Filing # 33330892 E-Filed 10/16/2015 12:42:18 PM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC14-1905
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, et al.,
Appellants, L.T. Case No. 1D14-3953 vs.
KEN DETZNER, et al.,
Appellees. ______/ ______
ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, CERTIFIED BY THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AS PASSING UPON A QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ______JOINT APPENDIX ______
RECEIVED, 10/16/201512:43:51 PM,Clerk,Supreme Court
Americas 90858087 i
League of Women Voters of Florida, et al. v. Detzner, et al. Case No. SC14-1905
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tab Document Appendix Pages
A. Agreed Scheduling Order, 1-5 dated July 30, 2015
B. Order on Motion for Further Relinquishment of 6-14 Jurisdiction, dated September 4, 2015
C. Agreed Scheduling Order, 15-18 dated September 21, 2015
D. Joint Exhibit 1, 19-23 Benchmark Congressional Plan
E Joint Exhibit 2, 24-27 Plan 9047
F Joint Exhibit 3, 28-31 Plan 9057
G Joint Exhibit 4, 32-37 Plan 9065
H Joint Exhibit 5, 38-43 Plan 9071
I Joint Exhibit 6, 44-49 Plan 9062
J Joint Exhibit 7, 50-55 Plan 9066
K Joint Exhibit 8, 56-61 Plan CP-1
L Joint Exhibit 9, 62-67 Plan CP-2
Americas 90858087 iii
League of Women Voters of Florida, et al. v. Detzner, et al. Case No. SC14-1905
M Joint Exhibit 10, 68-73 Plan CP-3
N Joint Exhibit 11, 74-79 Romo Plan
O Hearing Transcript Volume I, 80-174 September 24, 2015
P Hearing Transcript Volume II, 175-363 September 24, 2015
Q Hearing Transcript Volume III, 364-475 September 25, 2015
R Hearing Transcript Volume IV, 476-596 September 25, 2015
S Hearing Transcript Volume V, 597-729 September 28, 2015
T Hearing Transcript Volume VI, 730-863 September 28, 2015
U Order Recommending Adoption of Remedial Map, 864-901 dated October 9, 2015
Americas 90858087 iv
League of Women Voters of Florida, et al. v. Detzner, et al. Case No. SC14-1905
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on October 16, 2015, a copy of this appendix was served by e- mail to all counsel on the attached service list.
By: /s/ Raoul G. Cantero Raoul G. Cantero
Americas 90858087 iv
League of Women Voters of Florida, et al. v. Detzner, et al. Case No. SC14-1905
SERVICE LIST
Abha Khanna John M. Devaney Kevin J. Hamilton Mark Erik Elias Ryan Spear Elisabeth C. Frost Perkins Coie, LLP Perkins Coie, LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Ste. 4800 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Ste. 700 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 Facsimile: (202) 654-6211 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Mark Herron Robert Telfer Messer Caparello & Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1876 Telephone: 850-222-0720 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] secondary: [email protected] secondary: [email protected]
Counsel for Appellants, Rene Romo, Benjamin Weaver, William Everett Warinner, Jessica Barrett, June Keener, Richard Quinn Boylan and Bonita Agan
Americas 90858087 v
League of Women Voters of Florida, et al. v. Detzner, et al. Case No. SC14-1905
John S. Mills David B. King Andrew D. Manko Thomas A. Zehnder Courtney Brewer Frederick S. Wermuth The Mills Firm PA Vincent Falcone III 203 North Gadsden Street, Suite 1A King Blackwell Zehnder Wermuth Tallahassee, FL 32301 P.O. Box 1631 Telephone: (850) 765-0897 Orlando, FL 32802-1631 Facsimile: (850) 270-2474 Telephone: (407) 422-2472 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] secondary: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Ronald Meyer Gerald E. Greenberg Lynn Hearn Adam M. Schachter Meyer Brooks Demma and Blohm PA Gelber Schachter & Greenberg PA 131 North Gadsden Street 1441 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (850) 878-5212 Telephone: (305) 728-0950 Facsimile: (850) 656-6750 Facsimile: (305) 728-0951 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
J. Gerald Hebert Jessica Ring Amunson 191 Somervelle Street, #405 Paul Smith Alexandria, VA 22304 Michael B. DeSanctis Telephone: (703) 628-4673 Jenner & Block LLP E-mail: [email protected] 1099 New York Ave, N.W., Ste. 900 Washington, DC 20001-4412 Telephone: (202) 639-6023 Facsimile: (202) 661-4993 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for Appellants, The League of Women Voters of Florida, The National Council of La Raza, Common Cause Florida; Robert Allen Schaeffer, Brenda Ann Holt, Roland Sanchez-Medina, Jr., and John Steele Olmstead
Americas 90858087 vi
League of Women Voters of Florida, et al. v. Detzner, et al. Case No. SC14-1905
J. Andrew Atkinson Michael A. Carvin Florida Department Of State Louis K. Fisher R.A. Gray Building Jones Day 500 S. Bronough Street 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (850) 245-6536 Telephone: (202) 879-7643 E-mail: Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Appellee, Ken Detzner, in his Official Capacity as Florida Attorneys for Appellees, the Florida Secretary of State Senate and President Andy Gardiner
Blaine H. Winship Martha A. Pardo Office Of Attorney General LatinoJustice PRLDEF Capitol, Pl-01 523 West Colonial Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Orlando, FL 32804 Telephone: (850) 414-3300 Telephone: (321)418-6354 Facsimile: (850) 401-1630 Facsimile: (321)418-6354 E-Mail: Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae LatinoJustice Counsel for Appellee, Pam Bondi, in her PRLDEF, Florida NewMajority and Mi capacity as Florida Attorney General Familia Vota
Americas 90858087 vii
League of Women Voters of Florida, et al. v. Detzner, et al. Case No. SC14-1905
Victor L. Goode Allison J. Riggs Dorcas R. Gilmore George Eppsteiner NAACP Southern Coalition For Social Justice 4805 Mt. Hope Drive 1415 West Highway 54, Ste. 101 Baltimore, MD 21215-3297 Durham, NC 27707 Telephone: (410) 580-5790 Telephone: (919) 323-3380 Facsimile: (410) 358-9350 Facsimile: (919) 323-3942 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Nancy Abudu American Civil Liberties Union of Florida Foundation Post Office Box 12723 Pensacola, FL 32591-2723 Telephone: (786) 363-2738 Facsimile: (786) 363-1985 E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for Appellee, the Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches
Charles T. Wells Matthew J. Carson George N. Meros, Jr. General Counsel, The Florida Jason L. Unger House of Representatives Andy Bardos 422 The Capitol GrayRobinson, P.A. 402 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Telephone: 850-717-5500 Telephone: (850) 577-9090 E-mail: matthew.carson@ E-mail: [email protected] myfloridahouse.gov E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Appellees, the Florida House of Representatives and Speaker Steve Crisafulli
Americas 90858087 viii
J.A. 1 J.A. 2 J.A. 3 J.A. 4 J.A. 5 Supreme Court of Florida
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2015
CASE NO.: SC14-1905 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 1D14-3953; 372012CA000412XXXXXX; 372012CA000490XXXXXX
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN vs. KEN DETZNER, ET AL. VOTERS OF FLORIDA, ETC., ET AL.
Appellants/Cross-Appellees Appellees/Cross-Appellants
This case is back before the Court on the Florida House of Representatives’
“Motion for Further Relinquishment of Jurisdiction,” filed on August 24, 2015, after the Florida Legislature adjourned its special redistricting session sine die on
August 21, 2015, without having enacted a remedial congressional redistricting plan as required by the Court’s July 9, 2015, opinion in this case. Stating that it
“does not anticipate that the Legislature will enact a remedial plan in advance of the 2016 elections,” the House specifically requests the Court to “initiate proceedings toward the judicial adoption” of a remedial redistricting plan. For its part, the trial court entered an order on August 26, 2015, stating that “it appears unlikely that a Legislative plan will be provided . . . for review, in a timely fashion” and “request[ing] further direction from the Court.”
J.A. 6 The Court, having reviewed the House’s motion and the responses of the parties, enters the following order on relinquishment. The House’s motion is hereby granted in part and denied in part.
The House’s motion is granted to the extent it seeks relinquishment proceedings in the trial court as a result of the Legislature’s failure to enact a remedial congressional redistricting plan. As part of the relinquishment proceedings, the trial court shall hold a hearing in which it shall consider
“proposed remedial plans from the parties”—as requested in the House’s motion— especially focusing on the map passed during the special session by the House, and any amendments offered thereto; the map passed during the special session by the
Senate, and any amendments offered thereto; and the areas of agreement between the legislative chambers.
The parties may present their arguments and evidence in support of, or in opposition to, the “proposed remedial plans.” The Court reemphasizes that the burden remains on the House and Senate to justify their chosen configurations.
The trial court shall then make a recommendation to the Court, before the end of the relinquishment period, as to which map proposed by the parties—or which
J.A. 7 portions of each map—best fulfills the specific directions in the Court’s July 9,
2015, opinion and all constitutional requirements.
The House’s motion is denied to the extent it seeks an expansion of the current 100-day relinquishment period, which will terminate no later than October
17, 2015. However, the Legislature is not precluded from enacting a remedial plan prior to the time the trial court sets for the hearing. The Court’s July 9, 2015, opinion did not include a directive regarding the specific timing of the special session or provide a certain date by which the Legislature was required to enact a remedial plan, and, in fact, the trial court’s initial agreed scheduling order entered on July 30, 2015, contemplated that “unanticipated contingencies may arise in any legislative process.” Should the Legislature enact a remedial plan prior to the time the trial court sets for the hearing, the relinquishment proceedings shall proceed as previously set forth in the Court’s July 9, 2015, opinion, so long as sufficient time remains for the trial court to hold the hearing and make a recommendation to the
Court before the end of the relinquishment period. The relinquishment shall, in any event, terminate immediately upon the trial court’s rendition of the order containing its recommendation to the Court.
J.A. 8 The House’s motion is also denied to the extent the House seeks to characterize any plan recommended by the trial court and ultimately approved by the Court as an “interim” or “provisional” plan. The Court has an “obligation to provide certainty to candidates and voters regarding the legality of the state’s congressional districts.” League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 40 Fla. L.
Weekly S432, 2015 WL 4130852, at *3 (Fla. July 9, 2015). The Court notes that the judiciary sometimes must adopt a redistricting plan when the Legislature fails or is unable to do so, as previously occurred in Florida in 1992. See DeGrandy v.
Wetherell, 794 F. Supp. 1076, 1083 (N.D. Fla. 1992).
The Court further denies the House’s motion to the extent it seeks any discovery. The Court’s opinion did not contemplate discovery during the remedial proceedings, as it contemplated instead that the remedial map-drawing would occur transparently and on the record. The Court declines to revisit this issue or to authorize any discovery beyond what is part of the judicial or legislative record.
Finally, the Court at this time denies the Appellants’ request to immediately terminate the relinquishment, in light of the Legislature’s failure to enact a remedial plan during the August special session, and to “promptly adopt a remedial plan” itself. The Court further denies the Romo Appellants’ suggestion that any
J.A. 9 remedial maps submitted by the Legislature are entitled to little judicial consideration.
All other aspects of the Court’s July 9, 2015, opinion, and corresponding relinquishment order, remain in effect.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur. LABARGA, C.J., concurs with an opinion, in which PERRY, J., concurs. LEWIS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. CANADY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which POLSTON, J., concurs.
LABARGA, C.J., concurring.
I fully concur with the order entered today. This Court was called upon to carry out its constitutional duty to review the judgment of the circuit court and the congressional redistricting map enacted by the Legislature. That map was found constitutionally defective in several respects, as fully explained in our decision in this litigation. See League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 40 Fla. L. Weekly
S432, 2015 WL 4130852 (Fla. July 9, 2015). Unfortunately, the Legislature could not agree on a remedial plan during the special session that was called for that purpose. We remain mindful that the task of congressional redistricting under our current constitutional structure falls first and foremost upon the Legislature. That
J.A. 10 is precisely why this Court remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings in which the Legislature was given the opportunity to correct the map’s constitutional deficiencies.
It has been the goal of this Court that the Legislature will complete its task and adopt a remedial map in accordance with the directions in our July 9, 2015, opinion. Sufficient time exists for the Legislature to accomplish this task before the matter is scheduled for a hearing before the trial court, should the House and
Senate agree to convene for another special session. However, if the two houses of the Legislature cannot join together to pass a plan within this time, the judiciary must take steps to ensure that a constitutionally compliant congressional redistricting plan is in place, as noted in the order and requested in the House’s motion, to provide certainty to candidates and voters.
I also agree with the majority that such a plan cannot be an interim or provisional one. An orderly and foreseeable constitutional end point must be reached in this process. Anything less makes a mockery of the will of the voters who passed the Fair Districts amendment. The order issued today accomplishes these goals in a fair manner with full opportunity provided to the Legislature to
J.A. 11 fulfill its duty to jointly adopt a remedial map that complies with this Court’s July
9, 2015, opinion.
PERRY, J., concurs.
LEWIS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I do not agree that this Court should be attempting to micromanage the trial court proceedings by directives that specify any special focus upon any particular item of evidence. This is an action pending in the court below and that court should consider evidence from the parties, as in any other legal action, and base a decision on that evidence without an improper instruction that directs the focus on only one particular item of evidence.
Additionally, in my view it is also improper for this Court to prejudge that which may or may not occur and rule in advance upon what may or may not be precluded. Further, this Court should not prejudge or enter an advisory opinion as to what will happen if a party takes a particular action that has not occurred.
I agree with all other provisions of the order that essentially permit the trial court to enter its judgment on the evidence presented as in any other legal action.
J.A. 12 CANADY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s order to the extent that it grants the House’s motion and denies the requests of the Appellants. I dissent, however, from the denial of the House’s request for an extension of the relinquishment period and for authorization of discovery relative to any proposed remedial plans. I would decline to address the House’s suggestion that any redistricting plan adopted by the
Court should expressly be an interim or provisional plan that will remain in place only until superseded by subsequent legislation.
POLSTON, J., concurs.
A True Copy Test:
ks Served:
DAVID B. KING FREDERICK STANTON JOHN STEWART MILLS WERMUTH MARK HERRON THOMAS ALAN ZEHNDER ROBERT J. TELFER, III COURTNEY REBECCA BREWER ANDREW DAVID MANKO
J.A. 13 VINCENT FALCONE, III MARTHA ANGELA PARDO GERALD EDWARD GREENBERG HON. BOB INZER, CLERK ADAM MICHAEL SCHACHTER RONALD GUSTAV MEYER JOHN M. DEVANEY ABHA KHANNA MARC ERIK ELIAS KEVIN J. HAMILTON GEORGE N. MEROS, JR. RYAN SPEAR BLAINE H. WINSHIP MICHAEL A. CARVIN RAOUL G. CANTERO, III VICTOR L. GOODE CHARLES TALLEY WELLS DORCAS R. GILMORE JASON LAWRENCE UNGER ANITA S. EARLS J. ANDREW ATKINSON LOUIS K. FISHER ANDRE VELOSY BARDOS JERRY WILSON MATTHEW JOSEPH CARSON HON. TERRY POWELL LEWIS, GEORGE T. LEVESQUE JUDGE ALLISON J. RIGGS MICHAEL B. DESANCTIS JASON NELSON ZAKIA J. GERALD HEBERT JESSE LUKE GREEN PAUL M. SMITH GEORGE EDWARD EPPSTEINER JESSICA RING AMUNSON NANCY GBANA ABUDU
J.A. 14 J.A. 15 J.A. 16 J.A. 17 J.A. 18 J.A. 19 J.A. 20 J.A. 21 J.A. 22 J.A. 23 J.A. 24 J.A. 25 J.A. 26 J.A. 27 J.A. 28 J.A. 29 J.A. 30 J.A. 31 J.A. 32 J.A. 33 J.A. 34 J.A. 35 J.A. 36 J.A. 37 J.A. 38 J.A. 39 J.A. 40 J.A. 41 J.A. 42 J.A. 43 J.A. 44 J.A. 45 J.A. 46 J.A. 47 J.A. 48 J.A. 49 J.A. 50 J.A. 51 J.A. 52 J.A. 53 J.A. 54 J.A. 55 J.A. 56 J.A. 57 J.A. 58 J.A. 59 J.A. 60 J.A. 61 J.A. 62 J.A. 63 J.A. 64 J.A. 65 J.A. 66 J.A. 67 J.A. 68 J.A. 69 J.A. 70 J.A. 71 J.A. 72 J.A. 73 J.A. 74 J.A. 75 J.A. 76 J.A. 77 J.A. 78 J.A. 79 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
RENE ROMO, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO: 2012-CA-412
KEN DETZNER and PAM BONDI, Defendants. /
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO: 2012-CA-490
KEN DETZNER, et al. Defendants. /
VOLUME 1 Pages 1 through 95
IN RE: Evidentiary Hearing
BEFORE: Honorable Terry P. Lewis
DATE: September 24, 2015
TIME: Commenced at 9:30 a.m. Adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
PLACE: Leon County Courthouse Courtroom 3G Tallahassee, Florida
REPORTED BY: SARAH B. GILROY, RPR, CRR [email protected]
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. Tallahassee, FL 32301 850.878.2221
J.A. 80 2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 REPRESENTING THE ROMO PLAINTIFFS: JOHN M. DEVANEY, ESQUIRE 3 [email protected] Perkins Coie, LLP 4 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington,D.C., 20005 5 REPRESENTING THE COALITION PLAINTIFFS: 6 DAVID B. KING, ESQUIRE [email protected] 7 THOMAS A. ZEHNDER, ESQUIRE [email protected] 8 FRITZ WERMUTH, ESQUIRE [email protected] 9 King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth 25 East Pine Street 10 Orlando, Florida 32301
11 REPRESENTING THE FLORIDA HOUSE: GEORGE N. MEROS, JR., ESQUIRE 12 [email protected] ANDY BARDOS, ESQUIRE 13 [email protected] GrayRobinson 14 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 15 REPRESENTING FLORIDA SENATE: 16 RAOUL G. CANTERO, III, ESQUIRE [email protected] 17 JASON N. ZAKIA, ESQUIRE [email protected] 18 JESSE L. GREEN, ESQUIRE [email protected] 19 White & Case, LLP Southeast Financial Center 20 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131 21
22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 81 3
1 INDEX - VOLUME 1
2 WITNESSES PAGE NO.
3 JASON POREDA Direct Examination by Mr. Meros 66 4
5 EXHIBITS (All received in evidence) 6 Joint Exhibits 1 to 11 66 7 House Exhibits 8 1 to 90 66 247 to 249 66 9 Senate Exhibits 10 3 to 5 66 20 to 40 66 11 Coalition Exhibits 12 1 to 30 66 32 to 42 66 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 82 4
09:39 1 THE BAILIFF: All rise. Come to order. The
09:39 2 honorable Terry P. Lewis presiding.
09:39 3 THE COURT: Have a seat.
09:39 4 THE BAILIFF: Please silence your cell phones.
09:39 5 THE COURT:I guess I just rode by my office
09:39 6 on the way here, and I got a motion in limine,
09:39 7 which I have a response to, but not the motion.I
09:39 8 was told there was a motion to intervene, too, that
09:39 9 I don't have.
09:39 10 MR. ZEHNDER: Morning, Your Honor, Tom Zehnder
09:39 11 on behalf of the coalition plaintiffs.I have a
09:39 12 bench copy of the motion for you, if I may
09:39 13 approach?
09:39 14 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
09:40 15 MR. ZEHNDER: Your Honor, we also have one
09:40 16 other housekeeping matter that's long overdue, with
09:40 17 the Court's permission.A couple of days ago we
09:40 18 filed an unopposed motion to withdraw to allow the
09:40 19 former lead counsel for the coalition plaintiffs to
09:40 20 finally get out of the case.
09:40 21 They haven't been actively involved since we
09:40 22 took over as lead. That's Jenner & Block and
09:40 23 Mr. Hebert.I have an order if the Court would be
09:40 24 willing to sign that.
09:40 25 May I approach?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 83 5
09:40 1 THE COURT: Yes.
09:40 2 MR. ZEHNDER: Judge, would you keep that and
09:40 3 give it to Laura?
09:40 4 THE COURT: It actually goes to the clerk. Do
09:40 5 we have a clerk here? There she is. Can't see you
09:40 6 there.
09:40 7 MR. ZEHNDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
09:40 8 MR. RUIZ-CARUS: Your Honor, if I might,I
09:40 9 represent Congressman Daniel Webster. We filed a
09:40 10 motion to intervene.I have a copy for the Court
09:40 11 if I can pass it on.
09:41 12 THE COURT: Are you Mr. Ruiz?
09:41 13 MR. RUIZ-CARUS:I am. I'm Isaac Ruiz-Carus,
09:41 14 Your Honor.I represent Congressman Webster. We
09:41 15 filed this earlier. We're not seeking any delay.
09:41 16 I just want a seat at the table.I want to be able
09:41 17 to examine witnesses.
09:41 18 As you know, he's the Congressman from
09:41 19 District 10. His interests aren't going to be
09:41 20 represented here, because District 10 looks
09:41 21 essentially the same on all the maps that have been
09:41 22 presented. We think that it's become a majority
09:41 23 minority district. We think there is some
09:41 24 significant differences that meets Your Honor's
09:41 25 prior test for favoritism and disfavor of an
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 84 6
09:41 1 incumbent.
09:41 2 We would like to be able to present those
09:41 3 arguments and cross-examine the witnesses.
09:41 4 MR. CANTERO: Your Honor, Raoul Cantero for
09:41 5 the Florida Senate.I speak for the legislative
09:41 6 parties when I say that we think it's a little late
09:41 7 to be coming in here at this late date and
09:42 8 intervening when so much has happened. We have all
09:42 9 been through a lot. And even these maps that
09:42 10 constitute Districts 9 and 10 have been out there
09:42 11 for quite a while, at least a month.
09:42 12 . And certainly when the base map came out
09:42 13 August 5th, they were already drawn that way.I
09:42 14 think the moment to intervene has long since
09:42 15 passed, and we don't think it's necessary at this
09:42 16 point, certainly too late.
09:42 17 THE COURT: Do you speak for the House as
09:42 18 well?
09:42 19 MR. MEROS: Yes.
09:42 20 THE COURT: How about the plaintiffs?
09:42 21 MR. KING: Your Honor, an amazing development.
09:42 22 We actually agree with the Legislature. We think
09:42 23 this is untimely and improper and shouldn't be
09:42 24 permitted.
09:42 25 MR. DEVANEY: Your Honor, John Devaney for
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 85 7
09:42 1 Romo plaintiffs. We concur.
09:42 2 THE COURT: In the face of all that
09:42 3 opposition, what do you say?
09:42 4 MR. RUIZ-CARUS: We would say, Your Honor,
09:42 5 that the final maps were filed last week. We
09:42 6 reviewed them.I was just retained recently. I'm
09:42 7 not looking at adding witnesses. I'm not sure how
09:42 8 that would delay or prejudice the proceedings.
09:42 9 I'm simply looking to cross-examine, to the
09:42 10 extent that it's even necessary, some of these
09:43 11 witnesses, and to present whatever the short
09:43 12 argument is so that the Court can consider it, and
09:43 13 be part of the discourse. Otherwise we've got to
09:43 14 wait until the plaintiff is through, and we can
09:43 15 file a later suit attacking it.
09:43 16 I believe this can be part of the discourse on
09:43 17 the front end.
09:43 18 THE COURT: Well, I'm generally sympathetic to
09:43 19 somebody who wants to get in there.I do agree
09:43 20 it's kind of late to do it. And even your taking
09:43 21 part in cross-examining witnesses is going to take
09:43 22 up some time. You know, the issues were framed and
09:43 23 have been litigated, and we're at a point now, you
09:43 24 would be raising different issues,I think. So I
09:43 25 will deny the motion.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 86 8
09:43 1 MR. RUIZ-CARUS: Thank you, Your Honor.
