes to employ in developing the plan. These include,
but are not limited to, the use of natural and man-made boundaries, maintaining the core of existing
districts wherever possible, grouping like communities in terms of socio-economic factors, as well
as living patterns (urban high-rise dwellers vs. suburban single-family residents, etc.). Thus, after
meeting individually with Commissioners, the Commission should notice a public meeting to
discuss and adopt relevant guidelines/principles and instruct as to the hierarchy of importance of
those principles to be used in crafting the map.

Upon being retained we will also immediately commence an analysis of the last ten years
of elections to determine whether the factors identified in Thornburg v Gingles are evident. This
is generally known as the three-prong test to determine whether there is a minority community that
is a) sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member
district; b) whether the minority community is politically cohesive, and; c) whether the majority
votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidate.

Upon verifying the continued existence of these factors, the law further requires an analysis
of the “totality of the circumstances” addressing a myriad of factors including, history of
discriminatory practices, discrimination or disproportionate impact in socio-economic areas such
as education, employment, healthcare, subtle or overt racial appeals in campaigns, etc. This
analysis is necessary to determine the applicability of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The
existence of these factors was confirmed in the last two decennial redistricting cycles. Upon
finding these factors are still present, the City may be race/ethnicity conscious in its redistricting
so long as race/ethnicity is among several factors considered and is not the predominant factor in
crafting the plan.

2
 In the last redistricting cycle, Commissioners directed their redistricting counsel to convene
a public hearing in each district to obtain input from residents on a proposed plan. As was explained
above, because of the late publication of P.L. 94-171 data, it will be impossible to do five public
hearings to discuss the draft plan with constituents. However, we can do public hearings prior to
having a draft plan to obtain input from the different communities which we can work to
incorporate into the final product. COVID restrictions on size of gatherings, social distance
requirements, etc., should be in force through the summer, so we can explore the viability of virtual
meetings to accomplish this.

Once we receive the P.L. 94-171 data, there will be a significant time investment to draft a
Plan incorporating the input from Commissioners and the community. The Draft Plan will be
presented together with a report addressing the above referenced issues to the Commission for its
consideration and adoption in a public hearing. If in fact the data is not published until July 31st,
the Draft Plan will be presented to the Commission in late August. This will leave very little, if
any, time for amendments that would result in a Final Plan prior to qualifying. In other words, it
may be possible to tweak the Plan in short order, but major changes would likely mean that the
Plan would not be ready in time for qualifying for the 2021 election.

Assuming the Plan is presented and approved prior to qualifying in September, we will
also assist the City in drafting the resolution to apportion the boundaries.

In that regard, I’ve already spoken to the Miami Dade County Supervisor of Elections. She
has informed that it will also be challenging to complete their work, which may require re-
precincting, and that the Department of Elections will need the new Plan as soon as possible. She
has also informed that new voter registration cards have to be issued to all voters after the County
does its re-districting because the county precincts will likely change. She informs that if the City
does its redistricting after the county completes its process, the Election Department would issue
voter registration cards to all City electors at no cost to the City. However, if the City was to re-
district prior to the County, the new voter registration cards for City electors would have to be
issued at the City’s cost.

Services Not Included:

As we discussed, I will be responsible for all the legal analysis, participation in public
meetings, and meetings with you and commissioners. However, the City will need to employ an
expert on the computer districting programs to actually do the mechanics of drafting the Plan based
on the input we receive as well as assist with some of the legal analysis related to polarized voting
patterns. In my past representations on these matters, including for the City, I have worked with
Stephen Cody, who had a wealth of experience in these matters including his prior work with me
on the state’s legislative re-districting and the City’s prior redistricting. Mr. Cody will be a
necessary part of the redistricting team.

3
Fees:

Mr. Cody and I can agree to represent the City in this redistricting cycle for the same fees
as were paid in the 2010 cycle. My flat fee will be $100,000. Mr. Cody’s fees will be $50,000. The
fees are inclusive of costs incurred. We would propose to have milestone payments based on the
following events: 25% upon execution of the engagement agreements, 25% upon completion of
meetings with commissioners and Voting Rights Act analysis, 25% upon completion of
community public hearings and release of the P.L. 94-171 data, and the final 25% upon adoption
of the Plan.

I thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal and urge you to contact me if you
need additional information.

Sincerely
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP

/s/Miguel De Grandy

Miguel De Grandy
Partner