09:43 2 THE COURT: You're welcome to stay with us,
09:43 3 though. Speak into the ear of somebody that might
09:43 4 listen to you.
09:43 5 Okay. Motion in limine?
09:43 6 MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, the coalition
09:43 7 plaintiffs have a motion in limine. Does the Court
09:43 8 want to look at our motion before we have the
09:43 9 argument?
09:43 10 THE COURT: You can tell me. You can tell me
09:44 11 what it is.
09:44 12 MR. KING: Your Honor, David King, on behalf
09:44 13 of the coalition plaintiffs. It's our position,
09:44 14 Your Honor, that the Court should not receive
09:44 15 testimony in two areas about the intent of the --
09:44 16 or the partisanship of submitters of alternative
09:44 17 maps; and secondly, the use of deposition testimony
09:44 18 from 2013 and 2014 that involved the preparation of
09:44 19 a summary judgment map that was never used at the
09:44 20 trial and certainly that has not been involved in
09:44 21 these proceedings.
09:44 22 And what that includes is excerpts of
09:44 23 testimony offered by the legislative parties of
09:44 24 Beattie, Butzin, Dreschler, Freidin, Paikowsky, and
09:44 25 and Wieneke.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 87 9
09:44 1 In addition, Senate Exhibits 6 through 19 is a
09:44 2 trove of e-mails and information from that period
09:45 3 of time, as well as the House's Exhibits 191
09:45 4 through 238 and 250, which also is a rehash of a
09:45 5 mash up of all those e-mails from that period of
09:45 6 time.
09:45 7 The reason we take that position is because
09:45 8 the issue here is the remedial maps proposed by the
09:45 9 parties, which resolve the issues raised by the
09:45 10 Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has given us very
09:45 11 specific directions in apportionment 7. The burden
09:45 12 of proof is on the Legislature. Their solution has
09:45 13 recorded no difference.
09:45 14 And so the only issue for these relinquishment
09:45 15 programs is which of the plans or which features in
09:45 16 the plans offered by the parties correct the
09:45 17 defects found and satisfy the Supreme Court's
09:45 18 directions in apportionment 7.
09:46 19 Now, this is a series of arguments that have
09:46 20 been so far rejected at least four times before we
09:46 21 come here today. In other words, this is the
09:46 22 same -- the Court is very familiar with this
09:46 23 testimony and evidence. It's the same stuff that
09:46 24 was the heart of their unclean hands defense. And
09:46 25 the Court granted the summary judgment on that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 88 10
09:46 1 defense.
09:46 2 That was, of course, obviously back before the
09:46 3 trial. The same evidence that was their fraud on
09:46 4 the court argument that they wanted to dismiss the
09:46 5 whole proceedings. Again, that was rejected by
09:46 6 this Court.
09:46 7 It was a very significant portion of their
09:46 8 brief in the Supreme Court of Florida that led to
09:46 9 apportionment 7. They said you shouldn't even
09:46 10 consider alternative plans -- in that case drawn by
09:46 11 the Democrats -- because the alternate plans were
09:46 12 the Romo plans, and they were drawn by -- and
09:46 13 submitted by the Democrats.
09:46 14 And they said you shouldn't consider that.
09:47 15 And they spent something like 17 pages of their
09:47 16 brief on it. And the Supreme Court clearly
09:47 17 rejected that position.
09:47 18 And then, in the relinquishment back to the
09:47 19 Supreme Court, they said, well, we need to do
09:47 20 discovery into the maps being submitted here by
09:47 21 the -- the coalition plaintiffs and the Romo
09:47 22 parties. And the Supreme Court denied that.
09:47 23 And then they came back again and said, move
09:47 24 to reconsider, raising the same evidence that
09:47 25 they're going to put in front of you or would like
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 89 11
09:47 1 to put in front of you in this proceeding. And the
09:47 2 Supreme Court, on Monday, the 21st of September,
09:47 3 ruled that that discovery would not be permitted.
09:47 4 Now, what's the context that we find ourselves
09:47 5 in? We find ourselves in the context that the
09:47 6 House and the Senate, their Congressional map was
09:48 7 found by this Court to be unconstitutional,
09:48 8 violation of the Fair District Amendments. The
09:48 9 Supreme Court resoundingly affirmed that decision.
09:48 10 The Senate maps, they gave up. They admitted
09:48 11 that their map was unconstitutional. So this is a
09:48 12 remedial -- the first of two remedial proceedings
09:48 13 that we're going to have this fall to try to solve
09:48 14 these problems.
09:48 15 And they are pulling out all the stops in this
09:48 16 situation. They argue in their paper that the
09:48 17 Supreme Court weighed the evidence and expressly
09:48 18 refused to consider our summary judgment maps.
09:48 19 That's a pretty remarkable suggestion.
09:48 20 So, according to them, the Supreme Court has
09:48 21 already confronted this position, and even though
09:48 22 we see that language in the Supreme Court's
09:48 23 decision, it says, this is not about the
09:49 24 alternative -- the alternative maps are not on
09:49 25 trial. They say the Supreme Court weighed the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 90 12
09:49 1 evidence and refused to consider the summary
09:49 2 judgment maps.
09:49 3 Well, here is what the Supreme Court really
09:49 4 said. The Supreme Court said in apportionment 7:
09:49 5 Nevertheless we have reviewed only the alternative
09:49 6 maps -- this is in response to their argument --
09:49 7 only the alternative maps actually introduced into
09:49 8 evidence during the trial.
09:49 9 Well, that's not a very remarkable statement.
09:49 10 You would only look,I submit, at the evidence
09:49 11 introduced in the trial. And this Court knows that
09:49 12 our summary judgment -- those summary judgment maps
09:49 13 that so much discussion has occurred were withdrawn
09:49 14 from this case before we ever came in the case two
09:49 15 years ago.
09:49 16 We came in the case in May of 2013, and the
09:49 17 summary judgment maps had already been withdrawn.
09:49 18 So the Supreme Court unremarkably said we just
09:49 19 considered the alternative maps that were actually
09:50 20 introduced into evidence. And we relied on the
09:50 21 ones that were in evidence only so much as they
09:50 22 show an alternative way, not necessarily the best
09:50 23 or the legally required way to configure the
09:50 24 districts.
09:50 25 Now, the other side, in their response, also
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 91 13
09:50 1 made a very interesting argument. They went back
09:50 2 to a decision of the Supreme Court in 2009, when
09:50 3 the Supreme Court gave an advisory opinion on the
09:50 4 attorney general standards for the ballot summary.
09:50 5 In other words, they've been fighting us since
09:50 6 before this ever went on the ballot. In this
09:50 7 decision they were saying, oh, the ballot summary,
09:50 8 you ought to kick it off the initiative process,
09:50 9 because the ballot summary is inadequate, because
09:50 10 they indicate that only the Legislature must comply
09:50 11 with the new redistricting standards, where, in
09:50 12 fact, the judiciary will be similarly obligated to
09:51 13 apply these standards when a legislative attempt
09:51 14 fails.
09:51 15 So the courts are required -- and the courts
09:51 16 are required to redraw. They were somewhat
09:51 17 pressing it,I suppose, about the fact that that's
09:51 18 the situation we would face some day.
09:51 19 The Court said: We conclude that that
09:51 20 challenge was without merit. And the Court said
09:51 21 that: Although the Legislature might ultimately
09:51 22 fail to comply with these standards, this
09:51 23 contingency doesn't translate into a need for the
09:51 24 ballot titles to indicate that the standards apply
09:51 25 to the judiciary, whether it can logically be
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 92 14
09:51 1 presumed if the Legislature fails to comply with
09:51 2 the constitution -- as they have in this case --
09:51 3 and follow the applicable standards, the entity
09:51 4 responsible for redrawing the boundaries must also
09:51 5 comply with these standards.
09:51 6 Now they say, because we have submitted a map,
09:51 7 that we're the entity, evidently their position is,
09:51 8 we're the entity responsible for providing the
09:51 9 maps.
09:51 10 Of course, that's absurd. The map is either
09:52 11 going to be drawn by the Legislature, which, of
09:52 12 course, they failed in that process. That's not
09:52 13 going to happen. And if they don't do it, then it
09:52 14 goes to the courts.
09:52 15 And ultimately this Court is not going to draw
09:52 16 the map. We're not going to draw the map. You're
09:52 17 going to make a recommendation to the Supreme
09:52 18 Court, and they're going to produce the map.
09:52 19 They're the entity responsible for producing the
09:52 20 map when the Legislature has abdicated their
09:52 21 responsibility, as they have in this case.
09:52 22 Now, why are we making such a fuss about this?
09:52 23 Because I have no fear that if we deal with the
09:52 24 merits in this case, we will satisfy the court as
09:52 25 far as our intent is concerned. But we have a
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 93 15
09:52 1 responsibility to get this right. And if they're
09:52 2 right, every alternative map is a separate trial.
09:52 3 These folks have unlimited funding and ability to
09:52 4 fight us until the cows come in. And consequently
09:53 5 they're going to do that.
09:53 6 And that's not right.A challenger who
09:53 7 suggests that the Legislature did not comply with
09:53 8 their obligation should have the right to present a
09:53 9 map without having -- without having vilified to
09:53 10 the other side. If you look at the response in
09:53 11 this case, there are just a couple of paragraphs
09:53 12 about the merits of our proposal and pages and
09:53 13 pages attacking the messenger.
09:53 14 That's not,I submit, the way it's supposed to
09:53 15 work. The Supreme Court clearly in face of that
09:53 16 said: The Legislature has strongly disputed the
09:53 17 relevance of these alternative maps, going so far
09:53 18 as to assert that this Court should not consider
09:53 19 the alternative maps at all, because they're either
09:53 20 drawn by partisan operatives aligned by the
09:53 21 Democratic party or of unknown origin.
09:53 22 But alternative maps are not on trial
09:53 23 themselves, as is the Legislature's map. And they
09:54 24 can provide relevant proof that the Legislature's
09:54 25 apportionment plans consist of the district
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 94 16
09:54 1 configurations that are not explained, other than
09:54 2 by the Legislature considering impermissible
09:54 3 factors such as intentionally favoring a political
09:54 4 party or an incumbent, as the trial court found the
09:54 5 Legislature to have done in this case.
09:54 6 It's rare that you have direct authority from
09:54 7 a decision of the Supreme Court in your own case.
09:54 8 We do. And for that reason, we submit what we hope
09:54 9 you will grant this motion in limine.
09:54 10 THE COURT: Okay.
09:54 11 MR. DEVANEY:I will be brief, Your Honor.
09:54 12 THE COURT: All right.
09:54 13 MR. DEVANEY: Your Honor, John Devaney for the
09:54 14 Romo plaintiffs. We join in the coalition
09:54 15 plaintiffs' motion in limine.I just point out
09:54 16 that the maps to which these materials relate
09:55 17 aren't in this proceeding. They haven't been
09:55 18 introduced. They won't be introduced.
09:55 19 So all of these materials is irrelevant. All
09:55 20 testimony that they propose to introduce relating
09:55 21 to these maps is irrelevant.
09:55 22 This is really a narrow proceeding. We're all
09:55 23 beginning, at least the plaintiffs and the House,
09:55 24 with a House map. We have some small differences
09:55 25 relating to that map, and that's the narrow focus
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 95 17
09:55 1 of this proceeding. So to bring in these old
09:55 2 materials for maps no longer in this record, won't
09:55 3 be in this record, is simply irrelevant and a waste
09:55 4 of time.
09:55 5 THE COURT: Okay.
09:55 6 MR. MEROS: May it please the Court, Your
09:55 7 Honor. George Meros, on behalf of the Florida
09:55 8 House of Representatives.
09:55 9 Mr. King says that there is direct precedent
09:55 10 supporting their motion. And they urge this Court
09:55 11 to determine that the intent of the plaintiffs is
09:55 12 irrelevant here.
09:56 13 But what they don't seem to understand is that
09:56 14 today, in this courtroom, they are in exactly the
09:56 15 same position as the House of Representatives and
09:56 16 the Senate.
09:56 17 They are asking this Court, not as an exemplar
09:56 18 as to what the House did, but to recommend to the
09:56 19 Supreme Court, and then for the Supreme Court to
09:56 20 adopt their maps. They are on trial today, just as
09:56 21 we are on trial.
09:56 22 The notion that the left side of this
09:56 23 courtroom intent is relevant, and on the right side
09:56 24 of the courtroom intent is not is simply beyond the
09:56 25 pale. That's not what this proceeding is about.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 96 18
09:56 1 We have in this case the map drawers for the
09:56 2 Romo plaintiffs and the League that are from the
09:57 3 very same entities, the very same Democratic
09:57 4 entities that have been involved for a substantial
09:57 5 period of time.
09:57 6 We also have this Court, having said
09:57 7 appropriately that everyone should identify the map
09:57 8 drawers, what they used, where they came from. We
09:57 9 have this Court long ago continually saying that if
09:57 10 the map drawers are the ones that are at issue
09:57 11 where there is critique about their political --
09:57 12 their political intent, then that is, quote, fair
09:57 13 game, as this Court said.
09:57 14 In the -- the remedial phase in 2014, when
09:57 15 this same argument was made to hide what their
09:57 16 intent might be, when I'm cross-examining
09:57 17 Dr. Ansolabehere, the Court said that it is fair
09:57 18 game, that you were okay with the relevance,
09:57 19 provided we could support it with facts.
09:58 20 Here -- and let's look at the two issues in
09:58 21 this case. Mr. Devaney just said, there are only
09:58 22 minor things involved. That's because both
09:58 23 plaintiffs have essentially adopted all of our map,
09:58 24 with minimal exception.
09:58 25 With the Romo plaintiffs, what the Romo
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 97 19
09:58 1 plaintiffs have done, expressly, is to unpair two
09:58 2 powerful Democrats -- Democratic Congresspersons,
09:58 3 unpair them on the pretext that that was necessary
09:58 4 to preserve communities of interest.
09:58 5 They have used the same expert that they have
09:58 6 used in the past who knew about the Democratic
09:58 7 interest. They're saying that their intent to
09:58 8 unpair Democrats, including Ted Deutch, who from
09:58 9 the beginning of this process, the facts show, has
09:59 10 essentially had a veto on any map that was going to
09:59 11 be presented by the Romo plaintiffs, meaning
09:59 12 Democrats, to this Court.
09:59 13 But we can't get into that, because we're the
09:59 14 Legislature. We are one of a number of parties
09:59 15 here that are in exactly the same position. We
09:59 16 have to give you credible evidence, evidence that
09:59 17 is true, evidence that doesn't have intent.
09:59 18 We are ready to do so, but so must they with
09:59 19 regard -- and Mr. Devaney was forced to admit,
09:59 20 because this Court said it had to, that prior to
09:59 21 giving this map -- which, of course, was drawn
09:59 22 outside the public eye, in the darkness -- that he
09:59 23 consulted with the DCCC, the same entity that Ted
09:59 24 Deutch has been involved in, Debbie
09:59 25 Wasserman-Schultz has been involved in, both of
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 98 20
09:59 1 whom rejected an earlier Congressional map because
10:00 2 it wasn't to their liking. Now they say, Court,
10:00 3 take our map, recommend our map so it will be the
10:00 4 map of the State of Florida.
10:00 5 But we can't test why it is that they unpack
10:00 6 Congressman Deutch, who has been not only
10:00 7 consulted, but has essentially made a veto over the
10:00 8 maps in the past.
10:00 9 Strategic Telemetry, the map drawer for the
10:00 10 League, the same map drawers, the same folks who
10:00 11 earlier on drafted maps with express intent that
10:00 12 had to be abandoned, but now we can't -- we can't
10:00 13 find out why it is that John O'Neill from Strategic
10:00 14 Telemetry has said in the past in drawing these
10:00 15 maps that what -- I'm just going around looking for
10:00 16 Democratic seats to pick up.
10:00 17 But you're supposed to adopt a map without our
10:00 18 ability to test that. That is not -- that's --
10:01 19 that's not fundamental fairness. That's not what
10:01 20 the Court asked this Court to do, and that was to
10:01 21 recommend among the various parties, a map. We are
10:01 22 all in the same boat here.
10:01 23 I would suggest,Your Honor, that we have a
10:01 24 right to test the credibility of what's going on
10:01 25 here with regard to the League maps. What -- this,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 99 21
10:01 1 by and large, this case is going to be about one
10:01 2 line, and that is, a line in the map between
10:01 3 Districts 26 and 27, when we drew a map that did
10:01 4 exactly what the Supreme Court said, and that is to
10:01 5 keep Homestead whole.
10:01 6 And what our decision, once that district was
10:01 7 kept whole, as to where to go to equalize
10:01 8 population, that is a fundamental issue in the
10:02 9 case. And their alternative to that is a 26 and
10:02 10 27, which is a Democratic district that will elect
10:02 11 a Democrat, and which -- but in which the -- the
10:02 12 Democratic primary, there are so many roadblocks to
10:02 13 election that it might elect a black and
10:02 14 non-Hispanic Democrat or a white Democrat.
10:02 15 Can we not tie that together with what it is
10:02 16 that they have done, what their map drawers have
10:02 17 done to show that there is no -- there are no games
10:02 18 in the legislative map. The games and the intent
10:02 19 was inserted at a later time.
10:02 20 That, Your Honor, is,I think, fundamental
10:02 21 fairness and something this Court has permitted for
10:02 22 a substantial period of time. If we abuse it, if
10:03 23 we go on too long, this Court has every ability to
10:03 24 shut it down. We won't do that.
10:03 25 But we -- we are among a number of people that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 100 22
10:03 1 are saying the same thing, and we have the right to
10:03 2 test theirs just as they have the right to test
10:03 3 ours. So certainly we oppose the motion to
10:03 4 intervene --I mean the motion in limine.
10:03 5 MR. CANTERO: Senate has nothing further, Your
10:03 6 Honor.
10:03 7 THE COURT: Okay. Did I have the NAACP?
10:03 8 MS. RIGGS: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm
10:03 9 Allison Riggs for the NAACP. We don't have
10:03 10 anything.
10:03 11 THE COURT: Okay. Anything else, Mr. King?
10:03 12 MR. KING: The only thing I would add is that
10:03 13 we certainly agree that the major issue in this
10:03 14 case is the line between 26 and 27 and how that
10:03 15 deals -- whether the Legislature really attempted
10:03 16 to correct the decision -- the problems the Supreme
10:03 17 Court had with 26. And it's certainly fair game
10:04 18 for them to talk about retrogression, and we will
10:04 19 deal with retrogression head on in the case. There
10:04 20 won't be any retrogression in our map.
10:04 21 But it's not -- in order to deal with the
10:04 22 merits, it doesn't have anything to do with the
10:04 23 facts and the testimony about a summary judgment
10:04 24 map that was dumped well over two years ago. So
10:04 25 that's why we would ask you to grant the motion in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 101 23
10:04 1 limine.
10:04 2 THE COURT: Okay. Nothing else?
10:04 3 Both sides make good points. It is kind of an
10:04 4 unusual proceeding. It's -- the Supreme Court
10:04 5 said, send this back with these instructions to
10:04 6 look at the legislative map, which they did
10:04 7 originally. And had I had the legislative map, it
10:04 8 would be a different situation. But I don't have
10:04 9 that.
10:04 10 They said, well, the Legislature didn't pass a
10:04 11 map.I want you to look at what they did come up
10:04 12 with. The House and the Senate came up with a map,
10:04 13 amendments, alternative maps. So my understanding
10:04 14 what the Supreme Court wants me to do is look at a
10:04 15 map and decide which best complies with what they
10:05 16 said it should be and what otherwise complies with
10:05 17 the constitution. And the constitution now in
10:05 18 Florida has this language about intent.
10:05 19 So I look at myself as sort of like in the
10:05 20 position of the Legislature receiving information
10:05 21 about various maps and what will be the final
10:05 22 product. And I could be receiving maps from people
10:05 23 that are very obvious partisan, Democrat,
10:05 24 Republican, whatever. So I would think the
10:05 25 Legislature would say, well, I'm going to look at
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 102 24
10:05 1 that, but I will hear arguments both ways. But the
10:05 2 Democratic representative from here submitted this.
10:05 3 I have some questions about it, whether it would
10:05 4 comply.
10:05 5 But the ultimate, as Mr. King points out --
10:05 6 the ultimate body that will decide will be the
10:05 7 Supreme Court. So it's their intent, not -- the
10:05 8 intent is certainly is relevant to consider to
10:05 9 weigh -- my thought is I look at what does and what
10:05 10 doesn't comply with the constitution and the
10:06 11 Supreme Court's decision.
10:06 12 So I think it's certainly relevant as to --
10:06 13 when somebody is drawing the map, what they're
10:06 14 thinking, what they're trying to do. So any
10:06 15 evidence that goes to that would be relevant.
10:06 16 You're right, Mr. Meros, you can go too far
10:06 17 with that. It's -- maps are not on trial. But
10:06 18 what may be relevant for me to consider,I will --
10:06 19 I will leave open. If you go too far,I will tell
10:06 20 you.
10:06 21 Okay. So I'm going to deny the motion to the
10:06 22 extent it denies any evidence as to the
10:06 23 circumstances surrounding any map that's been
10:06 24 presented.
10:06 25 So, now, housekeeping-wise, we are set for
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 103 25
10:06 1 three days. Do you still think that's sufficient
10:06 2 time?
10:06 3 MR. MEROS: Sufficient time? Yes,I think we
10:06 4 would be in agreement that's sufficient time.
10:06 5 THE COURT: Okay. And I was hoping that when
10:06 6 we get through, you would submit some proposed
10:06 7 orders to me. How much time after that would you
10:06 8 need to do it?I would like to get this to the
10:07 9 Supreme Court as soon as possible.
10:07 10 MR. MEROS:A week, Your Honor?
10:07 11 THE COURT:I was thinking more a couple of
10:07 12 days.I mean, you probably have a pretty good idea
10:07 13 what you're going to argue.
10:07 14 MR. CANTERO:A compromise, how about the end
10:07 15 of that week?
10:07 16 THE COURT: That would be Friday?
10:07 17 Friday, yeah. That gives you four days. Like
10:07 18 I said,I just want to be able to get it there.
10:07 19 And it's going to take me a while,I think, to get
10:07 20 something out.
10:07 21 Okay.I can go -- usually I go 9:00.I
10:07 22 couldn't start today until 9:30, actually later.
10:07 23 Tomorrow I can go to 9:00; Monday I can go to 9:00,
10:07 24 usually take about an hour and a half for lunch,
10:07 25 housekeeping-wise; sound about right? Okay.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 104 26
10:07 1 Now, because in this particular situation, you
10:07 2 would say, who has the burden of proof and the
10:07 3 burden going forward? Usually since the plaintiffs
10:08 4 brought suit, it's their burden. On the other hand
10:08 5 the Supreme Court sent it back and said, well,I
10:08 6 should pay particular focus,I guess, to the
10:08 7 legislative maps.
10:08 8 And the Legislature, they still have a burden
10:08 9 of showing that their configurations are the most
10:08 10 proper.I don't know if y'all discussed this, but
10:08 11 I would think it would be the Legislature would go
10:08 12 first and then the plaintiffs.
10:08 13 MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor.I think we have
10:08 14 agreed,I believe, that the Legislature has the
10:08 15 burden of going first.
10:08 16 And I think we also might have some brief
10:08 17 opening statements, Your Honor.
10:08 18 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm ready, then.
10:08 19 MR. MEROS: Thank you, Your Honor, again, on
10:08 20 behalf of the Florida House of Representatives. It
10:08 21 is truly with great pride that the Florida House of
10:08 22 Representatives presents its proposed Congressional
10:08 23 remedial map to this Court.
10:08 24 The facts will show that the Legislature
10:08 25 entrusted professional staff, a safe, secure place
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 105 27
10:08 1 to draw what is called a base map that is -- that
10:09 2 with the singular focus to comply with the
10:09 3 requirements that the Court instructed. And it
10:09 4 gave them a place to do so that is free of
10:09 5 political noise and political distraction.
10:09 6 And staff went forward in that safe place and
10:09 7 did exactly that with the Supreme Court decision in
10:09 8 hand and with their expertise in drawing maps.
10:09 9 They drew a map that is absolutely the most
10:09 10 compliant map that has been drawn so far.
10:09 11 And the facts will show that in 2011, the
10:09 12 League of Women Voters complained in public
10:09 13 hearings about the fact that the Legislature had
10:09 14 not drawn an initial map which people could
10:09 15 critique. Well, what the Legislature and what the
10:09 16 House did this time is said, we will do so. We
10:09 17 will have staff carefully, without intervening
10:10 18 distractions, draw a base map for discussion
10:10 19 purposes as a starting place, which can begin the
10:10 20 legislative process and which can be open to
10:10 21 everyone from the very beginning to critique in any
10:10 22 way and every way possible.
10:10 23 And what the facts will show is that the
10:10 24 Court -- the Legislature gave express directions
10:10 25 about what to do. And it said, draw the map in a
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 106 28
10:10 1 place that no one else has access to, other than
10:10 2 the map drawers and the lawyers, when necessary.
10:10 3 And it said, when you need to do so, you may confer
10:10 4 with legal counsel.
10:10 5 And in an unprecedented move, Your Honor, the
10:10 6 Legislature hereby waives the attorney-client
10:10 7 privilege with regard to any communications made
10:10 8 with the map drawers during the base map drawing
10:11 9 process in the redistricting suite. That was
10:11 10 waived during the committee process and legislative
10:11 11 process after the base map was drawn.
10:11 12 And they said no member of the Legislature
10:11 13 will be permitted in; not the speaker, not the
10:11 14 president, not the Senate chair, not the House
10:11 15 chair, not anyone. You must not make any comments
10:11 16 to anyone about what you're doing.
10:11 17 The chair and the speaker or any legislator
10:11 18 cannot ask you what's going on in this process.
10:11 19 You are immune from those pressures. You are not
10:11 20 to speak to political consultants of either side.
10:11 21 You are not to speak to staffers or Congressional
10:11 22 members.
10:11 23 And then, once the base map was created and
10:11 24 published, it was available to everyone at
10:11 25 precisely the same time. The Speaker of the House
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 107 29
10:11 1 of Representatives did not have a hint of what that
10:12 2 map -- what the map looked like until every member
10:12 3 of the public who wanted to get on the website or
10:12 4 go to the newspaper would know.
10:12 5 And once that was done, then what the staff
10:12 6 did -- and the evidence will show -- is that staff
10:12 7 met with anyone and everyone from Democratic
10:12 8 caucus, Republican caucus, or otherwise -- and
10:12 9 assisted them openly and transparently with any
10:12 10 amendments they wanted to have.
10:12 11 And every draft map was saved. Every decision
10:12 12 point, you will see the testimony that shows all of
10:12 13 the draft maps and every one of the decision points
10:12 14 that were made and why they were made.
10:12 15 And you will also see that what the drawers
10:12 16 did was to, at every time there was a decision
10:12 17 point, they would create reports of the metrics of
10:13 18 the various areas. And they would say, okay, we
10:13 19 have these alternatives. Let's look at the Tier 1
10:13 20 protections. Let's look at city and county splits.
10:13 21 Let's look at compactness scores, and let's pick
10:13 22 the best one.
10:13 23 That base map drawing process followed the
10:13 24 very same methodology that the Florida Supreme
10:13 25 Court lauded the House for in its 7-0 approval of a
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 108 30
10:13 1 House of Representatives map, and that was comply
10:13 2 with Tier 1 requirements and protect them
10:13 3 carefully.
10:13 4 When -- draw compact districts. And when
10:13 5 possible, preserve counties to the extent possible.
10:13 6 And if you can't preserve counties, have districts
10:13 7 within counties. And then where feasible, in
10:14 8 addition to that, keep municipalities whole. And
10:14 9 when necessary or appropriate, utilize political
10:14 10 and geographic boundaries with, again, the very
10:14 11 same definition of political and geographic
10:14 12 boundaries that the House submitted to the Supreme
10:14 13 Court in reapportionment 1 in which the Supreme
10:14 14 Court adopted as their interpretation for political
10:14 15 and geographic boundaries.
10:14 16 And that's what they did. And they came up
10:14 17 with a map that by and large, Your Honor, is the
10:14 18 very basis of what the League and the Romo
10:14 19 plaintiffs have in their map. And what they do is,
10:14 20 in essence, have two differences. With the
10:14 21 plaintiffs it's one difference. It's 26 and 27.
10:14 22 With the Romo plaintiffs it's 26 and 27 and 21 and
10:14 23 22.
10:14 24 And what the facts will show are as simple as
10:15 25 they are profound. You will hear testimony that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 109 31
10:15 1 with regard to Districts 26 and 27, those were the
10:15 2 two districts that were at issue with regard to the
10:15 3 Supreme Court's admonition that the Legislature
10:15 4 must go back and keep Homestead whole; Homestead
10:15 5 had been split between those two districts.
10:15 6 And so the map drawers came in,
10:15 7 straightforward determination. They said, let's
10:15 8 draw a draft with Homestead whole in 26. Let's
10:15 9 draw a draft of Homestead in District 27. Let's do
10:15 10 an initial functional analysis in exactly the same
10:15 11 way the Supreme Court directed.
10:15 12 Let's see if they are both likely to elect an
10:15 13 Hispanic candidate. And then let's -- and then
10:15 14 once they did that, they said, okay, let's pick the
10:16 15 one that's most compact, which is precisely what
10:16 16 they did. That simple, that profound.
10:16 17 In doing that, and in choosing District 1,
10:16 18 they had to -- and because Homestead became whole
10:16 19 in District 26, there was excess population in
10:16 20 District 26, and -- which thereby had to be put in
10:16 21 District 27 to equalize the population.
10:16 22 So the testimony you will hear from the same
10:16 23 map drawers that you've heard in the past, and
10:16 24 particularly Jason Poreda -- you haven't heard from
10:16 25 Jeff Takcs, but you will -- that they took the most
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 110 32
10:16 1 recognizable geographic boundary, the most obvious
10:16 2 decision point to change that population, which was
10:16 3 the Florida Turnpike. So they went up the Florida
10:17 4 Turnpike until they got to equal population and
10:17 5 essentially moved east for a little bit and got,
10:17 6 plus or minus, one person population.
10:17 7 That's it. The facts will be unrebutted,I
10:17 8 would suggest to Your Honor, that none of the three
10:17 9 map drawers had any idea of the political make-up
10:17 10 of the population that was moved from District 26
10:17 11 to 27. None of those individuals had any idea of
10:17 12 the racial composition of the people that they
10:17 13 moved from 26 to 27.
10:17 14 None of those staffers had any notion
10:17 15 whatsoever whether that move, which was required by
10:17 16 the Florida Supreme Court, would have a political
10:17 17 impact on 26 and 27. All they did with regard to
10:18 18 political impact was to determine, under Tier 1,
10:18 19 whether there might be retrogression in the ability
10:18 20 of an Hispanic to be elected.
10:18 21 They saw that it did not. And so, therefore,
10:18 22 they followed the Turnpike and equalized
10:18 23 population. That simple and that important.
10:18 24 Beyond that, Your Honor, the other issue is
10:18 25 Districts 21 and 22 that are at issue here. And
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 111 33
10:18 1 Mr. Poreda and Mr. Takcs, without being repetitive,
10:18 2 will walk through all of the decision points to
10:18 3 show how this was done and with the integrity and
10:18 4 the -- and the talent that they have for this.
10:18 5 But with regard to 21 and 22, which is opposed
10:18 6 by the Romo plaintiffs, the Supreme Court, you will
10:18 7 recall, said that Districts 21 and 22 in the
10:18 8 Legislature's map should be withdrawn -- should be
10:19 9 redrawn, because it was not sufficiently compact.
10:19 10 The Court said it was on a -- the two districts
10:19 11 were on a north-south axis, and the Supreme Court
10:19 12 said, you -- you -- we are not requiring you to go
10:19 13 to a horizontal access, but you must make the
10:19 14 districts more compact. So you can choose, but you
10:19 15 must make the districts more compact.
10:19 16 The evidence again will,I would suggest, be
10:19 17 unrebutted that the map drawers looked at ways to
10:19 18 keep a north-south axis and to make it more compact
10:19 19 and could not do so. So what they did was, they
10:19 20 drew it east-west and made it substantially more
10:19 21 compact and substantially more compact than the
10:19 22 Romo alternative that is before this Court today.
10:20 23 Now the Romo plaintiffs say that that paired
10:20 24 two Democratic incumbents. That is a big surprise
10:20 25 to the map drawers and anyone else who was
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 112 34
10:20 1 involved. No one had the incumbent addresses with
10:20 2 them. No one would have even thought about having
10:20 3 incumbent addresses. No one had any idea that --
10:20 4 in that map-drawing process where the incumbents
10:20 5 lived in that area.
10:20 6 They did something as simple as it is
10:20 7 important; and that is, they complied with the
10:20 8 Supreme Court's order. They made their districts
10:20 9 more compact.
10:20 10 The Romo plaintiffs are asserting to this
10:20 11 Court that that should be undone because it -- it
10:20 12 paired two Democratic incumbents, and it should be
10:20 13 undone because there are communities of interest
10:20 14 involved, without communities of interest being any
10:21 15 words in Amendment 6.
10:21 16 And the legal issue and the focus of this
10:21 17 Court,I would suggest, in terms of what the law
10:21 18 requires, is, did political intent come in to this
10:21 19 process and spoil the process? And if so, when and
10:21 20 how?
10:21 21 The evidence is going to show not a shred of
10:21 22 proof that political intent affected the base
10:21 23 map-drawing process. The evidence will not show
10:21 24 that when the House made improvements to the map in
10:21 25 the legislative process, in the light of day, that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 113 35
10:21 1 all it did was add to the metrics of the map
10:21 2 without a shred of political intent.
10:21 3 But, Your Honor, indeed there will be proof of
10:21 4 political intent. And that political intent comes
10:21 5 from the plaintiffs. The first thing that happens
10:21 6 once the legislative process occurred, and these
10:22 7 folks presented a base map, and the legislative
10:22 8 process began, the League of Women Voters praised
10:22 9 the Legislature for everything it did with the
10:22 10 exception of 26 and 27 and said, this needs to be
10:22 11 more Democratic.
10:22 12 And they say, you must have known that, and
10:22 13 this must be a gerrymander, so make it less
10:22 14 Democratic. There could be nothing more
10:22 15 antithetical to Amendment 6 and to what the Supreme
10:22 16 Court said in apportionment 1, that you do not go
10:22 17 back and equalize political power, and that that is
10:22 18 required by the Amendment 6.
10:22 19 You comply with the statute. And if there are
10:22 20 political effects, as there are every time you draw
10:22 21 a line, that doesn't matter; what matters is the
10:22 22 intent. Had the Legislature come back and undid
10:22 23 that after it knew the political composition of the
10:23 24 plaintiffs that moved in 26, that would have been
10:23 25 an outrageous violation of Amendment 6.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 114 36
10:23 1 The Legislature didn't do that, because they
10:23 2 had no clue of political composition and no
10:23 3 political intent.
10:23 4 And so the only other thing that I think I
10:23 5 would like to remind the Court is that, the
10:23 6 political intent, in effect, in this process was
10:23 7 also revealed by what the plaintiffs did not do,
10:23 8 despite the fact that the Supreme Court told
10:23 9 everyone that maps and this process should be
10:23 10 vetted in the open and that -- and that those who
10:23 11 are opponents should have the ability to present
10:23 12 maps and to argue them. They did not do that.
10:23 13 Their maps were drawn in secret. Their maps
10:23 14 were never disclosed to anyone. Their maps and
10:24 15 their experts never graced the door of the
10:24 16 Legislature and came in and said, you should do
10:24 17 this because it's more compliant.
10:24 18 They waited. They ignored what the Florida
10:24 19 Supreme Court did and ignored what the Legislature
10:24 20 might or might not have done. And they just hope
10:24 21 that they can do it judicially and not
10:24 22 legislatively.
10:24 23 That -- that alone is powerful evidence that
10:24 24 political intent clearly infected this process, so
10:24 25 we would -- we would hope that the record would
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 115 37
10:24 1 show clearly that the House map, as passed by the
10:24 2 House, had no political intent and complied with
10:24 3 all the metrics and the requirements of the Florida
10:24 4 Constitution.
10:24 5 Thank you.
10:24 6 THE COURT: Mr. Cantero?
10:25 7 MR. CANTERO: Thank you, Your Honor. On
10:25 8 behalf of the Florida Senate,I don't want to
10:25 9 repeat what George Meros said on behalf of the
10:25 10 House;I want to focus on maybe some other things
10:25 11 that you haven't heard yet.
10:25 12 The first is that, as you may know, this is
10:25 13 not a redo of the entire map. The Court made some
10:25 14 specific findings about districts that had to be
10:25 15 redrawn and found invalid eight districts. And
10:25 16 those were 5, 13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27.
10:25 17 You're probably not going to hear anything
10:25 18 today about four of those districts, because none
10:25 19 of the plaintiffs have any problem with our fix to
10:25 20 those districts. And I think that is telling, not
10:25 21 just because there is no dispute, but because it
10:25 22 goes to the intent as a whole, as the Supreme Court
10:25 23 said, if you find intent as to one, it -- it
10:26 24 infects the entire map, and you have to kind of
10:26 25 demonstrate that the other districts weren't drawn
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 116 38
10:26 1 with improper intent.
10:26 2 Well, they have no problem with four of those
10:26 3 districts. And specifically one district that you
10:26 4 won't hear about in the next couple of days, and
10:26 5 which you heard about ad nauseam last year, was
10:26 6 District 5. And that's because, what we did in
10:26 7 District 5, and why the plaintiffs won't object to
10:26 8 it is, we took the Romo plaintiffs' configuration
10:26 9 of District 5, because the Court had cited it as
10:26 10 something that would pass muster, and we simply
10:26 11 incorporated it into the map.
10:26 12 And so that district is the Romo plaintiffs'
10:26 13 district. How can we have improper intent in
10:26 14 drawing anything if we're trying to be as compliant
10:26 15 as possible?
10:26 16 Now what happens when you change District 5 to
10:26 17 go east-west, you are going to have to redo a lot
10:26 18 of Central Florida. And so that's why you see a
10:27 19 lot of Central Florida redrawn. 13 and 14, they
10:27 20 also have no problem with.
10:27 21 The Court said District 14 can't cross Tampa
10:27 22 Bay. We fixed that. They have no problem with
10:27 23 that. District 25, the Court said that you have to
10:27 24 keep Hendry County whole. And we did that. And
10:27 25 the plaintiffs have no problem with that.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 117 39
10:27 1 So I think that goes to the intent of the map
10:27 2 drawers and trying to have as compliant a map as
10:27 3 possible that they have no problem with four of
10:27 4 those maps. In addition, the coalition plaintiffs
10:27 5 have no problem with 21 and 22, because they
10:27 6 understand what the Supreme Court ordered was to
10:27 7 draw a more compact map, and really the only way
10:27 8 you can do that is to stack one on top of the
10:27 9 other.
10:27 10 And the Romo plaintiffs complained that now we
10:27 11 have paired two Democratic incumbents. But as you
10:27 12 know, and as the Supreme Court has said in
10:28 13 apportionment 1 and 2 and has never backtracked
10:28 14 from it, is that the constitution prohibits intent,
10:28 15 not effect. And we all know when you move lines
10:28 16 somewhere, somebody is going to be affected, and
10:28 17 somebody is not going to like it.
10:28 18 I think that's proven by the fact that we have
10:28 19 Congress member Corrine Brown, who has filed a
10:28 20 lawsuit in federal court regarding these new
10:28 21 configurations. And that's been stayed. But her
10:28 22 claim was that drawing District 5 across North
10:28 23 Florida violates the Voting Rights Act. On the
10:28 24 other hand, we have Republican Congress member
10:28 25 Daniel Webster, complaining about it.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 118 40
10:28 1 So when you have both Democrats and
10:28 2 Republicans complaining about it, we know two
10:28 3 things. We know that you're going to have an
10:28 4 effect whenever you move lines; and number two, if
10:28 5 both parties are complaining about it, it must be a
10:28 6 pretty good map.
10:28 7 We also assured that in the map drawing
10:29 8 process, we did not look at political performance,
10:29 9 except as necessary to conduct the functional
10:29 10 analysis, and you need to look at that. So we're
10:29 11 at a kind of disadvantage in the Legislature,
10:29 12 because we are not permitted, and we absolutely
10:29 13 prohibited anybody to look at political performance
10:29 14 when drawing these maps.
10:29 15 The plaintiffs are not under that
10:29 16 disadvantage. They can look and see what the
10:29 17 political performance is as they're drawing, and
10:29 18 then they criticize us, as they did with Districts
10:29 19 26 and 27 when they said that we needed a more
10:29 20 Democratic District 26.
10:29 21 Another thing that I want to emphasize, Your
10:29 22 Honor, is we completely agree with how the base map
10:29 23 was done. In fact, you will hear evidence there
10:29 24 were three staff members that participated in the
10:29 25 base map drawing process; two of them from the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 119 41
10:30 1 House, and one, Jay Ferrin, from the Senate.
10:30 2 And the base map was a very good map. The
10:30 3 Senate did not see the base map as the end of the
10:30 4 drawing process, but the beginning of the drawing
10:30 5 process, the floor, so to speak. And members could
10:30 6 offer amendments if they thought that they could
10:30 7 improve over the map or if they had some concerns
10:30 8 that they wanted to fix that did not reduce the
10:30 9 metrics of the map.
10:30 10 And you will hear evidence that we had a
10:30 11 Senator from eastern Hillsborough County, Tom Lee,
10:30 12 who had concerns about the way that Hillsborough
10:30 13 County was drawn, that it had been split up several
10:30 14 times, and he thought that it shouldn't be split
10:30 15 up. There were four different districts going
10:30 16 through Hillsborough County. And he believed that
10:30 17 that could be fixed without compromising the rest
10:30 18 of the map.
10:30 19 And he tried a couple of times. He had a
10:31 20 couple of amendments. But that decreased the
10:31 21 compactness of the plan. He withdrew those
10:31 22 amendments. Finally he came up with an amendment
10:31 23 that worked. And it did a couple of things. It
10:31 24 reduced the number of times that Hillsborough
10:31 25 County was split; and number two, it made no change
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 120 42
10:31 1 to District 16.
10:31 2 District 16 was not one of the districts that
10:31 3 I mention as needing to be redrawn. And so we
10:31 4 submit that if a district doesn't have to be
10:31 5 redrawn, then it's perfectly all right not to
10:31 6 redraw it. And that's what Senator Lee did.
10:31 7 And we will hear evidence that the metrics for
10:31 8 that region are -- or as the map as a whole, which
10:31 9 is Senate Map 9062, are -- have the same
10:31 10 compactness measurements as the House's plan, with
10:32 11 the exception that District 16 is now not changed,
10:32 12 as it was in the House's plan. That's basically
10:32 13 the only difference between the House and the
10:32 14 Senate plans.
10:32 15 And unfortunately we couldn't come to an
10:32 16 agreement on a legislative plan. But we agree on,
10:32 17 I believe it's 21 of the 27 districts are the same,
10:32 18 between the House and the Senate. And that's one
10:32 19 thing that I think the Supreme Court wanted you to
10:32 20 focus on is areas of agreement between the House
10:32 21 and Senate.
10:32 22 So except for that Central Florida area, we
10:32 23 agree on everything with the House. Certainly we
10:32 24 agree on Districts 21 and 22 and Districts 26 and
10:32 25 27 the way they were drawn. And we -- the Senate
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 121 43
10:32 1 made no changes to those areas of the state.
10:32 2 If the Court believes that it's okay to change
10:33 3 districts that haven't been changed, we will hear
10:33 4 that Senator Galvano offered a map after the
10:33 5 session in an attempt to compromise with the House,
10:33 6 trying to reach an agreement between the two maps,
10:33 7 and that -- that map does change District 16. The
10:33 8 compactness of the map is exactly the same as in
10:33 9 the House's map, 9071. The difference is that that
10:33 10 map, as you will see, keeps one more county whole.
10:33 11 It keeps 50 counties whole, which is more
10:33 12 whole counties than you've ever seen introduced in
10:33 13 this litigation, more whole counties than the
10:33 14 plaintiffs have ever submitted, than they've
10:33 15 submitted now, and very possibly more counties than
10:33 16 in history they have ever drawn Congressional
10:33 17 districts in Florida. Those are the kind of
10:33 18 choices you're going to have to make between the
10:33 19 plaintiffs.
10:33 20 As far as the Romo plaintiffs, 21 and 22, you
10:34 21 will see that the compactness measurements for that
10:34 22 are much lower than in the Legislature's three
10:34 23 plans. Our -- for example, the -- the Senate,
10:34 24 which was equal to the House's District 21, has
10:34 25 Reock scores of 37 and Convex Hull of 64, whereas
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 122 44
10:34 1 the Romo plaintiffs have a Reock score of 29 and
10:34 2 Convex Hull of 60, which is very similar to the map
10:34 3 9057, which is the map that the Florida Supreme
10:34 4 Court invalidated.
10:34 5 Clearly the Supreme Court wanted something
10:34 6 that was more compact. And the same thing with
10:34 7 District 22, the metrics will show the same. Our
10:34 8 metrics are much higher than not only the prior
10:34 9 plan, but the -- also the Romo plan.
10:34 10 And just to give you -- the Reock score is .41
10:35 11 in District 22, as opposed to .18, which is a great
10:35 12 improvement on the metrics there. So for that
10:35 13 reason we don't think that you should consider
10:35 14 Districts 21 and 22 from the Romo plan.
10:35 15 And finally, Districts 26 and 27, you will
10:35 16 hear evidence that those were drawn without looking
10:35 17 at who was getting -- who was Democrat and who was
10:35 18 Republican, and which now unfortunately the
10:35 19 plaintiffs can do that, to draw a Democratic
10:35 20 district. We can't do that.
10:35 21 But we will also show, these are two
10:35 22 Hispanic-performing districts. 26 and 27 have been
10:35 23 represented by a Hispanic for many years. And we
10:35 24 will show that in the plaintiffs' configuration,
10:35 25 that will be in danger of diminishing the ability
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 123 45
10:35 1 to elect a Hispanic in District 26.
10:35 2 Thank you, Your Honor.
10:35 3 MS. RIGGS: Your Honor, the NAACP's
10:35 4 involvement in this case has been focused on
10:36 5 Congressional District 5. Given the fact that
10:36 6 there doesn't appear to be disagreement on the
10:36 7 status of that district, we don't intend to present
10:36 8 argument or evidence, but reserve the right, if
10:36 9 that becomes implicated at some point. And we
10:36 10 haven't presented an alternative plan.
10:36 11 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
10:36 12 MR. KING: Ready for me, Your Honor?
10:36 13 Your Honor, David King on behalf of the
10:36 14 coalition plaintiffs.
10:36 15 Since the last trial and remedial hearing, the
10:36 16 Supreme Court gave us a decision, gave us very
10:36 17 specific instructions. And the good news here is
10:36 18 that those instructions have been largely followed
10:36 19 by the Legislature. And we're pleased about that.
10:36 20 The problems in North Florida, in Tampa Bay,
10:37 21 have been resolved. In Central Florida we're
10:37 22 satisfied with 9071, which was the Legislature's --
10:37 23 the House's proposal. So we modeled our maps on
10:37 24 9071.
10:37 25 And our map is the same as 9071 until it gets
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 124 46
10:37 1 down to South Florida, and there are differences in
10:37 2 CP-1 -- that's the first of our three maps -- there
10:37 3 are differences from Districts 20 through 27. In
10:37 4 CP-2 and CP-3, there are only differences in 26 and
10:37 5 27.
10:37 6 There are three ways to deal with that
10:37 7 situation. We didn't want to do a map. We wrote
10:37 8 the Legislature when we realized what they were
10:37 9 doing in 26 and 27. The League of Women Voters and
10:38 10 Common Cause wrote them a letter.
10:38 11 We explained -- they explained to them that
10:38 12 they were not solving the problem that the Supreme
10:38 13 Court had noted in 26 and 27. Rather than -- and
10:38 14 we hoped -- we sincerely hoped that they would fix
10:38 15 the problem, and we would never have to submit a
10:38 16 map, and we wouldn't really have to have these
10:38 17 proceedings.
10:38 18 MR. MEROS: Objection, Your Honor. Unless he
10:38 19 has witnesses testifying as to whether they were
10:38 20 going to draw a map or not, or what we, the League,
10:38 21 hoped or did not hope, that's evidence that will
10:38 22 not be part of this record, and he does not have
10:38 23 any such witness on his list.
10:38 24 So this is Mr. King testifying factually.
10:38 25 MR. KING: Well,I've listened to Mr. Meros do
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 125 47
10:38 1 a lot of testifying. It's not really testifying.
10:38 2 It's just explaining why we didn't do a map.
10:38 3 THE COURT: Well, he was making a legal
10:38 4 argument. He did talk about a lot of facts that
10:38 5 may or may not come in.
10:39 6 But opening statement is, this is the evidence
10:39 7 that you will hear.
10:39 8 MR. KING: Sure. And so a letter was sent to
10:39 9 the Legislature. The specific problems with 26 and
10:39 10 27 were delineated for the Legislature, and the
10:39 11 Legislature took no action to deal with that
10:39 12 problem. In fact, their response was developed by
10:39 13 the complainants.
10:39 14 So we have the issue involving 26 and 27. And
10:39 15 really it's sort of how you approach the Supreme
10:39 16 Court's decision, because the Legislature would
10:39 17 like to take the position that the only thing the
10:39 18 Supreme Court said was split Homestead -- what
10:39 19 was -- Homestead was split, shouldn't be split,
10:39 20 should be united.
10:39 21 So if they do a map that unites Homestead,
10:39 22 then they've done their job. That's the end of the
10:39 23 story.
10:39 24 But what they failed to appreciate is the
10:40 25 context of the decision by the Supreme Court. What
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 126 48
10:40 1 the Supreme Court considered and what they said is
10:40 2 they went about making that decision, because the
10:40 3 challenge was the fact that in the Senate map there
10:40 4 would have been two -- there would have been a
10:40 5 Republican district in 27 and a Democratic district
10:40 6 in 26.
10:40 7 They split Homestead at the instance of the
10:40 8 political operatives. In fact, the only map that
10:40 9 was submitted before the public process closed was
10:40 10 the Posada map. That was the only map that split
10:40 11 Homestead.
10:40 12 That was -- you heard a lot about that map
10:40 13 back in the prior trial. That, of course, was
10:40 14 produced by the political consultants.
10:40 15 So the Supreme Court said because the
10:40 16 Legislature asserted justification for its
10:40 17 consideration to protect minority voting rights,
10:40 18 it's -- that simply can't be justified. And so the
10:41 19 districts are going to be redrawn to avoid
10:41 20 splitting Homestead in that situation, to correct
10:41 21 that problem.
10:41 22 So the Legislature redrew. They put all of
10:41 23 Homestead in 26. But they found a way to make it
10:41 24 perform even better for the Republican Party in
10:41 25 their fix. And that is absolutely necessary that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 127 49
10:41 1 we address that situation and fix it like the
10:41 2 Supreme Court said it ought to be fixed.
10:41 3 They -- the prior district, in 9047 and 9057,
10:41 4 District 26 was changed by splitting Homestead so
10:41 5 that it performed 49.8 percent Democratic; 49.9
10:41 6 percent under the 2010 race. The 49.8 was under
10:41 7 the 2008 race.
10:42 8 So they managed to nudge it back so that it
10:42 9 was a Republican-performing district. So they had
10:42 10 two Republican-performing districts instead of one
10:42 11 Democrat in 27 and a Republican in 26.
10:42 12 Well, what have they done in this case?
10:42 13 Because they found three African-American
10:42 14 communities with a very high population of
10:42 15 Democrats and moved them to 27, they achieved a
10:42 16 result under 9071 where under the 2008 election it
10:42 17 would perform 48.3 percent for Democrats; and under
10:42 18 the 2010, it's 48 percent for Democrats.
10:42 19 So they increased the Republican advantage
10:42 20 under the 2008 election 1.5 percent -- 1.5 points,
10:43 21 and under the 2010 election, the Sink election, 1.9
10:43 22 points.
10:43 23 Now is that the solution that the Supreme
10:43 24 Court was calling for? And the evidence is going
10:43 25 to show they say, oh, this was done in a pristine
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 128 50
10:43 1 approach. Of course, it was done in a secret
10:43 2 approach. Nobody knows what happened when they
10:43 3 went into this room.
10:43 4 There is no records of what happened in the
10:43 5 room.I guess they will tell us what they think
10:43 6 occurred. But they could have fixed it so that we
10:43 7 wouldn't be asking the question of what actually
10:43 8 occurred.
10:43 9 But the evidence will show, we will see
10:43 10 evidence that, because these are minority
10:43 11 districts, they had the performance information on
10:43 12 those two districts, and they knew what they had
10:43 13 accomplished. That's what the evidence is going to
10:43 14 show.
10:43 15 They managed to move West Perrine, Palmetto
10:44 16 Estates, Richmond Heights, three areas side by side
10:44 17 with a large concentration of African-Americans,
10:44 18 voted Democrat, moved it into 27 where there was a
10:44 19 strong incumbent, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who would be
10:44 20 able to get elected. Dr. Moreno will testify she
10:44 21 was in a very strong position.
10:44 22 They needed to shore up 26. That was their
10:44 23 approach originally. It was still their approach.
10:44 24 They say they followed the roadways. And they
10:44 25 did follow a roadway. They followed U.S. 1 until
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 129 51
10:44 1 they got to partisan junction. That's where it
10:44 2 intersected with the Florida Turnpike.
10:44 3 And instead of going on on U.S. 1, they took a
10:44 4 hard left and went up the Florida Turnpike until
10:44 5 they got by those three enclaves of
10:44 6 African-Americans, and then they took a hard left,
10:45 7 not on any major roadways, across the way to get
10:45 8 back to a major roadway. You will find out that
10:45 9 they spent more time off road than certainly the
10:45 10 maps that we're offering in this situation. So the
10:45 11 roadway explanation is not going to carry the day
10:45 12 for them.
10:45 13 Let's put up the side-by-side. And, Your
10:45 14 Honor, could I just give you a copy? This is just
10:45 15 a picture of this area in 9071 and CP-1.
10:45 16 THE COURT: Okay.
10:45 17 MR. KING: Now, this shows -- the screen
10:45 18 doesn't show it very well. Hopefully it's better
10:46 19 on your screen, Your Honor. This shows the
10:46 20 comparison between 9071 and CP-1 --
10:46 21 THE COURT: Was it supposed to be on my screen
10:46 22 right here?
10:46 23 MR. KING:I thought it was.
10:46 24 THE COURT: It might be. Give me -- nothing
10:46 25 is coming up.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 130 52
10:46 1 MR. KING: Well, at least I gave you the
10:46 2 handout.
10:46 3 THE COURT: Okay.
10:46 4 MR. KING: All right. Your Honor. So the
10:46 5 difference is, we submit that CP-1, as far as 26
10:46 6 and 27, we more faithfully follow the roadways in
10:46 7 the situation. And you see a much more compact
10:46 8 map. Now it's interesting to note that they do not
10:46 9 complain in their challenges about any of the
10:46 10 changes that are in CP-1 above 27.
10:47 11 In other words, there are changes -- slight
10:47 12 changes -- in 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27.
10:47 13 The changes all make this map much more compact,
10:47 14 reduce city splits, improve the performance of the
10:47 15 map in that direction.
10:47 16 It was just interesting to hear my -- my
10:47 17 friend representing the Senate extolling the way
10:47 18 their map performed as to 22. He said it had a
10:47 19 Reock of .41. Well, on CP-1, the Reock for 22 is
10:47 20 .48. That's a huge -- as the Court remembers, we
10:47 21 were arguing, in that last trial, about differences
10:47 22 of --I mean, between .12 and .13. This is .48 and
10:48 23 wins on all three of the metrics, Convex Hull,
10:48 24 Polsby-Popper, and Reock.
10:48 25 The same for 21 and 20 are largely the same
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 131 53
10:48 1 from a metric standpoint. Actually 21 has a higher
10:48 2 Polsby-Popper score on CP-1. Then 23 is more
10:48 3 compact on all three. It has a Reock of 35, and
10:48 4 9071 has a Reock of 27. All the measures are
10:48 5 better -- significantly better.
10:48 6 24, all three measures are better. And as far
10:48 7 as 24 is concerned, the Reock on 24 is .47. In
10:48 8 CP-1 it's .38 in the Legislature's map.
10:48 9 In 27, the Reock on the Legislature's map is
10:49 10 .46. In the CP-1 it's .54. Significant
10:49 11 differences right down the map in the compactness.
10:49 12 26 is the same on the Reock at .18. You're
10:49 13 just not going to be able to get the Reock much
10:49 14 better for that district, which includes the
10:49 15 Florida Keys. But on two measures, Polsby-Popper
10:49 16 and Convex Hull, a CP-1 performs better.
10:49 17 So from a compactness standpoint, six of the
10:49 18 eight districts are superior in CP-1. One is the
10:49 19 same, and one is only slightly -- and one, 25, is
10:49 20 less compact.
10:49 21 So that's the comparison from a compactness
10:49 22 standpoint. What about city splits? The city
10:49 23 splits are something we've heard so much from the
10:49 24 Legislature about. And the Legislature has gotten
10:50 25 their map down to 20 city splits. And that's good.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 132 54
10:50 1 410 cities, the benchmark was 300 cities not split.
10:50 2 Now under the Legislature's map, 390. That's good.
10:50 3 That's a wonderful improvement for the citizens of
10:50 4 Florida.
10:50 5 Under this map, under CP-1, it's down to 13,
10:50 6 seven less city splits than the Legislature's map.
10:50 7 So that's very significant.
10:50 8 And as far -- now, here is what really is
10:50 9 going to be the argument the Legislature is going
10:50 10 to make, and this is where they're going to center.
10:50 11 They're going to say, well, that's all well and
10:50 12 good. But these are Hispanic districts. And
10:50 13 because they're Hispanic districts, you're
10:50 14 tinkering with them, and you're going to -- the
10:50 15 Hispanic -- it's really sort of a targeted thing.
10:51 16 They say, well, the Hispanic Democrat is not going
10:51 17 to be successful in 26.
10:51 18 I mean, evidence is going to be they fixed it
10:51 19 so that a Democrat can't -- shouldn't be able to
10:51 20 win in 26 with the overall performance of the map.
10:51 21 But now they're going to suggest that there is a
10:51 22 problem with this configuration, because the
10:51 23 Hispanic Democrat, it will retrogress as far as
10:51 24 they're concerned.
10:51 25 I would just simply suggest to the Court that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 133 55
10:51 1 the evidence is going to show that if 9057 and
10:51 2 9047, which were the enacted maps, if they didn't
10:51 3 retrogress, and these folks presented evidence from
10:51 4 a fellow that's going to be here at the trial,
10:51 5 Professor Moreno, Dr. Moreno, from Miami. He said
10:51 6 that 9057 and 9047 were fine. They were Hispanic
10:51 7 districts that were properly protective of the
10:52 8 ability to elect for Hispanics. That was their
10:52 9 position.
10:52 10 Well, the evidence is going to show in this
10:52 11 case that there is little difference between CP-1's
10:52 12 performance for minorities in 26 and the former
10:52 13 enacted map.
10:52 14 They say -- for example, they say in their
10:52 15 paper, that the plaintiffs' four alternatives to
10:52 16 District 26 -- in the plaintiffs' four alternatives
10:52 17 to District 26, Hispanics never compromise [sic]
10:52 18 more than 22.8 percent of the Democratic primary,
10:52 19 22.8 percent.
10:52 20 However, in 9047 and 9057, the Hispanics
10:52 21 comprised 22.7 percent of the Democratic primary.
10:52 22 22.7 percent was okay in the enacted map. They're
10:52 23 saying 22.8 percent is retrogressive.
10:53 24 Well, we will see if there is any evidence to
10:53 25 support that suggestion. Then they say the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 134 56
10:53 1 plaintiffs' maps decrease the percentage of
10:53 2 Hispanics registered as Democrats, thereby
10:53 3 diminishing Hispanic influence in the Democratic
10:53 4 primary.
10:53 5 So they're saying that the plaintiffs' maps,
10:53 6 CP-1, decreases the percentage of Hispanics
10:53 7 registered as Democrats. Well, in CP-1, 42.5
10:53 8 percent of Hispanics in the Democratic primary. In
10:53 9 9057, 42.6 percent.
10:53 10 So not a dime's worth of difference between
10:53 11 the two.
10:53 12 So you will hear from our experts. We have
10:53 13 got Professor Lichtman. They've got two -- two
10:54 14 experts, and we will talk retrogression.
10:54 15 I think at the end of the day the evidence is
10:54 16 going to establish that this map performs in the
10:54 17 same way, as far as Hispanic performance is
10:54 18 concerned, that 9057 did. And as we know, they're
10:54 19 Hispanic representatives in 25, 26, and 27.
10:54 20 So what we propose, they're not going to be
10:54 21 able to carry their burden of proof on the issue of
10:54 22 retrogression.
10:54 23 So, Your Honor, we appreciate your attention,
10:54 24 and we will proceed with the evidence.
10:54 25 MR. DEVANEY: We're having an IT issue here.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 135 57
10:55 1 Okay.
10:55 2 THE COURT: He is going to work on it. Okay.
10:55 3 MR. DEVANEY: Your Honor, John Devaney for the
10:55 4 Romo plaintiffs. Just to emphasize a couple of
10:55 5 points on our map. One is that it is based on
10:55 6 House Map 9071. Again, we're talking about some
10:55 7 very narrow areas of dispute. The coalition
10:55 8 plaintiffs also based their map on 9071. The House
10:55 9 based their map on 9071.
10:55 10 And also our map was -- contrary to what
10:55 11 Mr. Meros suggested in his opening, was prepared by
10:55 12 Dr. Ansolabehere, an expert witness from Harvard
10:55 13 who is a scientist, who Your Honor is familiar
10:56 14 with, has testified before the Court.
10:56 15 The testimony will show that Dr. Ansolabehere
10:56 16 had complete control over the final map, that he
10:56 17 exercised his decision-making authority, that he
10:56 18 never spoke with anybody from the Democratic
10:56 19 Congressional Campaign Committee. He never spoke
10:56 20 with anybody from NCEC.
10:56 21 He is the person who drafted this map, and it
10:56 22 complies with their district amendments in all Tier
10:56 23 1 and Tier 2 respects.
10:56 24 Mr. King just articulated the reasons why
10:56 25 changes to 9071 and Districts 26 and 27 are
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 136 58
10:56 1 appropriate and called for. The testimony will
10:56 2 demonstrate Dr. Ansolabehere will show there was
10:56 3 simply no reason to move black communities out of
10:56 4 26 into 27. There was no Tier 1 reason; there was
10:56 5 no Tier 2 reason. In fact, that results in
10:56 6 dilution in 26. And there just is no justification
10:56 7 for that move, which has a favorable political
10:57 8 effect for the Republican Party.
10:57 9 As for Districts 21 and 22, this is the one
10:57 10 area where the Romo plaintiffs do differ from the
10:57 11 coalition plaintiffs and the legislative parties.
10:57 12 And just a few points about that that you will hear
10:57 13 from Dr. Ansolabehere.
10:57 14 First, the Legislature testified in trial in
10:57 15 this Court more than a year ago that the vertical
10:57 16 version of 21 and 22 is constitutional, that it
10:57 17 satisfies Tier 1 and Tier 2. The Supreme Court, in
10:57 18 its decision this past July, did not require that
10:57 19 there be an east-west configuration of 21 and 22.
10:57 20 It said that could be possible. It could be
10:57 21 permissible.
10:57 22 But it also said that a vertical configuration
10:57 23 too could pass constitutional muster.
10:57 24 And related to that, the version of 21 and 22
10:57 25 that Dr. Ansolabehere has prepared and will testify
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 137 59
10:57 1 to does satisfy Tier 1 criteria and meets
10:58 2 reasonable Tier 2 criteria. And it also has the
10:58 3 added benefit of preserving communities, in
10:58 4 particular in 22. You have a coastal community
10:58 5 with cities that have very common interests, the
10:58 6 interests that are typical for any coastal town or
10:58 7 city. And there is no Tier 1 or Tier 2 reason to
10:58 8 disrupt those communities of interest.
10:58 9 So in sum, you are going to hear from both
10:58 10 plaintiffs on maps that are very similar, except
10:58 11 for 21 and 22. And they're also very similar to
10:58 12 what the House has advocated except for these
10:58 13 relatively narrow, but important, disputes relating
10:58 14 to the district that I addressed.
10:58 15 And, Your Honor, that's all I have.I thank
10:58 16 you for your time and look forward to presenting
10:58 17 Dr. Ansolabehere later today.
10:58 18 THE COURT: Let me ask you, because it came up
10:58 19 a couple of times when Mr. Meros mentioned it, when
10:58 20 you say community of interest, he said community of
10:58 21 interest is nowhere mentioned in the amendment that
10:58 22 we deal with.
10:58 23 And I recall in our first trial, Ms. Riggs,
10:59 24 for the NAACP, presented a good bit of evidence
10:59 25 about community of interest in District 5 the way
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 138 60
10:59 1 it was drawn. Apparently that doesn't seem to
10:59 2 weigh too heavily there, because the Supreme Court
10:59 3 said draw it east-west.
10:59 4 Did you agree or disagree that I should
10:59 5 consider evidence relative to community of
10:59 6 interest?
10:59 7 MR. DEVANEY: Your Honor, here is my position
10:59 8 on that, which is that in District 5 we had --
10:59 9 District 5 as drawn in the old map, there were some
10:59 10 significant Tier 1 and Tier 2 problems. And Your
10:59 11 Honor is familiar with those problems, presented
10:59 12 extensive evidence.I don't want to rehash them.
10:59 13 In 21 and 22 as configured by the Romo plaintiffs,
10:59 14 there aren't Tier 1 or Tier 2 problems, and given
10:59 15 that, while I certainly can see that the district
10:59 16 amendments don't speak of communities of interest,
10:59 17 it is appropriate if you're not going to violate
10:59 18 Tier 1 and Tier 2 to at least consider the
11:00 19 communities of interest.
11:00 20 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, may I respond to that?
11:00 21 THE COURT: Yes. Because you mentioned it in
11:00 22 your opening. I'm just curious in terms of the
11:00 23 parameters of evidence and things I should consider
11:00 24 when I'm evaluating these maps; should I consider
11:00 25 community of interest?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 139 61
11:00 1 MR. MEROS: Excuse me, John.
11:00 2 Your Honor, there is a fundamental difference
11:00 3 between 21 and 22 in CD-5. And I think Ms. Riggs
11:00 4 will tell you that evaluation of community of
11:00 5 interest is relevant and appropriate in determining
11:00 6 whether a district is a minority-protected
11:00 7 district. And specifically the compactness of a
11:00 8 minority district is determined by, not the
11:00 9 numerical compactness of the district as a whole,
11:00 10 but the communities of interest that comprise that
11:00 11 district.
11:00 12 That is why there was substantial testimony
11:00 13 about the various areas within CD-5 that had
11:01 14 communities of interest. But that is absolutely
11:01 15 different than protecting communities of interest
11:01 16 in districts that don't have minority protections.
11:01 17 And 21 and 22 are not even close to that.
11:01 18 And in the supreme -- in reapportionment 1 and
11:01 19 reapportionment 2 there were any number of times
11:01 20 when Senate districts were expressly overturned
11:01 21 because they asserted that they were preserving
11:01 22 communities of interest. And the Court said that
11:01 23 is not a constitutional criteria.
11:01 24 So that looks to us like a pretext for not
11:01 25 satisfying compactness and other things. So
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 140 62
11:01 1 communities of interest in a Section 2 or Section 5
11:01 2 context is relevant. Here it clearly is not under
11:01 3 the law.
11:01 4 THE COURT: Well,I may let it come in and
11:01 5 decide whether it's relevant later.
11:01 6 MR. MEROS: Oh, sure.
11:01 7 THE COURT:I've heard that phrase, and I
11:02 8 think in general redistricting cases, they talk
11:02 9 about the desirability of maintaining that.
11:02 10 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, and this -- you can
11:02 11 take judicial notice of this, because it's all --
11:02 12 it's all in the Supreme Court records. But the
11:02 13 Legislature, after Amendment 6 was passed, proposed
11:02 14 that the -- that the voters include into the
11:02 15 standards communities of interest. And in fact,
11:02 16 the Supreme Court did not approve that for the
11:02 17 ballot, in part because they said that that
11:02 18 would -- that would overwhelm the standards. And
11:02 19 it was inconsistent with the standards.
11:02 20 And so the very notion that now the plaintiffs
11:02 21 are asserting communities of interest when these
11:02 22 very same plaintiffs were saying this can't go on
11:02 23 the ballot because communities of interest
11:02 24 shouldn't be considered is a remarkable irony.
11:03 25 MR. KING: Your Honor,I think we need to be
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 141 63
11:03 1 very clear when he says the plaintiffs who he's
11:03 2 talking about. The plaintiffs -- this plaintiff is
11:03 3 not making that argument.
11:03 4 THE COURT: Okay.
11:03 5 MR. MEROS: Then great. We have a surprise
11:03 6 ally.
11:03 7 THE COURT: Mr. Cantero?
11:03 8 MR. CANTERO: Mr. Meros stole a little bit of
11:03 9 my thunder, but not too much.I want to explain in
11:03 10 apportionment 1 what the Supreme Court did and what
11:03 11 the Supreme Court thought of communities of
11:03 12 interest I think. You will find it interesting to
11:03 13 take into account in your determinations.
11:03 14 We had a district in northwest Florida -- two
11:03 15 districts in northwest Florida that we drew
11:03 16 originally, apportionment 1, that the Court
11:03 17 invalidated. And our reason for drawing them that
11:03 18 way is we wanted to keep together communities of
11:03 19 interest on the coast of northwest Florida, which
11:03 20 are beach communities.
11:03 21 THE COURT:I remember that, yes.
11:03 22 MR. CANTERO: Also the inland, more rural
11:04 23 communities we wanted to keep together as well.
11:04 24 They had communities of interest, a lot in common.
11:04 25 The Supreme Court said we couldn't do that.I
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 142 64
11:04 1 think what they said is, you can think of -- you
11:04 2 can consider communities of interest, but not at
11:04 3 the expense of the constitutional factors.
11:04 4 What I would call communities of interests and
11:04 5 other kinds of consideration is Tier 3 factors.
11:04 6 You can consider them if you want, but you can't
11:04 7 consider them at the expense of Tier 1 and Tier 2
11:04 8 factors, including compactness and other things.
11:04 9 I think what the Romo plaintiffs are trying to
11:04 10 do is take into account communities of interest,
11:04 11 but at the expense of compactness and also
11:04 12 blatantly at the expense of Tier 1 factors, because
11:04 13 they were very up front about the fact they want to
11:04 14 unpair two incumbents. So they have Tier 1 and
11:04 15 Tier 2 problems with that approach.
11:04 16 THE COURT: Well,I guess to some degree if
11:04 17 you say you should try to keep cities and counties
11:04 18 together, it presumes that there is some community
11:04 19 of interest within a city or a county, depending
11:05 20 where it is.I don't know.I will leave it open.
11:05 21 I know that that's been mentioned as a reason to do
11:05 22 it, and the argument was that wasn't relevant.I
11:05 23 will have to decide,I guess.
11:05 24 Mr. Devaney wants to have the last word on
11:05 25 this.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 143 65
11:05 1 MR. DEVANEY:I will be very brief. Actually,
11:05 2 Mr. Cantero and I largely agree, which is that
11:05 3 certainly Tier 1 and Tier 2 are the governing
11:05 4 criteria. But communities of interest are
11:05 5 relevant.
11:05 6 First, you look at Tier 1, Tier 2. But it's
11:05 7 not improper, as Mr. Cantero just acknowledged, to
11:05 8 look at communities of interest, assuming
11:05 9 satisfaction of Tier 1 and Tier 2. That's my whole
11:05 10 point.
11:05 11 THE COURT: Okay. Why don't we take a break
11:05 12 here before we start our testimony for about ten
11:05 13 minutes?I will come back about -- well, we will
11:05 14 say 11:20, a little more than ten minutes.
11:05 15 (In recess from 11:05 a.m. to 11:22 a.m.)
11:22 16 THE BAILIFF: All rise. Come to order. Court
11:22 17 is back in session.
11:22 18 THE COURT: Have a seat. Call your first
11:22 19 witness.
11:22 20 MR. MEROS: Yes, Your Honor, if we could offer
11:22 21 some exhibits into evidence that are not disputed.
11:22 22 First of all, Joint Trial Exhibits 1 through 11. I
11:23 23 will approach when you're ready, Your Honor. Those
11:23 24 are all the maps over there.
11:23 25 THE COURT: Okay.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 144 66
11:23 1 MR. MEROS: House Exhibits 1 through 190, and
11:23 2 247 through 249; Senate Exhibits 3 through 5 and 20
11:23 3 through 40; and Coalition Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1
11:23 4 through 30 and 32 through 41, without objection,
11:23 5 Your Honor.
11:23 6 THE COURT: All right.
11:23 7 MR. MEROS: And if I may approach,I will give
11:23 8 you the joint exhibits.
11:23 9 (Joint Trial Exhibits 1 through 11; House
11:23 10 Exhibits 1 through 190, and 247 through 249; Senate
11:23 11 Exhibits 3 through 5 and 20 through 40; Coalition
11:23 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1 through 30 and 32 through 41
11:23 13 were received in evidence.)
11:24 14 And the House calls Jason Poreda.
11:24 15 Thereupon,
11:24 16 JASON POREDA
11:24 17 was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn,
11:24 18 was examined and testified as follows:
11:24 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION
11:24 20 BY MR. MEROS:
11:24 21 Q Hello, Mr. Poreda. Tell us your full name and
11:24 22 business address, please.
11:24 23 A Jason Patterson Poreda, and I work in the
11:24 24 capitol.
11:24 25 Q What is your position at the capitol?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 145 67
11:24 1 A I'm the staff director for the Select
11:24 2 Committee on Redistricting for the House of
11:24 3 Representatives.
11:24 4 Q Were you one of the three individuals who
11:24 5 prepared a base map of the House Congressional
11:24 6 remedial map?
11:24 7 A Yes,I was.
11:24 8 Q And were you given any written instructions as
11:24 9 to how to go about that process?
11:24 10 A Yes. The presiding officers of both chambers,
11:25 11 the Speaker of the House and the Senate president,
11:25 12 sent out a memo,I believe, on July 20th.
11:25 13 Q Okay.
11:25 14 MR. MEROS: And, Your Honor,I will be making
11:25 15 reference and will give you copies of House 118 and
11:25 16 House 121. If I may approach and give a written
11:25 17 copy to the Court.
11:25 18 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
11:25 19 MR. MEROS: You may have copies here, 19, 21.
11:25 20 BY MR. MEROS:
11:25 21 Q Mr. Poreda, have you had a chance to look at
11:26 22 House Exhibits 118 and 121?
11:26 23 A Yes.
11:26 24 Q What are those?
11:26 25 A They are two memos, one dated July 20th from
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 146 68
11:26 1 the Senate President and the House speaker. This was
11:26 2 the memo that was sent out July 20th with the
11:26 3 guidelines and instructions for staff of how to draw a
11:26 4 base map, and the second one is another memo sent from
11:26 5 Speaker Crisafulli on August 5th for -- after we
11:26 6 finished the base map.
11:26 7 Q Okay. And Mr. Poreda, I'm just going to
11:26 8 highlight, talk about a few of the statements in here.
11:26 9 The Court certainly can read it for himself. But with
11:26 10 regard to H-118, the first paragraph.
11:26 11 THE COURT: Are you going to offer this in
11:26 12 evidence?
11:26 13 MR. MEROS: Yes.
11:26 14 THE COURT: Any objection?
11:26 15 MR. ZEHNDER: No. It's part of the group,
11:26 16 Your Honor.
11:26 17 THE COURT: Oh, you went through this?
11:26 18 MR. ZEHNDER: Yes.
11:26 19 BY MR. MEROS:
11:26 20 Q H-118, in the first paragraph it says in part:
11:27 21 The professional staff shall work collaboratively with
11:27 22 House and Senate legal counsel to develop a base map
11:27 23 that complies with the Florida Supreme Court's recent
11:27 24 ruling.
11:27 25 Do you see that?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 147 69
11:27 1 A Yes,I do.
11:27 2 Q Did the staff, in fact, do that?
11:27 3 A Yes, we did.
11:27 4 Q And could you tell the Court, when you talked
11:27 5 about a collaborative effort among the map drawers,
11:27 6 can you briefly describe how that worked?
11:27 7 A Jay Ferrin, the staff director for the Senate
11:27 8 Committee on Reapportionment, came to the suite on the
11:27 9 House side with myself and Jeff Takcs, special advisor
11:27 10 to the select committee on redistricting, and we drew
11:27 11 the base map in a room that we set up that had a
11:27 12 projector up on one side of the wall in a secure room
11:27 13 that only Jeff and myself had keys to in the
11:27 14 redistricting suite for the House.
11:27 15 Q When you say worked collaboratively, can you
11:27 16 give us a little bit of an idea of how you worked
11:28 17 collaboratively?
11:28 18 A Sure. Really every decision or every possible
11:28 19 thing that we could do we discussed as a group amongst
11:28 20 the three of us. We were deliberative in everything
11:28 21 we did.
11:28 22 We read the Supreme Court opinion and
11:28 23 sometimes the specific section of the Supreme Court
11:28 24 opinion that was discussing the region that you're
11:28 25 about to redraw; discussing everything from where we
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 148 70
11:28 1 should next try to, you know, move the lines to
11:28 2 whether or not we should even save a draft or --
11:28 3 everything we did we discussed very deliberatively and
11:28 4 made sure we were all in agreement.
11:28 5 Q And with regard to the various steps and
11:28 6 ultimately to the resulting base map, did you agree
11:28 7 together on all of those steps?
11:28 8 AI would say so, yes.
11:28 9 Q And this also says that you could work in
11:28 10 collaboration with counsel. Can you tell me how that
11:28 11 worked?
11:29 12 A Occasionally during the map-drawing process we
11:29 13 would come to a point where we felt we needed some
11:29 14 guidance from the legal counsel from both the House
11:29 15 and the Senate. So we would give them a call, and
11:29 16 they would come in the map room.
11:29 17 We would discuss whatever issue that we --
11:29 18 issue or issues that we had that we felt we needed
11:29 19 some guidance on, and then they would leave, and we
11:29 20 would continue drawing amongst the three of us.
11:29 21 Q And as I said in opening statement, the House
11:29 22 of Representatives and the Senate has waived the
11:29 23 attorney-client privilege with regards to
11:29 24 communications between staff and counsel in the
11:29 25 redistricting suite. So feel free, to the extent
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 149 71
11:29 1 necessary, to share those conversations.
11:29 2 And going to the second page of this exhibit,
11:29 3 in the first paragraph it says in part that you are to
11:29 4 avoid any assessment of the political implications of
11:29 5 any map either before or during the special session,
11:30 6 except when the consideration of political data is
11:30 7 legally required to assess compliance with state or
11:30 8 federal minority rights provisions.
11:30 9 Did you do that?
11:30 10 A Yes, we did.
11:30 11 Q And did you, in fact, not have any
11:30 12 interactions with members of the Legislature or
11:30 13 political consultants or staff or Congressional
11:30 14 representatives with regard to what you were doing in
11:30 15 preparing the base map?
11:30 16 A We had no interactions with any of the parties
11:30 17 that you said, not even the chairman of our committee,
11:30 18 not even the Speaker of the House or Senate President,
11:30 19 nobody.
11:30 20 Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
11:30 21 A Nobody.
11:30 22 Q And could the Speaker of the House come in the
11:30 23 room?
11:30 24 A No, he could not.
11:30 25 Q Did he ever try?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 150 72
11:30 1 A No.
11:30 2 Q Could the chair come into the room?
11:30 3 A No.
11:30 4 Q Did he ever try?
11:30 5 A No.
11:30 6 Q Did either one of those or any member of the
11:30 7 House of Representatives ever, through an emissary,
11:31 8 try to determine what was going on or how you were
11:31 9 drawing these maps?
11:31 10 A Not to my knowledge, no.
11:31 11 Q Looking briefly at House Exhibit 121, the
11:31 12 second document, again, does this include specific
11:31 13 directions that the member -- that the staff was to
11:31 14 comply with and also members of the Legislature?
11:31 15 A Yes.
11:31 16 Q Okay. And if you go to the numbered paragraph
11:31 17 2 at the bottom of the page, it makes mention of any
11:31 18 member wishing to offer a bill or amendment should be
11:31 19 prepared to explain.
11:31 20 Do you see that?
11:31 21 A Yes,I do.
11:31 22 Q Okay. Tell the Court, if you would, what that
11:31 23 admonition was and how that was implemented.
11:31 24 A Speaking for the process that we used in the
11:31 25 House, any member that wanted to submit an amendment
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 151 73
11:31 1 or a separate bill for redistricting would come to our
11:31 2 committee sometimes to ask, you know, for guidance
11:32 3 about how to -- they wanted their amendment drafted,
11:32 4 sometimes with more guidance than others. We then
11:32 5 had -- when they were ready to file their amendment or
11:32 6 bill, we had a form that they would fill out where
11:32 7 they would answer a various series of questions.
11:32 8 They would be prepared to list out all the
11:32 9 identity of the -- all the identifies of the people
11:32 10 that drew the map, the criteria that was used, the
11:32 11 data that was used, and an acknowledgement that they
11:32 12 would be asked to do so on committee or on the floor
11:32 13 to present all of that information.
11:32 14 Q And did you have occasion to be present and
11:32 15 sometimes speaking in committee hearings and also to
11:32 16 be present on the floor of the House of
11:32 17 Representatives?
11:32 18 A Yes.
11:32 19 Q And when members of the Legislature were
11:32 20 proposing an amendment to the map, were there any
11:32 21 obligations that those members had in the committee
11:32 22 hearings or on the floor to make any disclosures?
11:33 23 A Yes, the same sort of disclosures that were
11:33 24 issued in the paragraph I just described.
11:33 25 Q And you heard that request and the disclosure
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 152 74
11:33 1 from the members?
11:33 2 A Yes.
11:33 3 Q Describe for the Court, if you would,
11:33 4 Mr. Poreda, the purpose of a base map.
11:33 5 A The purpose of the base map was a starting
11:33 6 point. It was a way of starting the conversations for
11:33 7 how we can draw the most compliant map we can within
11:33 8 the Supreme Court's order and with the Florida
11:33 9 Constitution and any applicable federal law.
11:33 10 Q And were you involved in public hearings in
11:33 11 2011?
11:33 12 A Yes,I was.
11:33 13 Q Do you recall whether there was any public
11:33 14 input at any of those hearings about whether the
11:33 15 Legislature should develop a draft map on which
11:33 16 members of the public could comment or critique?
11:33 17 A Yes. That was something that we heard at
11:33 18 every single one of our committee -- public hearings
11:34 19 that we had around the state.I believe the common
11:34 20 phrase was, show us the maps, to the point where they
11:34 21 even made signs and buttons that they would wear to
11:34 22 all of our meetings, sometimes even to this day.
11:34 23 Q Going to the process in the redistricting
11:34 24 suite with the map drawers and sometimes counsel, did
11:34 25 counsel draw any of the lines?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 153 75
11:34 1 A No, they did not.
11:34 2 Q Did anyone, other than you, Mr. Ferrin, and
11:34 3 Mr. Takcs draw the lines that ended up in the base
11:34 4 map?
11:34 5 A No.
11:34 6 Q Did anyone outside of that secure area have
11:34 7 any input into -- other than perhaps counsel -- any
11:34 8 input into a single line drawn by the three of you?
11:34 9 A No, they did not.
11:34 10 Q Did the chief of staff have any input into
11:34 11 that -- into that process or to the -- or to the
11:34 12 result of that process?
11:35 13 A No. Neither chief of staff for either the
11:35 14 Senate or the House.
11:35 15 Q And did you make any assessment of the
11:35 16 political implications in drawing any line in any of
11:35 17 the districts, other than to do a functional analysis,
11:35 18 when needed, under Tier 1?
11:35 19 A Other than to do a functional analysis, no, we
11:35 20 did not look at the political implications of any of
11:35 21 the other districts.
11:35 22 Q And where was the map drawn?
11:35 23 A The map was drawn in Suite 400 in the capitol,
11:35 24 which is the redistricting suite for the House of
11:35 25 Representatives.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 154 76
11:35 1 Q And how did you ensure the security of the
11:35 2 room?
11:35 3 A Well, like I said, there is a large conference
11:35 4 room that has a screen on one side that we set up a
11:35 5 projector. And the door was actually rekeyed. So the
11:35 6 only people that had access to the room were myself
11:36 7 and Jeff Takcs. No one else had a key to the room,
11:36 8 not even the janitorial staff.
11:36 9 Q Let me ask more broadly, trying to move things
11:36 10 on,I want to make sure it's clear, with regard to
11:36 11 House Exhibit 118 and 121, did you comply with all of
11:36 12 the directions that are included in those exhibits?
11:36 13 A Yes, we did.
11:36 14 Q Do you have any reason to believe, any
11:36 15 information to suggest that either Mr. Takcs or
11:36 16 Mr. Ferrin did not comply with any of those
11:36 17 admonitions?
11:36 18 A No.
11:36 19 Q Now, when the base map was published, tell me
11:36 20 how that occurred.
11:36 21 A We finished drawing the base map on the --I
11:36 22 believe it was late in the evening on August 4th. We
11:36 23 had then some -- both the House and the Senate, we had
11:36 24 various reports and other items that we needed to
11:36 25 prepare in order to officially release the base map to
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 155 77
11:37 1 the public, which happened sometime in the afternoon
11:37 2 of August 5th, the next day, where we released it to
11:37 3 the public and to everyone else, all members, the
11:37 4 speaker, the president, and all the members of each
11:37 5 chamber at the exact same time.
11:37 6 Q So did anyone in the House -- in Republican
11:37 7 caucus speak or otherwise have any sort of sneak peak
11:37 8 on what that map showed?
11:37 9 A No, they did not.
11:37 10 Q And when the map was published, at any time
11:37 11 after that, did members of the Legislature seek a
11:37 12 meeting or communications with you or staff about that
11:37 13 map or any proposed amendments to the map?
11:37 14 A After we released it to the public?
11:37 15 Q Yes.
11:37 16 A Yes. After we released it to the public we
11:37 17 had -- at least speaking for the House -- we had a
11:37 18 variety of our membership come in to ask us questions
11:37 19 about the map or to help us draft amendments. We did
11:38 20 a briefing on the base map for Chairman Oliva. We
11:38 21 then also had a briefing for Leader Pafford and
11:38 22 Representative Jenne --
11:38 23 Q Are those Democratic leaders of the Florida
11:38 24 House of Representatives?
11:38 25 A Yes, sir, as well as some of the minority
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 156 78
11:38 1 staff. We then had various meetings, again, to -- for
11:38 2 just questions about the base map or for members to
11:38 3 help us draft possible amendments from both sides of
11:38 4 the aisle. Representative -- from the Democratic side
11:38 5 of the aisle we met with Representative Watson,
11:38 6 Representative Williams, Representative Kerner.
11:38 7 From the Republican side we met with
11:38 8 Representative Sullivan, Representative Metz,
11:38 9 Representative McBurney, and Representative Stevenson.
11:38 10 I think there might have been a couple of others for
11:38 11 either side of the aisle.
11:38 12 Q Did the Democratic members of the House have
11:38 13 just as much access to you and to Mr. Takcs as any
11:38 14 other member of the House?
11:38 15 A Yes, they did.
11:38 16 Q Did you retain all e-mails produced relating
11:39 17 to this process?
11:39 18 A Yes.
11:39 19 Q That were created,I should say?
11:39 20 A Yes.
11:39 21 Q Did you retain draft maps?
11:39 22 A Yes, we did.
11:39 23 Q How many, approximately?
11:39 24 AI believe there was 31.
11:39 25 Q And how long, if you recall -- once the map
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 157 79
11:39 1 was published to the public and everyone at the same
11:39 2 time, how long after that did the House and Senate
11:39 3 joint committee meet to discuss the map; do you recall
11:39 4 that?
11:39 5 AI believe we met on the Monday or Tuesday of
11:39 6 the special session. We released the base map,I
11:39 7 believe, on the Wednesday prior to that.
11:39 8 Q So on the following Monday or Tuesday there
11:39 9 was a presentation in front of the Senate and House
11:39 10 joint committee?
11:39 11 A Yes, there was.
11:39 12 Q And tell me what you did, if anything, in that
11:39 13 presentation.
11:39 14 A Myself, Jeff Takcs, and Jay Ferrin, we all
11:39 15 presented the base map. We kind of took turns
11:39 16 presenting different portions of it. And then we --
11:39 17 the three of us answered questions from both the House
11:40 18 members and the Senate members.
11:40 19 Q Okay. And tell us a little bit more
11:40 20 specifically about your presentation, what it
11:40 21 comprised; how long did it take?
11:40 22 A We went through the specific parts of the map
11:40 23 that the Court had invalidated, and then we went
11:40 24 through draft by draft, from draft one all the way up
11:40 25 to the end, going through in a great amount of detail
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 158 80
11:40 1 every decision that we have made throughout that
11:40 2 process. And then we answered questions from, like I
11:40 3 said, both the House and the Senate members.
11:40 4 And that meeting started at about 9:00 or
11:40 5 10:00 in the morning and went all day until the end of
11:40 6 the day,I believe, around 6:00.
11:40 7 Q And once you explained and presented the House
11:40 8 draft map, did the committee entertain -- entertain
11:40 9 public input or other input from the audience?
11:40 10 A Yes, we did, but it wasn't the House draft; it
11:41 11 was the --
11:41 12 Q Go ahead. I'm sorry.
11:41 13 A-- base map that we had --
11:41 14 Q And the Legislature entertained public
11:41 15 comment?
11:41 16 A Yes.
11:41 17 Q Did individuals speak?
11:41 18 A Yes, they did.
11:41 19 Q Did Congressman Webster speak?
11:41 20 AI believe that he did, yes.
11:41 21 Q Did the League of Women Voters or Common Cause
11:41 22 speak?
11:41 23 A No.I don't believe that they did.
11:41 24 Q How about anyone from the Democratic party or
11:41 25 the Romo plaintiffs?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 159 81
11:41 1 A Not to my knowledge.I don't know if any of
11:41 2 the people from the public were a party -- what their
11:41 3 party was. And I believe --
11:41 4 Q Did you -- I'm sorry.
11:41 5 A I'm sorry.I believe that there was a
11:41 6 gentleman by the name of John Osmond who presented a
11:41 7 map who identified himself as a Democratic -- a
11:41 8 Democratic voter.
11:41 9 Q Okay. Did he identify himself as a member of
11:41 10 the League or Common Cause?
11:41 11 AI don't believe so.
11:41 12 Q Did he identify himself as allied with the
11:41 13 Romo plaintiffs?
11:41 14 A Not --I don't remember that, but I don't
11:41 15 believe so.
11:41 16 Q At any time, to your recollection -- and there
11:42 17 were later committee hearings; correct?
11:42 18 A Yes. Both the Senate and the House had
11:42 19 separate committee meetings.
11:42 20 Q At any time during this process did you ever
11:42 21 see the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, or
11:42 22 anyone from the Romo plaintiffs make any comments, any
11:42 23 testimony, any presentations to the Legislature?
11:42 24 A No presentations or anything like that in
11:42 25 committee, no.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 160 82
11:42 1 Q Did the Legislature accept maps from members
11:42 2 of the public?
11:42 3 A Yes.
11:42 4 Q And approximately how many maps -- public maps
11:42 5 were submitted?
11:42 6 AI don't remember the exact number, and there
11:42 7 were some individuals that submitted more than one
11:42 8 map.
11:42 9 But I believe we ended somewhere around 10 or
11:42 10 11 publicly-submitted maps.
11:42 11 Q And were those maps retained and subject to
11:42 12 review and analysis both by -- by you and members of
11:42 13 the public, if they wish?
11:42 14 A Yes. We -- on the House, we posted them to
11:42 15 our website, as did the Senate. So those maps are
11:43 16 in -- as well as any relevant data and data reports
11:43 17 that we would run for any other amendment or bill, we
11:43 18 ran for those public maps and we put online for
11:43 19 anyone's review.
11:43 20 Q Did the League of Women Voters, Common Cause,
11:43 21 or the Romo plaintiffs submit any maps for legislative
11:43 22 consideration?
11:43 23 A No.I don't believe that they did.
11:43 24 Q Who had the mouse, so to speak, during the
11:43 25 drawing of the base map?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 161 83
11:43 1 A Primarily me. There was maybe once or twice,
11:43 2 very briefly, when I got up in the room to stretch my
11:43 3 legs that Jeff Takcs took over, since we were
11:43 4 primarily using a House program. But other than
11:43 5 that -- maybe 95, 97 percent of the time I had the
11:43 6 mouse.
11:43 7 Q Okay. And did you prepare reports during the
11:43 8 process of developing draft maps and iterations of the
11:43 9 map?
11:43 10 A Yes.
11:43 11 Q Tell the Court a little bit more about what
11:43 12 sort of reports you're talking about.
11:44 13 A Sure. After we would complete some of the --
11:44 14 sometimes a series of drafts. Sometimes after we
11:44 15 would complete one draft, both the House and the
11:44 16 Senate would go and run their standard data reports
11:44 17 that they would run on the maps that would have all
11:44 18 the compactness scores and other relevant functional
11:44 19 analysis data that would be necessary to do a
11:44 20 functional analysis in the minority district. So it
11:44 21 would be those reports that we would run and reconvene
11:44 22 to look them over.
11:44 23 Q And did you retain those, and do you have
11:44 24 those available today for your testimony?
11:44 25 A Yes.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 162 84
11:44 1 Q Were there ever any reports to assess the
11:44 2 political performance of districts other than
11:44 3 districts that might have Tier 1 protection?
11:44 4 A No.
11:44 5 Q What was your guide in determining how to draw
11:44 6 these districts?
11:44 7 A Primarily it was the Supreme Court opinion.
11:44 8 Q Did you have that opinion in the redistricting
11:45 9 suite?
11:45 10 A Yes. The -- and I should be more specific.
11:45 11 The Supreme Court opinion dated,I believe it was July
11:45 12 9th, relative to this case. And, yes, we had it --
11:45 13 each of the map drawers, we each had a copy of it.
11:45 14 And we would very often refer to it, often
11:45 15 even before we redraw a specific area that they
11:45 16 mentioned, we would read through that particular
11:45 17 paragraph or section just to make sure that we were
11:45 18 all on the same page on what that section was telling
11:45 19 us to do.
11:45 20 Q Okay. And do you recall which districts the
11:45 21 Court required you to redraw?
11:45 22 A Yeah. It was District 5, Districts 13 and 14,
11:45 23 and Districts 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27.
11:45 24 Q Okay. And where did you start in drawing the
11:45 25 map? And I will say "you" there in the sense of the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 163 85
11:45 1 three.
11:45 2 A Sure. We started -- we looked at those
11:45 3 specific districts that the Court invalidated. And
11:46 4 amongst those we looked at some of the more clear-cut
11:46 5 choices that the Supreme Court gave us. The best
11:46 6 example would be is where we started, which would be
11:46 7 between Districts 26 and 27 and keeping Homestead
11:46 8 whole.
11:46 9 There was only two ways to do that, keep the
11:46 10 Homestead whole in District 26 or 27. So there is two
11:46 11 clear choices there. So we began with those sorts of
11:46 12 choices.
11:46 13 Q Okay. Let's go right to that. And with
11:46 14 regard to Districts 26 and 27 --
11:46 15 MR. MEROS: Mari-Jo, can you pull up that --
11:46 16 not that, the overall -- the one with District 26
11:47 17 and 27 (indicating.)
11:47 18 BY MR. MEROS:
11:47 19 Q Okay. Can you -- first of all, looking at
11:47 20 that, tell the Court what that represents.
11:47 21 A That represents the first draft that we drew,
11:47 22 keeping Homestead wholly within District 26.
11:47 23 Q Okay. And let me stop you there a minute.
11:47 24 And if I may -- if I can be heard, can you tell the
11:47 25 Court basically, if this is a first draft, how were
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 164 86
11:47 1 the 26 and 27 before in the map that was -- that was
11:47 2 required to be redrawn?
11:47 3 A Sure. Before District 27, as you see right
11:47 4 here, Homestead, which is the dark gray municipality
11:47 5 that you see down there in the southern part of the
11:47 6 district, which is now wholly within the kind of
11:47 7 yellowish district, it was split before, toward the
11:48 8 eastern side of it, between District 26 and 27.
11:48 9 Q You said you drew two drafts of alternative
11:48 10 maps?
11:48 11 A Yes.
11:48 12 Q Okay. So this is the first draft in which
11:48 13 District 26 is kept -- or Homestead is kept whole
11:48 14 within District 26?
11:48 15 A Yes.
11:48 16 Q Okay. If we can go to the next version.
11:48 17 Okay. So tell us what this represents.
11:48 18 A This is the second draft that we did, where
11:48 19 you can see that the dark gray municipality of
11:48 20 Homestead is entirely within the pink district now.
11:48 21 So this was our -- this was the second choice, keep
11:48 22 Homestead whole in one district or the other. This is
11:48 23 District 27.
11:48 24 Q Okay. And once you do -- drew two drafts, one
11:48 25 with Homestead whole in 26, and one with Homestead
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 165 87
11:48 1 whole in 27, what did you do then?
11:49 2 A Well, both of these districts are majority
11:49 3 minority districts, so we needed to make sure that
11:49 4 whatever we had drawn, both districts in both drafts
11:49 5 would be -- still be able to perform as majority
11:49 6 minority Hispanic districts. So we ran a functional
11:49 7 analysis on all four districts, really.
11:49 8 Q And what did you conclude from that functional
11:49 9 analysis for both the -- the draft map 1 and draft map
11:49 10 2?
11:49 11 A We concluded that, in both drafts, both
11:49 12 districts would still be able to perform for a
11:49 13 Hispanic candidate.
11:49 14 Q So if they both could perform with either
11:49 15 iteration, how did you come upon a map that kept
11:49 16 Homestead whole?
11:49 17 A Well, we -- after we determined that both
11:49 18 drafts would perform, at that point either option is
11:49 19 kind of a tomato-tomato situation. So we decided to
11:50 20 look at the compactness scores for all of those
11:50 21 districts in trying to determine a draft, one over the
11:50 22 other.
11:50 23 And when we did that, we determined that the
11:50 24 Reock scores in both maps were about the same.I
11:50 25 believe they're identical. So we looked at the Convex
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 166 88
11:50 1 Hull scores. And in that score, draft 1 scored
11:50 2 higher. So that's the draft that we moved forward.
11:50 3 Q Okay. Now, when you selected draft 1, what,
11:50 4 if anything, did you have to do to equal population?
11:50 5 A Well, after we kept the city whole,I believe
11:50 6 that that overpopulated District 26 by approximately
11:50 7 30,000 people. So, therefore, we had to find a place
11:50 8 where we could take 30,000 people away from District
11:50 9 26 and add it to 27.
11:50 10 So it was -- whenever you make a change in a
11:50 11 Congressional district, because you have to get down
11:50 12 to plus or minus one person, you have to make an exact
11:51 13 corresponding population change with the other
11:51 14 district.
11:51 15 So we looked along the boundary line between
11:51 16 the two districts where a good place would be that we
11:51 17 could identify to get that population.
11:51 18 Q And tell us where -- where you looked, in
11:51 19 essence.
11:51 20 A Sure. Well, when you look at District 27,
11:51 21 it -- it looks a little bit like a kidney bean in that
11:51 22 it kind of has a vertical border coming down north and
11:51 23 south and a diagonal border, which is the Dixie
11:51 24 Highway, coming back.
11:51 25 And right when those two intersect, right in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 167 89
11:51 1 that same general area, the Florida -- that's where
11:51 2 the Florida Turnpike is, which is the largest, most
11:51 3 recognizable roadway in that particular area. So
11:51 4 we -- because it was right at that intersection, and
11:51 5 it was the most major road, we decided to follow that
11:51 6 road up north before going -- going over whenever we
11:51 7 achieved the proper population to equalize both
11:52 8 districts out and run it back to the north-south
11:52 9 border that you see there.
11:52 10 It would be going along two major roadways,
11:52 11 north-south.
11:52 12 Q And does this depict the ultimate map that
11:52 13 equalized population that you came up with?
11:52 14 A Yes.
11:52 15 Q Okay. And if I may, again, can you tell me,
11:52 16 am I correct in saying that this is the Turnpike?
11:52 17 A That is correct, yes. The -- that roadway
11:52 18 coming off of Dixie Highway, that is the Florida
11:52 19 Turnpike.
11:52 20 Q Okay. And do I understand that you went up
11:52 21 Highway 1 here, which was in the existing map?
11:52 22 A Yes. That was in the existing map, yes.
11:52 23 Q And then took the Turnpike north to determine
11:52 24 the population that needed to be out of 26 and in 27;
11:52 25 is that correct?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 168 90
11:52 1 A That's correct, yes.
11:52 2 Q Okay. And the Turnpike continues to go on --
11:52 3 A It does.
11:52 4 Q -- north?
11:52 5 Why didn't you continue north on the Turnpike?
11:53 6 A Well, we looked at -- there are some other
11:53 7 major roads along the Turnpike that intersect the
11:53 8 Turnpike. Ideally we would have liked to have chosen
11:53 9 one of those, either more north or further south. But
11:53 10 we had to achieve equal population.
11:53 11 So as we were adding population as we were
11:53 12 going up the Turnpike, we simply stopped when we
11:53 13 reached the ideal population. And then we had to go
11:53 14 over, rejoin the rest of the district.
11:53 15 Unfortunately, in every Congressional district
11:53 16 you're going to have an area that sort of cuts through
11:53 17 a neighborhood, because you have to be so exact in the
11:53 18 population deviation, plus or minus one person. So
11:53 19 there will be a small area where you have to do that.
11:53 20 We went from the Turnpike through a neighborhood to
11:53 21 achieve the population over to,I believe it's
11:53 22 Southwest 97th Ave North, and then continued with the
11:53 23 existing boundary of the district, which that road
11:53 24 already was.
11:53 25 Q So once you reached this point on the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 169 91
11:53 1 Turnpike, you had essentially reached equal
11:53 2 population?
11:54 3 A Pretty close to it.
11:54 4 Q So this jog represents going back to the map,
11:54 5 because you were basically with equal population?
11:54 6 A Yes. That represents where -- because we had
11:54 7 previously equalized population in that district
11:54 8 within the City of Homestead. Obviously, now that
11:54 9 we've kept it whole, we had to choose a new area along
11:54 10 the boundary to achieve equal population, so that was
11:54 11 the area we went back to.
11:54 12 We went up through the Turnpike, went through
11:54 13 a neighborhood to equalize population, and we rejoined
11:54 14 the existing boundary of the previous map.
11:54 15 Q And this line reflects 97th Avenue?
11:54 16 A Yes,I believe so.
11:54 17 Q Okay. And do you know whether or not -- and
11:54 18 have you had an opportunity to look at a Google map at
11:54 19 97th Avenue?
11:54 20 A Yes. In the MyDistrictBuilder program, it's
11:54 21 actually Bing maps underneath it. So when we're
11:54 22 drawing we can see the Google or the Bing map
11:54 23 satellite view of everything.
11:54 24 Q And could you tell whether or not at 97th
11:54 25 Avenue there is a University of Miami Hospital?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 170 92
11:55 1 A Yeah,I believe that there is right about at
11:55 2 the intersection where 97th Ave joins the --I forget
11:55 3 the other road -- there is a hospital there.
11:55 4 Q Is there a Miami high school there? Miami
11:55 5 Killian High School?
11:55 6 AI believe so, yes.
11:55 7 Q Is there a city park along that road?
11:55 8 AI believe there is, yes.
11:55 9 Q Is there a private school along that road as
11:55 10 well?
11:55 11 A Other than the high school,I think maybe,
11:55 12 yeah.
11:55 13 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Poreda, directing your
11:55 14 attention to this population here, which once you
11:55 15 chose the Turnpike, was going to go in 27, can you
11:55 16 tell the Court whether you had any knowledge
11:55 17 whatsoever of the racial composition of that
11:55 18 neighborhood?
11:55 19 A No. When we were just determining where to
11:56 20 add or remove population just to keep Homestead whole,
11:56 21 we didn't -- the only statistic that we had on our
11:56 22 program was total population. So we didn't have the
11:56 23 political makeup or racial makeup for any of the
11:56 24 population that we were looking at. The only number
11:56 25 that we had was total population.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 171 93
11:56 1 Q And had you -- at the time you drew this map,
11:56 2 the three of you -- at least for you -- did you know
11:56 3 what Richmond Heights was?
11:56 4 AI did not.
11:56 5 Q Do you know what Palmetto Estates was?
11:56 6 A No.
11:56 7 Q How about West Perrine?
11:56 8 AI did not.
11:56 9 Q Did you have any idea or ever look at the
11:56 10 socioeconomic characteristics of that population on
11:56 11 the east side of the -- of the Turnpike that had to go
11:56 12 into 27?
11:56 13 A No.
11:56 14 Q Did you have any idea whether they voted
11:56 15 Democratic, Republican, or Independent?
11:56 16 A No.
11:56 17 Q Did anyone advise or instruct you or suggest
11:56 18 that what the -- what the political characteristics of
11:57 19 that area was?
11:57 20 A No.
11:57 21 Q Did anyone in the room discuss partisanship or
11:57 22 incumbency in connection with your drawing of 26 and
11:57 23 27?
11:57 24 A No.
11:57 25 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, this might be a good
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 172 94
11:57 1 time to break for lunch if that's all right with
11:57 2 you.
11:57 3 THE COURT: All right with me. So see you
11:57 4 back at 1:30.
11:57 5 MR. MEROS: Sure.
11:57 6 (Lunch recess.)
11:57 7 (Proceedings continue in Volume 2.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 173 95
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF LEON ) 3
4 I, SARAH B. GILROY, Registered Professional Reporter,
5 and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing
6 proceedings were taken before me at the time and place
7 therein designated; and that the foregoing pages
8 numbered 1 through 94 are a true and correct record of
9 the aforesaid proceedings.
10
11 I further certify that I am not a relative, employee,
12 attorney or counsel of any parties, nor am I a relative
13 or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel
14 connected with the action, nor am I financially
15 interested in the action.
16 DATED this day of September, 2015.
17
18
19
20 /s/ Sarah B. Gilroy SARAH B. GILROY 21 [email protected] 850.878.2221 22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 174 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
RENE ROMO, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO: 2012-CA-412
KEN DETZNER and PAM BONDI, Defendants. /
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO: 2012-CA-490
KEN DETZNER, et al. Defendants. /
VOLUME 2 Pages 96 through 284
IN RE: Evidentiary Hearing
BEFORE: Honorable Terry P. Lewis
DATE: September 24, 2015
TIME: Commenced at 1:47 p.m. Adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
PLACE: Leon County Courthouse Courtroom 3G Tallahassee, Florida
REPORTED BY: SARAH B. GILROY, RPR, CRR [email protected]
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. Tallahassee, FL 32301 850.878.2221
J.A. 175 97
1 APPEARANCES:
2 REPRESENTING THE ROMO PLAINTIFFS: JOHN M. DEVANEY, ESQUIRE 3 [email protected] Perkins Coie, LLP 4 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington,D.C., 20005 5 REPRESENTING THE COALITION PLAINTIFFS: 6 DAVID B. KING, ESQUIRE [email protected] 7 THOMAS A. ZEHNDER, ESQUIRE [email protected] 8 FRITZ WERMUTH, ESQUIRE [email protected] 9 King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth 25 East Pine Street 10 Orlando, Florida 32301
11 REPRESENTING THE FLORIDA HOUSE: GEORGE N. MEROS, JR., ESQUIRE 12 [email protected] ANDY BARDOS, ESQUIRE 13 [email protected] GrayRobinson 14 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 15 REPRESENTING FLORIDA SENATE: 16 RAOUL G. CANTERO, III, ESQUIRE [email protected] 17 JASON N. ZAKIA, ESQUIRE [email protected] 18 JESSE L. GREEN, ESQUIRE [email protected] 19 White & Case, LLP Southeast Financial Center 20 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131 21
22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 176 98
1 INDEX - VOLUME 1
2 WITNESSES PAGE NO.
3 JASON POREDA Direct Exam (cont'd) by Mr. Meros 99 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Zakia 160 Cross Examination by Mr. Zehnder 165 5 Cross Examination by Mr. Devaney 196 Redirect Examination by Mr. Meros 199 6 Recross Examination by Mr. Zehnder 207 Further Redirect Exam by Mr. Meros 208 7 Examination by The Court 209
8 JEFFREY M. TAKACS Direct Examination by Mr. Meros 221 9 Cross Examination by Mr. Zakia 237 Cross Examination by Mr. Zehnder 258 10 Cross Examination by Mr. Devaney 271 Redirect Examination by Mr. Meros 275 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 177 99
13:40 1 THE BAILIFF: All rise. Come to order.
13:40 2 THE COURT: Back in session. Witness is
13:40 3 still on the stand.
13:40 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION (cont'd)
13:40 5 BY MR. MEROS:
13:40 6 Q Hello, Mr. Poreda. Let me try to understand
13:40 7 the timing of something you testified about with 26
13:40 8 and 27.
13:40 9 Can you tell me the timing of when you drew
13:40 10 two alternatives and what you did next and what you
13:40 11 did thereafter? Do you know what I mean by that?
13:40 12 AI think so.I mean we -- we drew the first
13:40 13 draft of putting Homestead entirely within District
13:40 14 26. We then -- and evened up the population. That
13:40 15 was two complete districts drawn in isolation of the
13:41 16 rest of the map.
13:41 17 We then drew two more districts putting
13:41 18 Homestead entirely in District 27 and created an
13:41 19 entirely separate draft. It was at that point with
13:41 20 the two drafts with just -- the only two districts in
13:41 21 both of those drafts were just 26 and 27.
13:41 22 We then, after that point, that's when we ran
13:41 23 our reports that were where we got the compactness and
13:41 24 the functional analysis data necessary to perform an
13:41 25 analysis. It was at that point that we did that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 178 100
13:41 1 analysis and then looked at the compactness scores.
13:41 2 Q If I understand correctly, when you drew each
13:41 3 version, you equalized population to plus or minus one
13:41 4 person?
13:41 5 A Yes.
13:41 6 Q And then looked at compactness and then looked
13:41 7 at -- well, looked at compactness and functional
13:41 8 analysis thereafter?
13:41 9 A We first looked at the functional analysis,
13:41 10 because that was -- being majority minority districts,
13:41 11 all four of them, that was the most important
13:41 12 analysis, determining whether or not they could
13:41 13 perform. That's a Tier 1 standard rather than Tier 2.
13:42 14 Once we determined that all the districts that
13:42 15 we drew would perform in our opinion, that's when we
13:42 16 looked at the compactness numbers to figure out which
13:42 17 ones were more compact.
13:42 18 Q Okay. After you determined the first draft
13:42 19 was more compact, did you make any more changes to
13:42 20 draft 1?
13:42 21 A No.
13:42 22 Q Did you become aware at any time during the
13:42 23 special session that the League of Women Voters and
13:42 24 Common Cause had sent a letter to the Legislature
13:42 25 relating to the base map drawing of 26 and 27?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 179 101
13:42 1 AI was aware of a letter that they sent.I did
13:42 2 not read it during the special session, no.
13:42 3 Q Okay. Let's assume you had read it during the
13:42 4 special session, and it complained of African-American
13:42 5 Democrat voters moving into District 27, making
13:42 6 District 26 more Republican, would you have
13:42 7 recommended changing what you did?
13:43 8 A No,I would not.
13:43 9 Q Why?
13:43 10 AI would have viewed that as a direct violation
13:43 11 of the constitution. It would have been the same
13:43 12 thing had we looked at the political performance
13:43 13 numbers when we first drew the drafts and drew the
13:43 14 districts to favor one party or the other. If we had
13:43 15 made changes based on any recommendations from anyone,
13:43 16 based solely on how the districts performed
13:43 17 politically, we felt like that would be --I felt like
13:43 18 that would be -- that that is a clear violation of the
13:43 19 constitution.
13:43 20 Q Now what I would like to do, Mr. Poreda, is
13:43 21 ask you to share with the Court the process by which,
13:43 22 and the timing by which you and your map drawers
13:43 23 completed the map. We have spoken some about 26 and
13:43 24 27. And we won't do this forever, but if we could, do
13:43 25 we have some charts to show the draft maps and how you
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 180 102
13:43 1 proceeded with the evolution of drawing?
13:44 2 A Yes, absolutely. Like you said, we started
13:44 3 talking about 26 and 27 already. So I won't
13:44 4 completely duplicate what we already said. Those are
13:44 5 the first districts we looked at.
13:44 6 There is the sentence out of the Supreme Court
13:44 7 opinion that kind of sums up what we had to do; we had
13:44 8 to redraw them to avoid splitting Homestead. And
13:44 9 because that was, in our opinion, it was a clear-cut
13:44 10 decision we had to make on the map to put Homestead in
13:44 11 one district or the other, that is where we began.
13:44 12 If you kind of go forward in the slides you
13:44 13 will see briefly the district as it was in the enacted
13:44 14 one that is invalid. And moving forward from there,
13:44 15 we will go through and see how the city was split.
13:44 16 And then draft 1 and 2, we just talked about --
13:44 17 Q Let me see if I understand that map. Does
13:44 18 that map reflect that you started with 26 and 27, and
13:45 19 the rest of the map was, in fact, empty?
13:45 20 A Yes. Whenever we would draw a different
13:45 21 region or a different area that was specific, we
13:45 22 invalidated -- we started with just those two
13:45 23 districts, or however many districts we needed to
13:45 24 draw, just that particular region.
13:45 25 And as we move forward in the draft process,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 181 103
13:45 1 as we complete more districts that we kind of made a
13:45 2 decision we were going to add them in, and we see more
13:45 3 and more districts get added as we go along. We
13:45 4 started initially with a blank map and started with
13:45 5 the two districts, three districts, however many were
13:45 6 invalidated in that particular region.
13:45 7 Q Okay. And proceed, if you would, past 26 and
13:45 8 27.
13:45 9 A Sure. So we talked about draft 1 is just 26
13:45 10 and 27. You can see the decision we made to follow
13:45 11 the Turnpike. Moving forward you can see there is
13:45 12 Homestead specifically and how the black line now is
13:45 13 where District 27 and 26 were divided, right along
13:46 14 municipal lines of Florida City and Homestead.
13:46 15 And the next draft, you can see draft 2, we
13:46 16 again started with just those two districts. And
13:46 17 there is kind of an overall district view of the map
13:46 18 we talked about previously. And there is the -- you
13:46 19 can see the black line indicating the district line
13:46 20 now kind of going in between Florida City and
13:46 21 Homestead, putting all of Homestead into District 27.
13:46 22 And -- okay. So now we get into the
13:46 23 functional analysis that we did on all four of those
13:46 24 districts.
13:46 25 Q Without going into too much detail on that.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 182 104
13:46 1 A Sure. Sure. It's important to note that when
13:46 2 we did both of those drafts, as I mentioned before, we
13:46 3 didn't have any of the political data on for the
13:46 4 individual census blocks we were drawing with, nor the
13:46 5 racial data for the census blocks that we were
13:46 6 drawing.
13:46 7 The only thing that we had displayed was total
13:46 8 population. We were trying to make judgments on where
13:46 9 best to fill out each district based solely on the
13:47 10 roadways and municipal lines and other geographical
13:47 11 features in the area where we felt would make the best
13:47 12 choice to fill out the population for that district.
13:47 13 When we get to the functional analysis,
13:47 14 obviously the first numbers that we look at are the
13:47 15 Hispanic voting age population numbers or HVAP numbers
13:47 16 for each of the districts. But obviously functional
13:47 17 analysis is a little bit more complicated than that,
13:47 18 especially in this area of the state, as we have to
13:47 19 look further past just the overall HVAP numbers.
13:47 20 Those numbers are consistent with what we
13:47 21 would expect for districts in that area. So moving
13:47 22 forward, the next thing that we have to do is
13:47 23 determine how the districts perform politically.
13:47 24 So those are the -- the next numbers you look
13:47 25 at are the political performance numbers of various
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 183 105
13:47 1 elections and the voter registration breakdown for
13:47 2 both the district as a whole and the Hispanic
13:47 3 population specifically within that district.
13:47 4 Looking overall at the two districts in both
13:48 5 of the drafts you can see that they are both what I--
13:48 6 what our opinion would be split very evenly
13:48 7 politically. You can see some elections, like the
13:48 8 2012 presidential race where Obama carried the
13:48 9 district, just over 50 percent; and other elections
13:48 10 like the 2008 presidential race where Senator McCain
13:48 11 carried the district just barely over 50 percent; and
13:48 12 other various districts in between with -- very, very
13:48 13 close politically, very politically divided districts.
13:48 14 Looking at the registration you can see that
13:48 15 Republican and Democrat registration is very, very
13:48 16 similar, both in the 30s, in the very high Independent
13:48 17 registration.
13:48 18 Looking at the two --
13:48 19 Q Let me interrupt you there. Would you
13:48 20 consider District 26 as proposed there to be a
13:48 21 competitive district?
13:48 22 AI would, yes.
13:48 23 Q Okay. Go ahead.
13:48 24 A And looking briefly at the Hispanics of the
13:48 25 area, you can see that they're divided between
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 184 106
13:49 1 Democrat and Republican. Neither party has a majority
13:49 2 of Democrat or -- of the Hispanics in that area. But
13:49 3 there are certainly more Hispanics who are registered
13:49 4 Republican than registered Democrat, which is an
13:49 5 interesting note, because the area itself is tending
13:49 6 to lean more Democratic, but among Hispanics there are
13:49 7 more Republicans.
13:49 8 Q And as we're looking at these slides, were
13:49 9 these slides and reports created while you were doing
13:49 10 this, as opposed to afterwards?
13:49 11 A No. They were only created after we completed
13:49 12 both drafts.
13:49 13 Q Right. Right. But as you completed drafts,
13:49 14 did you do these reports and save them when you had to
13:49 15 make decisions?
13:49 16 A Yeah. In order to run the reports, we would
13:49 17 have to save a draft. So we would have the file that
13:49 18 we could then run the reports on.
13:49 19 Q Okay.
13:49 20 A So we would sometime run reports immediately
13:49 21 after we'd complete a draft or sometimes more often a
13:49 22 series of drafts. So after we would complete two or
13:49 23 three or four different drafts, we would run the
13:49 24 reports on those -- that series of drafts.
13:50 25 And then we'd analyze whatever data we needed
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 185 107
13:50 1 to and go on from there.
13:50 2 Q Subsequent to your initial evaluation of the
13:50 3 functional analysis of this and other Hispanic
13:50 4 districts, did you -- did you look to anyone else to
13:50 5 validate or to criticize your analysis?
13:50 6 A We would occasionally call counsel in, as I
13:50 7 referred before. And we would give them our analysis
13:50 8 and give them the data to look at as well, just to
13:50 9 make sure that the facial analysis we had done of the
13:50 10 data was in line with their thinking as well.
13:50 11 Q Did you anticipate that anyone other than --
13:50 12 that counsel would look at those districts for their
13:50 13 performance measures during the special session?
13:50 14 A No.
13:50 15 Q Did you talk -- did you ever consult with
13:50 16 Dr. Dario Moreno about those districts?
13:50 17 A No. We did not consult with him during the
13:50 18 process. It was always our intent to consult with
13:50 19 him, especially in the South Florida area, because as
13:51 20 I mentioned before, it is a very complex functional
13:51 21 analysis to do in this area because it is so
13:51 22 politically divided. So our intent was always to get
13:51 23 his analysis.
13:51 24 I can remember speaking personally myself I
13:51 25 thought it was very important that we not give him any
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 186 108
13:51 1 data while we were drawing the base map. We only
13:51 2 wanted to get his input after we had completed the
13:51 3 entire base map and then get his analysis of those
13:51 4 three districts in South Florida that --
13:51 5 Q And after the base map, did you, in fact, get
13:51 6 that analysis?
13:51 7 A We did, yes.
13:51 8 Q Go ahead.
13:51 9 A Okay. So once we determined that the
13:51 10 districts are very competitive politically, we had to
13:51 11 look further on the next slide, trying to look at the
13:51 12 turnout, figure out how the Hispanic population
13:51 13 actually turns out to vote.
13:51 14 So you can see there is a clear path for --
13:51 15 now with the previous slide you can understand that
13:51 16 either candidate, a party candidate from either party
13:51 17 could win a general election in all of those
13:52 18 districts. We then, instead of a functional analysis
13:52 19 to determine that one party or the other had control,
13:52 20 you only have to look at the primary and the breakdown
13:52 21 of that particular party that controls the general
13:52 22 election.
13:52 23 But because both parties have just about an
13:52 24 equal chance of winning a general election, we have to
13:52 25 look at both parties. On the Republican side there is
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 187 109
13:52 1 a clear path for a Hispanic candidate to win the
13:52 2 primary.
13:52 3 So we felt comfortable that there would be an
13:52 4 opportunity to at least have one candidate in a
13:52 5 general election that would have a chance to win who
13:52 6 would be Hispanic. But the Democrat side, it's not as
13:52 7 clear of a path, but there is also a path for a
13:52 8 Democrat Hispanic candidate to be elected there.
13:52 9 We were confident that in a general election
13:52 10 we would have one or maybe two candidates, both of
13:52 11 which with an equal chance of winning a general
13:52 12 election in a district. Therefore we felt comfortable
13:52 13 with equally performing Hispanic districts.
13:53 14 Q Go ahead and proceed.
13:53 15 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, if you can give me a
13:53 16 little bit of leeway to have him do this in a
13:53 17 narrative fashion so we won't take up too much
13:53 18 time.
13:53 19 BY MR. MEROS:
13:53 20 Q Go ahead.
13:53 21 A Once we determined that they were both
13:53 22 performing, we looked at the compactness numbers.
13:53 23 Next slide.
13:53 24 That's where we determined that the -- in
13:53 25 draft 1, we were slightly more compact with District
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 188 110
13:53 1 27 in the Convex Hull score, so that was how we
13:53 2 determined which draft we were going to move forward.
13:53 3 After we did that, we actually jumped real
13:53 4 quick into the Tampa Bay region because, again, we
13:53 5 were looking for that -- those decisions that the
13:53 6 Supreme Court made easy for us, where you had to do
13:53 7 this or that or very specific things. But this is we
13:53 8 had to avoid crossing Tampa Bay. That's a very clear
13:53 9 decision that we had to make.
13:53 10 So we jumped up there briefly, and we started
13:53 11 drawing Districts 13, because now that we didn't have
13:53 12 to jump Tampa Bay -- what happened, whenever you have
13:53 13 a peninsula, you have to start at the south and work
13:53 14 your way north in order to not accidentally trap a
13:53 15 small population on the southern part of the peninsula
13:54 16 that you don't have assigned to a district.
13:54 17 Q Am I looking at this correctly that 13 is the
13:54 18 Pinellas County district?
13:54 19 A Correct, the blue district you see there.
13:54 20 This is how it was currently enacted in 90 -- in the
13:54 21 map that passed in 2012 and also last year, 2014.
13:54 22 If you move forward, you will see these are
13:54 23 the three drafts we drew in that area before we jumped
13:54 24 back down to South Florida. In draft 1 we just drew
13:54 25 Districts 13 and 12.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 189 111
13:54 1 13 is the now entirely -- it was entirely with
13:54 2 Pinellas before, but now it starts at the southernmost
13:54 3 point, works its way north. Because of the way the
13:54 4 municipalities work in Pinellas County, in the next
13:54 5 one you'll see we had to split to City of Clearwater
13:54 6 simply on mathematics. If you jump forward one more
13:54 7 slide.
13:54 8 You will see we had to split the City of
13:54 9 Clearwater, which is the green city that you see
13:54 10 there. Just -- we couldn't keep the city whole.
13:54 11 There was no other place to go. We had to split it.
13:55 12 We chose major roadways in that area to follow it as
13:55 13 closely as we could. But that is how we drew those.
13:55 14 And 12 filled out the remaining portion of
13:55 15 Pinellas County and grabbed all of Pasco. At that
13:55 16 point there was about 12,000 extra people that you had
13:55 17 to grab in Hillsborough County.
13:55 18 And because you have to draw the districts
13:55 19 plus or minus a single person, that was the only other
13:55 20 place you could go grab that had about 12,000 people
13:55 21 that were Hispanic.
13:55 22 Going forward to the next draft, you can see
13:55 23 here what we did after finishing District 12, we, as
13:55 24 an exercise, well what if we just kept the population
13:55 25 rotation -- counterclockwise rotation between three
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 190 112
13:55 1 districts; 14, 12, and 13.
13:55 2 So we locked in portions of Districts 15 and
13:55 3 17 that were previously in Hillsborough County and
13:56 4 then filled out this report, and that's what it would
13:56 5 look like. And any district we would draw there would
13:56 6 look similar to that.
13:56 7 But we were unhappy with that orientation of
13:56 8 how that was -- would look, especially now that
13:56 9 District 14, based on the Supreme Court opinion, was
13:56 10 no longer a performing minority district, because we
13:56 11 could not jump Tampa Bay and grab the African-American
13:56 12 community of about 92,000 people in southern Pinellas
13:56 13 County. So that district was not performing.
13:56 14 The Supreme Court also noted that
13:56 15 Representative Kathy Castor, who is a white Democrat,
13:56 16 represented that district for many years, kind of
13:56 17 indicating they did not believe it was a performing
13:56 18 minority district. So it was unnecessary to cross the
13:56 19 bay.
13:56 20 With that in mind, we then attempted in draft
13:56 21 5 to draw a more compact version of CD-14 entirely
13:56 22 within -- entirely within Hillsborough County. You
13:56 23 can see here that the district that we drew there
13:56 24 where we were able to keep --
13:57 25 Q You're saying the yellow district is 14?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 191 113
13:57 1 A Yellow district, yes. That keeps the entire
13:57 2 City of Tampa whole. And if you go forward, you will
13:57 3 see kind of a zoomed-in version of this area. You can
13:57 4 see that district. That district is largely driven
13:57 5 now by the City of Tampa. In the next slide --
13:57 6 Q Let me -- let me stop you there a minute if I
13:57 7 may. So this being the City of Tampa, you say that
13:57 8 these are the actual lines of the City of Tampa?
13:57 9 A In the next slide you will see them.
13:57 10 Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
13:57 11 A So there is -- the black lines are the lines
13:57 12 of Congressional District 14 as we drew it. You can
13:57 13 see the green lines in between the district. That is
13:57 14 the municipal line of Tampa.
13:57 15 You can see that we entirely encompassed the
13:57 16 city and followed the municipal lines occasionally,
13:57 17 and we had to add some additional population just
13:57 18 outside the city to equalize population.
13:57 19 Q Okay.
13:57 20 A But the shape of the district is governed
13:57 21 mostly by the shape of the City of Tampa.
13:57 22 Q Okay.
13:57 23 A At that point we realized that we -- we liked
13:58 24 the orientation of that particular district. But
13:58 25 beyond that Hillsborough County might be affected on
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 192 114
13:58 1 how we drew the rest of the region. It would be
13:58 2 difficult to move beyond these three districts that we
13:58 3 drew, because we didn't know what other decisions were
13:58 4 going to be made in Central Florida.
13:58 5 So we jumped down to one of the next clear-cut
13:58 6 choices the Supreme Court gave us. So we jumped back
13:58 7 down to Congressional District 25 and District 20,
13:58 8 which is the splitting of Hendry County issue. That
13:58 9 is another clear choice.
13:58 10 If you go to the next slide you will see how
13:58 11 the districts were currently enacted where we split
13:58 12 Hendry County. The Supreme Court told us that we
13:58 13 could not split Hendry County. So there's two clear
13:58 14 choices there; put Hendry County entirely within
13:58 15 District 20, which is the purple district, or entirely
13:58 16 within the white district, which is District 25.
13:58 17 So that's what we did. The next two drafts
13:58 18 that you see, drafts 6 and 7, is Hendry County in
13:59 19 District 25 and District 20. So we again, you can see
13:59 20 here, we dropped out all of the other districts and
13:59 21 just concentrated on those two districts.
13:59 22 The first draft, draft 6 that we tried, was we
13:59 23 tried putting just Hendry County entirely within
13:59 24 District 25. That underpopulated District 20, so we
13:59 25 needed to add some population. We did that in the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 193 115
13:59 1 Broward and Palm Beach County areas of those
13:59 2 districts, but the overall shape of the district
13:59 3 didn't change much at all. And the important part of
13:59 4 this is both of these districts are also both minority
13:59 5 districts.
13:59 6 District 20 is a majority minority black
13:59 7 district, so we had to keep that district above 50
13:59 8 percent. The currently enacted district was at 50.06
13:59 9 percent. It was just barely over 50 percent. We had
13:59 10 to be very mindful of that district's population.
13:59 11 And then District 25 is another majority
13:59 12 minority Hispanic district, so we had to be mindful of
14:00 13 that as well. We were able to do both of those things
14:00 14 in this draft.
14:00 15 And if you look at the next draft, we were
14:00 16 able to put Hendry County entirely within District 20.
14:00 17 We were able to maintain both those districts'
14:00 18 performance as well.
14:00 19 So because we're able to maintain the
14:00 20 performance of both of those, you go to the next
14:00 21 couple of slides you will see the functional analysis
14:00 22 we did after we drew both of those drafts. You can
14:00 23 see the 50.01, 50.06, about 70 percent in District 25.
14:00 24 Here is the party breakdown with both of these
14:00 25 districts. You can see that the functional analysis
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 194 116
14:00 1 for District 25 is very similar to that of 26 and 27,
14:00 2 very competitive district, and -- where both parties
14:00 3 would win.
14:00 4 District 20 is much more of a Democratic
14:00 5 leaning district. We only had to concentrate on that
14:00 6 part. Moving forward, you can see us drilling down
14:00 7 more in the data that we look at for each particular
14:00 8 district. Comfortable that both of those districts
14:00 9 would perform for the minority candidate of choice for
14:01 10 each particular district.
14:01 11 We moved on with the compactness numbers
14:01 12 again. We determined that draft 6 was the more --I
14:01 13 believe it was draft 6 was the more compact way, where
14:01 14 we put Hendry County entirely within District 25.
14:01 15 And that's the version that we moved forward
14:01 16 in later drafts.
14:01 17 Q And so you moved forward with draft 6?
14:01 18 A Yes, because when you look at the Reock scores
14:01 19 for draft 6, they are much higher than that of draft
14:01 20 7. And one of the Convex Hull scores is greater. One
14:01 21 of the Convex Hull scores is a little bit lower, but
14:01 22 because there is just -- there is three scores that
14:01 23 improved one way, one score that improved the other
14:01 24 way, we decided to move forward with draft 6.
14:01 25 Q Okay. Proceed.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 195 117
14:01 1 A So now in draft 8 we combine the draft 1, the
14:01 2 version of the Homestead split, the correction of that
14:02 3 that we had moved forward. The version that we just
14:02 4 went over of Hendry County and moved that forward, as
14:02 5 well as if you move forward, you can -- two slides.
14:02 6 So I will talk about, if you -- this real
14:02 7 quick. You can see District 5 in there, because it
14:02 8 was at this point as we were drawing draft 8, after
14:02 9 consulting with counsel, where we decided to move
14:02 10 forward with Congressional District 5 that -- exactly
14:02 11 as it was displayed in the Romo A map in previous
14:02 12 trials. We pasted it into draft 8 to signify that's
14:02 13 why we made that decision.
14:02 14 The rest of draft 8 is all in South Florida,
14:02 15 where it combines those two drafts that we had done
14:02 16 before, with the Hendry County and Homestead split.
14:02 17 After we pasted in District 26 and 27 and 25 and 20,
14:03 18 at that point we also pasted in the enacted 24,
14:03 19 because that district didn't change at all, nor did we
14:03 20 have to change it to do those other two things. That
14:03 21 is also a majority black district.
14:03 22 We pasted that in as it came from the enacted
14:03 23 map. That left us with the area that would become
14:03 24 District 23, 22, and 21, which are not minority
14:03 25 districts. So the only thing that really matters
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 196 118
14:03 1 there is compactness, counties and cities, those sort
14:03 2 of things --
14:03 3 Q And --
14:03 4 A So -- yeah, go ahead.
14:03 5 Q If I may interrupt a minute. In District 24
14:03 6 there was no direction from the Court to redraw that
14:03 7 district?
14:03 8 A That's correct; it was not invalidated.
14:03 9 Q There was no direction to change 23, but, of
14:03 10 course, if there were changes that needed to be made
14:03 11 by virtue of other changes, you might have to do that;
14:03 12 is that correct?
14:03 13 A That is correct. And because we had to change
14:03 14 District 25 slightly, that did affect the boundaries
14:03 15 of District 23 slightly to be -- to the western side
14:03 16 of the -- western and northern side of that district.
14:04 17 We started drawing 23 and filled that district out,
14:04 18 because the next two districts, 21 and 22, were
14:04 19 specifically mentioned by the Court.
14:04 20 They were not specifically invalidated, but
14:04 21 they did tell us that we needed to draw those
14:04 22 districts in a more compact fashion.
14:04 23 So if you move to the next slide real quick
14:04 24 after the part of the Supreme Court -- these are the
14:04 25 enacted districts, which previously enacted districts
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 197 119
14:04 1 which were drawn vertically --
14:04 2 Q When you say "previously enacted," are you
14:04 3 talking about 2012?
14:04 4 A And '14.
14:04 5 Q Okay.
14:04 6 A So those are the two districts that we had
14:04 7 drawn previously, which didn't split any
14:04 8 municipalities in Broward or Palm Beach County other
14:04 9 than what was split by District 20. So all of the
14:04 10 municipalities there were already kept whole.
14:04 11 So we didn't have a whole lot of flexibility
14:04 12 to -- to change the boundary line between those two
14:04 13 districts and increase compactness in a vertical
14:04 14 fashion. You can see that in the next slide.
14:04 15 Q Let me stop you there a minute.
14:05 16 MR. MEROS: If you would go back, Mari-Jo.
14:05 17 BY MR. MEROS:
14:05 18 Q So this is how you drew it in 2012 and 2014?
14:05 19 A Yes.
14:05 20 Q And as you understood the Court's order, it
14:05 21 did not dictate that, instead of the north-south
14:05 22 configuration, east-west was required, but it did
14:05 23 require that you draw the districts in a more compact
14:05 24 fashion; is that what you're saying?
14:05 25 A That was our understanding of the Supreme
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 198 120
14:05 1 Court order, yes.
14:05 2 Q Okay.
14:05 3 A Had to be redrawn and had to be done more
14:05 4 compactly. But we didn't have to draw them east-west
14:05 5 or north-south or whatever.
14:05 6 Q Okay. So go ahead.
14:05 7 A Okay. So if you look at the next slide, you
14:05 8 will see what I just stated before, that none of the
14:05 9 municipalities between 21 and 22 were split, other
14:05 10 than where District 20 becomes involved. This was a
14:05 11 slide that was prepared that demonstrates that. You
14:05 12 can see all the different municipalities in that
14:05 13 region and how they're not being split, so you
14:05 14 couldn't improve the city split metric there.
14:05 15 And the two vertical districts -- however you
14:06 16 orient them, even a little bit differently, the
14:06 17 compactness scores are not going to change much, if at
14:06 18 all. So our determination was drawn in a more
14:06 19 east-west fashion that was very similar to a House
14:06 20 draft that was drawn back in 2012 that the Court
14:06 21 specifically mentioned as an example of how to draw
14:06 22 them more compactly. We did not use that House draft.
14:06 23 We drew them from scratch in the map-drawing room.
14:06 24 But they came out very similar to that House
14:06 25 draft. And in the next couple of slides we will see
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 199 121
14:06 1 that one.
14:06 2 Q Let me stop you a minute. Do I understand --
14:06 3 MR. MEROS: Go back a minute, Mari-Jo, please.
14:06 4 BY MR. MEROS:
14:06 5 Q And do I understand correctly that you made
14:06 6 efforts to draw north-south configured Districts 21
14:06 7 and 22 more compactly?
14:06 8 A We didn't really try to draw anything that
14:06 9 specifically, because we -- none of the municipalities
14:06 10 were split between those districts. So we made the
14:07 11 determination -- we agreed among the three of us that
14:07 12 there really would be no other way to effectively
14:07 13 improve the compactness of those districts in a
14:07 14 north-south manner. We made that agreement among the
14:07 15 three of us in the room without really having to try.
14:07 16 Q Since that time, have you seen any north-south
14:07 17 configuration of 21 and 22 that was more compact than
14:07 18 what you had drawn originally?
14:07 19 A No. There were amendments on both chambers in
14:07 20 both the Senate and the House where there was an
14:07 21 alternative north-south configuration of Districts 21
14:07 22 and 22. But none of them were more compact than what
14:07 23 had been previously drawn nor what occurred in the
14:07 24 base map.
14:07 25 Q Okay. Proceed.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 200 122
14:07 1 A So the next slide, as I mentioned, this is how
14:07 2 it ended up in the base map. The next slide after
14:07 3 that, you can see that we didn't split any
14:07 4 municipalities in drawing in an east-west manner. And
14:07 5 you can see that we were able to keep District 21
14:07 6 entirely within Palm Beach County. And we did that
14:08 7 but without having to split Boca Raton, which is right
14:08 8 on the southern boundary between Palm Beach and
14:08 9 Broward County.
14:08 10 That's why District 22 goes up and around,
14:08 11 because it was done in a way to keep Boca Raton whole.
14:08 12 So that's -- you can see we didn't split any
14:08 13 municipalities, just as it was before, but they're
14:08 14 both more compact.
14:08 15 So after that, you can see the compactness
14:08 16 scores here, compared to 9057 and draft 8, which was
14:08 17 our version of that. You can see that all of the
14:08 18 compactness scores are significantly better,
14:08 19 specifically Reock.
14:08 20 Q So draft 9057 is what the Court said needed to
14:08 21 be more compact?
14:08 22 A Yes.
14:08 23 Q And for District 21, you raised that Reock
14:08 24 score from .28 to .37; is that right?
14:08 25 A That is correct.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 201 123
14:08 1 Q And District 22 from .18 to .38?
14:08 2 A That's correct.
14:08 3 Q Is that a substantial improvement in
14:09 4 compactness?
14:09 5 A That is a significant and substantial
14:09 6 improvement, yes.
14:09 7 Q Okay. Go ahead.
14:09 8 A Okay. So after we completed that out. We --
14:09 9 real quick before we move on, so we added those
14:09 10 districts, and so we would have completed Districts
14:09 11 20, 21, 22, 23, all the way down to 27. We also,
14:09 12 because District 18 composed of entirely two counties
14:09 13 and the rest of Palm Beach County, and District 19 was
14:09 14 the remaining portion of Collier County and whatever
14:09 15 was left in Dade County, they remained identical to
14:09 16 what was in the enacted map.
14:09 17 And by putting those two districts in along
14:09 18 with the districts that we changed in the rest of
14:09 19 South Florida, we were able to isolate those ten
14:09 20 districts from the 17 districts to the north. So we
14:09 21 were able to kind of put those in isolation. That's
14:09 22 where --
14:09 23 Q Do you have a depiction of that?
14:09 24 A Yeah. If you go back toward the beginning --
14:09 25 right there.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 202 124
14:09 1 Q Okay.
14:09 2 A You can see that District 18 and 19 are the
14:10 3 same as they are in the map that was passed in 2012,
14:10 4 2014. Those are both compact districts in and of
14:10 5 their own right and were able -- able to isolate all
14:10 6 of South Florida from the rest of the map.
14:10 7 So whatever changes we made to the north would
14:10 8 not affect the good changes that were already made to
14:10 9 the south. So that's what we did there.
14:10 10 Now after that, we kind of already had looked
14:10 11 at Tampa Bay. We made the decision on Congressional
14:10 12 District 5. So we had taken care of all the
14:10 13 specifically invalidated districts that the Supreme
14:10 14 Court had invalidated in the July 9th order. So at
14:10 15 that point we started looking at the rest of the map.
14:10 16 The first place that we looked was
14:10 17 Congressional District 10.
14:10 18 Q Where is Congressional District 10?
14:10 19 AI should say more specifically we looked at
14:10 20 Orange County, because the previous Congressional
14:10 21 District 5, which had a portion of Orange County,
14:10 22 there was a significant African-American minority
14:10 23 population in Orange County that now would not have a
14:11 24 minority representation.
14:11 25 And we also knew that there was an Hispanic
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 203 125
14:11 1 community in Orange County that had asked for some
14:11 2 representation, and we knew that was there.
14:11 3 So because of those two factors in mind, we
14:11 4 decided to look at Orange County and see if there was
14:11 5 a way of maybe combining those two populations into a
14:11 6 performing minority district in that area. So we
14:11 7 drew,I think it was five or six different drafts that
14:11 8 that -- that attempted to see.
14:11 9 The first one we looked specifically just at
14:11 10 the two minority populations. What if we combined
14:11 11 them, what would it look like, and this is what we
14:11 12 came up with. Obviously this is kind of a noncompact
14:11 13 barbell kind of shaped district. But it was our first
14:11 14 attempt at trying to combine those populations.
14:11 15 But it was in this attempt that we realized
14:11 16 that we could stay just within Orange County and
14:11 17 combine those populations in a district that may
14:11 18 perform once we look later at the functional analysis.
14:11 19 So we tried different attempts. Because you
14:12 20 can see here this is right in the middle of Orange
14:12 21 County. You could push it to the east or push it to
14:12 22 the north or try to draw it in a more compact fashion.
14:12 23 So the next several drafts are exactly that.I will
14:12 24 go through them kind of quickly.
14:12 25 This just shows the municipal lines for that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 204 126
14:12 1 draft. So this draft 10, if you go to the next slide,
14:12 2 so this -- we kind of pushed the district to the east.
14:12 3 And actually the eastern boundary of that district
14:12 4 would have been District 8.
14:12 5 We kind of took the boundary line in the
14:12 6 vicinity of the already enacted District 8, which is
14:12 7 the district that has all of Brevard and Indian River
14:12 8 and comes a little bit to Orange. We decided to kind
14:12 9 of push it up against that boundary line and then draw
14:12 10 the district heading west to see what it looked like.
14:12 11 You can see it's more compact than what we had
14:12 12 previously drawn, but still, you know, there could
14:12 13 probably be some room to improve the district.I
14:12 14 should note at this point we're not looking at any of
14:12 15 the like functional analysis data that we would draw.
14:13 16 We're just drawing the district to see if we
14:13 17 can combine those two minority populations. So the
14:13 18 next draft we went the opposite. We went to the north
14:13 19 and to the west.
14:13 20 So you can see there we kind of go up to the
14:13 21 northwest corner of Orange County and draw -- drew
14:13 22 south. You can see that district also has kind of a
14:13 23 barbell shape to it. It is a little bit more compact,
14:13 24 and it's along the county line.
14:13 25 That was another attempt kind of pushing the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 205 127
14:13 1 district the other way than we had done previously.
14:13 2 The next attempt is a draft we did where we
14:13 3 decided, let's not look at where the minority
14:13 4 populations are and just draw a district as compactly
14:13 5 as we could within Orange County and see where we get.
14:13 6 By doing that we started in the west and started to
14:13 7 fill in east.
14:13 8 And so we grabbed the appropriate amount of
14:13 9 population, which is 696,344 or 45 people, and this is
14:13 10 where we ended up.
14:13 11 At this point we decided, well, let's look at
14:14 12 the compactness numbers; let's look at the functional
14:14 13 analysis numbers of this specific district to see how
14:14 14 it does and see if it performs, it being the most
14:14 15 compact version that we have drawn.
14:14 16 So if you look at the next slide, that kind of
14:14 17 goes into that functional analysis of just draft 12,
14:14 18 which was that previous draft that we had just drawn
14:14 19 where we just started in the east and started drawing,
14:14 20 starting with the west and just drawing east within
14:14 21 Orange County.
14:14 22 And you can see here in this analysis that
14:14 23 it's a clearly Democratic-performing district. But if
14:14 24 you look at the Democratic turnout between black and
14:14 25 Hispanic, you can see the combination between black
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 206 128
14:14 1 and Hispanic is about 46, almost 47 percent, which
14:14 2 isn't quite enough for them to give them control, as a
14:14 3 coalition, control of the Democratic primary, since
14:14 4 Democrats clearly have control of the general election
14:14 5 in this district. But we got really, really close.
14:14 6 We were very encouraged by how close we got without
14:14 7 even trying to draw a coalition district.
14:15 8 So we then decided, well, let's look back and
14:15 9 see if any of the other districts we drew were
14:15 10 performing. We didn't expect this one to get as close
14:15 11 as it did.
14:15 12 So if you look at the next slide, this shows
14:15 13 the functional analysis, the first part of the
14:15 14 functional analysis for the remaining four drafts,
14:15 15 including District 12. You can see they're all very
14:15 16 similar as far as the overall performance. And then
14:15 17 the next slide, you can see the kind of breakdown of
14:15 18 the turnout.
14:15 19 And you can see that we actually had, in
14:15 20 looking at the combination between black and Hispanics
14:15 21 in drafts 9, 10, 11, and 13, we had drawn what we
14:15 22 would consider a performing coalition district,
14:15 23 because the black and Hispanic communities combined
14:15 24 would control the Democratic turnout, and the
14:15 25 district -- all of those districts are clearly a
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 207 129
14:15 1 Democratic-performing district.
14:15 2 So that -- we would consider that to be a
14:15 3 performing district. You can see draft 12 is almost
14:16 4 there, but not quite. But that district is clearly
14:16 5 the most compact district.
14:16 6 We decided, let's go back and see if we can
14:16 7 alter draft 12 a little bit and turn it into a
14:16 8 performing district, while also keeping it compactly,
14:16 9 and not having drawn a district to be a coalition
14:16 10 district and drawing a Tier 2 compact district
14:16 11 without -- but also get the benefit of being a Tier 1
14:16 12 performing district. So that's what we did.
14:16 13 You can see in the next -- you can see the
14:16 14 compactness scores. That kind of goes to my point
14:16 15 before where draft 12 is clearly the most compact
14:16 16 district. There, draft 13 is close, but draft 12 is
14:16 17 the most compact.
14:16 18 So now draft 14 is our kind of -- if you go to
14:16 19 the next slide you can see this is our draft 12 we
14:16 20 modified. We took that district we had started in the
14:16 21 east and drawn -- started in the west, but drawn east.
14:17 22 We changed it a little bit, as little as we possibly
14:17 23 could to see if we would turn this very compact
14:17 24 district into a performing coalition district.
14:17 25 And next couple of slides, this is how the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 208 130
14:17 1 municipality -- we kept all the municipalities whole
14:17 2 except for Orlando. But you can see here, we kept the
14:17 3 compactness very high, not quite as high as draft 12
14:17 4 or 13, but -- actually in the Convex Hull score it is
14:17 5 the most compact. In the Reock score it's very close,
14:17 6 but not quite as compact.
14:17 7 But in doing the functional analysis we
14:17 8 determined that -- if you look at the next slide or
14:17 9 two -- if you go to the next slide, you can see it's
14:17 10 still a Democratic-performing district. And on the
14:17 11 next slide you can see in this the important
14:17 12 combination is in the Democratic turnout, since it's a
14:18 13 Democratic district.
14:18 14 You can see the combination that we have now
14:18 15 drawn is over 50 percent. It's at 51.7. So we
14:18 16 determined that that would be a performing coalition
14:18 17 minority district there.
14:18 18 Q Compact as well?
14:18 19 A And that is very compact. And the district
14:18 20 that we actually drew primarily as a Tier 2 compact
14:18 21 district, entirely within Orange County, and is also a
14:18 22 performing coalition district.
14:18 23 So once we were able to do that, we decided to
14:18 24 move draft 14 forward and kind of block that into
14:18 25 Orange County. And we were able to start drawing the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 209 131
14:18 1 rest of the region.
14:18 2 So here we quickly kind of went back to
14:18 3 Hillsborough County. As before, we kind of moved on;
14:18 4 we kind of took a different stab at kind of cleaning
14:18 5 up the boundary lines of that Congressional
14:18 6 District 12, because the way that it interacted with
14:18 7 Hillsborough County, it grabbed the just under 12,000
14:18 8 people that it needed to get from Pasco County and
14:19 9 Hillsborough County.
14:19 10 Before it had a very like angular -- and went
14:19 11 pretty far into the county. We just didn't like the
14:19 12 way that it looked. So we took another stab at that.
14:19 13 You can see -- on the kind of zoomed-in
14:19 14 version you can see how it looked previously and where
14:19 15 it ended up. We -- no matter what we did, it was
14:19 16 going to be --I think it's just under 12,000 people
14:19 17 that were going to be in District 12 in Hillsborough
14:19 18 County because of the equal population mandate; we
14:19 19 just tried do it in a way that was the least impactful
14:19 20 that we could.
14:19 21 And you can see we also cleaned up some of the
14:19 22 boundary of District 14 as well, tried to make that a
14:19 23 little bit more compact.
14:19 24 We then went back to the Orange County area,
14:19 25 and we decided to try filling out the rest of Orange
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 210 132
14:19 1 County and Seminole County. And you can see here --
14:19 2 if you move forward one more -- kind of -- so what we
14:20 3 did here is we added all of Seminole County into a
14:20 4 district, and that's what was --
14:20 5 Q Let me stop you there. This is the district
14:20 6 you had settled on, 10; right?
14:20 7 A On 10; that's correct.
14:20 8 Q So now you're trying to figure out these two?
14:20 9 A The rest of the region.
14:20 10 Q Okay.
14:20 11 A So what we did is we added Seminole County
14:20 12 entirely to a district. That left us with,I believe,
14:20 13 about 190,000 people that we still needed for
14:20 14 District 7. So we took that out of Orange County.
14:20 15 And then we filled that out and equalized that
14:20 16 population out. We had filled out the remainder of
14:20 17 Orange County and then added all of Osceola County.
14:20 18 Now that District 9 is actually 240,000
14:20 19 people. Under the ideal population of a district,
14:20 20 clearly we need to add more people, but the question
14:20 21 is where.
14:20 22 At that point we also decided -- conversation
14:20 23 started between the three of us about where we would
14:20 24 add that population and also, if we could even keep
14:20 25 Seminole County -- that Seminole County line. We may
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 211 133
14:20 1 have to go north into Volusia County, and add some
14:21 2 people into that district, depending how the rest of
14:21 3 the region fits together. We kind of started to
14:21 4 realize the trend around the middle of the map --
14:21 5 Q Let me interrupt.
14:21 6 A Yeah.
14:21 7 Q And that straight line, and then the line up
14:21 8 there, that is the Volusia County line; correct?
14:21 9 A Correct. That's is Seminole-Volusia County
14:21 10 line.
14:21 11 Q And is that the river; is that why --
14:21 12 A Yes.
14:21 13 Q -- the river --
14:21 14 A Yeah, the river makes up the northern part of
14:21 15 that boundary, and that's the why it looks the way it
14:21 16 does. This just started us now on a lot of
14:21 17 conversations about how the rest of the Central
14:21 18 Florida area would look. We realized we couldn't make
14:21 19 a lot of those decisions until we figured out how the
14:21 20 districts to the north were going to look, how the
14:21 21 map, just the districts coming down, whether we could
14:21 22 keep that Seminole-Volusia County line whole or
14:21 23 whether or not we couldn't just based on the map of
14:21 24 all the districts and what was going to happen to Lake
14:21 25 County and how much of Polk County we could add to
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 212 134
14:21 1 District 9.
14:21 2 So we began -- at this point we moved from the
14:21 3 Central Florida area and moved up to North Florida.
14:22 4 So you can see in this draft, so we started with the
14:22 5 Panhandle.
14:22 6 District 1 is the same as it is in the enacted
14:22 7 map. There's really no other way to draw that
14:22 8 district, because you're starting at the westernmost
14:22 9 point in the Panhandle and drawing over until you add
14:22 10 all the population.
14:22 11 We had previously made the decision to add in
14:22 12 the district -- Congressional District 5 from the Romo
14:22 13 A map, so we put that in there. And then at that
14:22 14 point the remaining area to the south, if you move
14:22 15 forward,I think we have some more zoomed-in slides of
14:22 16 some of these districts -- go back one, I'm sorry.
14:22 17 So Congressional District 2 is just all the
14:22 18 area east of Congressional District 1 and all the area
14:22 19 south of Congressional District 5, consisting of
14:22 20 mostly whole counties, just adding them all together
14:22 21 until we were very close to the ideal population of
14:22 22 the district. But we had a little bit more population
14:22 23 than we needed.
14:22 24 If we can move on to one more slide, kind of
14:22 25 get to that area.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 213 135
14:23 1 So at this point we started thinking about
14:23 2 what District 3 would be. And in the Romo CD-2, as
14:23 3 we -- this is actually very similar to the Romo CD-2
14:23 4 as well; that actually included Union and Bradford
14:23 5 County.
14:23 6 We didn't like the way that it kind of created
14:23 7 a hook on the top of Congressional District 2 and
14:23 8 limited what you could do with District 3. If we
14:23 9 added those two districts along with adding all of
14:23 10 Clay County, all of Putnam County, and all of Alachua
14:23 11 County, and then that northern part of Marion, it
14:23 12 created a district as close to a circle as we could
14:23 13 draw on the map.
14:23 14 And then that pushed District 2 south a little
14:23 15 bit and also into Marion County. We didn't split the
14:23 16 City of Ocala in the middle of Marion County. We
14:23 17 added the road -- cut the county along the roadways
14:23 18 and kept the city whole.
14:23 19 Also with this, another area we had to start
14:23 20 on was District 4, where it has all of Nassau
14:24 21 County -- sorry -- all of --
14:24 22 Q District 4 is the yellow district?
14:24 23 A The yellow district. If I could get you to
14:24 24 move forward two slides.
14:24 25 That's District 2, a zoomed-in District 2.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 214 136
14:24 1 So now this is District 4. So that's all of
14:24 2 Nassau County, the remaining portion of Duval County
14:24 3 that's not in a -- Congressional District 5.
14:24 4 Then we had two choices. We could go into
14:24 5 Clay County or St. Johns County. And this first way,
14:24 6 in order to keep Clay County whole in that very
14:24 7 circular CD-3, and we had to go in and get the
14:24 8 remaining 160,000 people that District 4 needed in
14:24 9 St. Johns County.
14:24 10 We took that district as far into Citrus
14:24 11 County as needed, picking a boundary line that is
14:24 12 mostly major roadways. There is a little bit of a
14:24 13 creek or a river and then out to the municipal lines
14:24 14 of the ocean.
14:24 15 So that is actually a very good boundary line
14:24 16 following mostly roadways within the county. But by
14:25 17 doing that, it enabled us to draw a very compact
14:25 18 District 3 and actually made District 6 more compact
14:25 19 as well.
14:25 20 Q Why did it make District 6 more compact?
14:25 21 A We didn't know that until we saw the scores
14:25 22 after we had drawn. But really what's happening there
14:25 23 is -- especially with the Reock score, where you can
14:25 24 put a circle around the district, and you calculate
14:25 25 the ratio of the area of that circle that is the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 215 137
14:25 1 smallest around the district compared to the area of
14:25 2 the district itself, when you kind of squish the
14:25 3 district down into a smaller area, it makes that
14:25 4 circle smaller, so it makes the ratio go up and
14:25 5 therefore makes the score go up.
14:25 6 You want to get as close to 1 as possible with
14:25 7 that. So that's kind of how that happened. It
14:25 8 actually improved --I believe it improved the Convex
14:25 9 Hull slightly as well. That's District 6.
14:25 10 District 6 is the remaining portion of St.
14:25 11 Johns, all of Flagler County and all of Volusia
14:25 12 County. We were able to keep that county line whole
14:25 13 that we weren't sure about before, and then the
14:25 14 remaining population was in Lake County.
14:26 15 Q And the wedge on the southeast side of this
14:26 16 map, the green wedge, that represents the Volusia
14:26 17 County line on the --
14:26 18 A Yeah. This kind of extension that you see
14:26 19 south there, that is the county line for Volusia and
14:26 20 Brevard County and Seminole.
14:26 21 Q On the west side of that, that's the St. Johns
14:26 22 River?
14:26 23 A Yes.
14:26 24 Q Go ahead.
14:26 25 A So then we moved on to the District 11. You
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 216 138
14:26 1 can see there -- so that is the remaining portion of
14:26 2 southern Marion County, all of Citrus, all of
14:26 3 Hernando, all of Sumter, and then the remaining
14:26 4 portion of Lake County to get its remaining
14:26 5 population. Really that was the only county left --
14:26 6 Q Let me -- let me stop you there a minute.
14:26 7 What is this extension here?
14:26 8 A That's the county line, Sumter County.
14:26 9 Q And what is this up here?
14:26 10 A That -- initially when we drew this map, we
14:26 11 were trying to keep the municipality -- there is a lot
14:26 12 of municipalities right there in the central Lake
14:26 13 County. That is our effort of keeping the City of
14:27 14 Minneola,I believe, whole. So that's what created
14:27 15 that kind of -- we lovingly called it the Christmas
14:27 16 tree.
14:27 17 But that's kind of how that was created,
14:27 18 trying to keep a city whole.
14:27 19 Q Okay. Go ahead.
14:27 20 A Okay. So that was -- that was that draft.
14:27 21 And then we decided to draw -- well, as I mentioned
14:27 22 before, there is kind of like two ways that we could
14:27 23 draw District 4. We could fill out Nassau County,
14:27 24 fill out St. Johns County, and then we could either go
14:27 25 into St. Johns County or Clay County.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 217 139
14:27 1 We decided, well, let's try the other way.
14:27 2 It's not one of those other things that was an obvious
14:27 3 choice, so we decided, well, let's try the other way.
14:27 4 So here we tried to draw District 4 going into
14:27 5 Clay County. If you move on to the next slide it kind
14:27 6 of shows that. Instead of going into St. Johns, we
14:27 7 went into Clay.
14:27 8 That kind of distorts District 3 a little bit
14:27 9 and makes that less compact. It did, however, allow
14:28 10 us to only split Lake County once as opposed to -- two
14:28 11 districts rather than three, but we had to split
14:28 12 Volusia County as well. These are some of the
14:28 13 tradeoffs that you have when you're drawing different
14:28 14 ways and different regions and how it affects the rest
14:28 15 of the map. These are the kind of decisions that play
14:28 16 into that.
14:28 17 So I think the next slide is actually a
14:28 18 comparison of the compactness -- that's District 2.
14:28 19 So this is a regional compactness average between
14:28 20 draft 17 and 18, which are the two different ways of
14:28 21 drawing District 4, and how that would impact
14:28 22 District 3.
14:28 23 You can see here that the Reock score for
14:28 24 draft 17 as an average between Districts 3 and 4 in
14:28 25 both maps comes out better. We kind of thought we
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 218 140
14:28 1 would be going in that direction, but we weren't sure
14:28 2 how the rest of the region would fill out. Good
14:28 3 comparison to make at that time. And we move forward.
14:29 4 So now we started with draft 19 and 20. In
14:29 5 this we're starting to fill out the rest of the map.
14:29 6 As you saw before, we had just started with kind of
14:29 7 the North Florida districts. This is kind of us
14:29 8 starting to do the remaining districts around Orange
14:29 9 County and Central Florida. If you move forward.
14:29 10 So you can see here, this is our version where
14:29 11 we take District 4 into St. Johns County. And then we
14:29 12 used those same districts you had seen before from the
14:29 13 previous draft, only this time we take the enacted
14:29 14 District 8, which consisted entirely of Indian River
14:29 15 and Brevard County, it gets its remaining about 15,000
14:29 16 people in Orange County. And then we filled out the
14:29 17 remaining districts.
14:29 18 So you can see here -- so we were able to keep
14:29 19 the Seminole-Volusia County line whole. We then moved
14:29 20 down into Orange County that we had done previously
14:29 21 and then kind of had -- we put in District 8. That
14:29 22 created a box-like shape that didn't have any
14:30 23 district. That was added to District 9.
14:30 24 You can see a little bump on the top of Orange
14:30 25 County, as square as we could make it within Orange
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 219 141
14:30 1 County, just a population that wasn't in the district.
14:30 2 We added that to all of Osceola County and
14:30 3 into Polk County. And you see that -- grabbed all
14:30 4 that remaining population there --
14:30 5 Q Let me ask you about District 9 a minute. How
14:30 6 does that district score, just generally speaking, in
14:30 7 terms of the compactness measurements?
14:30 8 A We didn't know at this particular moment as we
14:30 9 were drawing the map, but afterwards, when we were
14:30 10 determining the scores, it actually came out --I
14:30 11 think it was the second or third most compact district
14:30 12 on the map, just looking at compactness scores,
14:30 13 because it's not a minority district, so we don't have
14:30 14 to do a functional analysis of it. But if you just
14:30 15 look at the compactness scores it came out extremely
14:30 16 compact.
14:30 17 Q Go ahead. I'm sorry.
14:30 18 A No problem. So then we filled out District 15
14:30 19 to the east, because there was that population, about
14:30 20 77,000 people in south Lake County that did not have a
14:31 21 district. So we added that together. We didn't want
14:31 22 District 9 to kind of wrap around District 10 and go
14:31 23 up.
14:31 24 There are a lot of municipalities in Polk
14:31 25 County there in southern Lake and in eastern
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 220 142
14:31 1 Hillsborough; Temple Terrace in eastern Hillsborough,
14:31 2 Lakeland in Polk County, along with some other
14:31 3 municipalities.
14:31 4 We kind of added those all together, which
14:31 5 kind of creates that almost -- almost but not quite
14:31 6 like an almost I-4 corridor district. That is the
14:31 7 blue district that you see there.
14:31 8 That is a complete district. That just left
14:31 9 us with two districts remaining. Move forward,I
14:31 10 think.
14:31 11 These are some zoomed-in versions of these
14:31 12 districts. We can go through these kind of quickly
14:31 13 until we get to District 16 and 17.I think one more.
14:31 14 Okay. This is just a -- this kind of shows
14:32 15 real quick before the last slide, sorry, this is
14:32 16 important, though. As we were drawing those
14:32 17 districts, there is a lot of municipalities within
14:32 18 Polk County. In this particular version, we able to
14:32 19 keep them all whole. That's why the lines look
14:32 20 largely the way they do. We were making an effort to
14:32 21 keep them all whole in this particular draft.
14:32 22 So now this is District 17. So in this draft,
14:32 23 what we -- we used the previously enacted version of
14:32 24 District 16, which is all of Sarasota County and
14:32 25 Manatee County, which in and of itself is a very
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 221 143
14:32 1 compact district entirely in the county and only goes
14:32 2 into one other county to get its remaining population.
14:32 3 By doing that you can see how District 17 has
14:32 4 changed. It before went into Hillsborough County, but
14:32 5 now it has to go all the way out into the bay and wrap
14:32 6 around 16, making that district much less compact than
14:32 7 it previously was.
14:32 8 So in the next draft we decided to take a new
14:32 9 stab at drawing Districts 16 and 17. If you move to
14:33 10 the next slide you can see our version of that, where
14:33 11 all we did to District 16 is push it to the north.
14:33 12 It grabbed all the remaining population in
14:33 13 southern Hillsborough, added all of Manatee County,
14:33 14 split Sarasota County, but we gained a county split
14:33 15 with Manatee. It was a one-for-one county split that
14:33 16 made both districts more compact than they would
14:33 17 otherwise.
14:33 18 I think the next slide, or one of the next
14:33 19 slides is -- yeah, a comparison chart, those districts
14:33 20 individually and also a two district average. You can
14:33 21 see draft 20 is considerably more compact. So that's
14:33 22 the version that we pushed forward in our base map.
14:33 23 So now we start to kind of go back to the --
14:33 24 one of our previous drafts where we had started with
14:33 25 draft 18, which was the draft that took District 4
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 222 144
14:33 1 into Clay County and started filling out the rest of
14:34 2 the region to see how that kind of fits together. So
14:34 3 you can kind of see that.
14:34 4 So you can see District 6 is kind of long,
14:34 5 along the coast there. And there's a zoomed-in
14:34 6 version of that. So Volusia County is split. And
14:34 7 there is kind of a long District 6 along the coast
14:34 8 which has all of St. Johns County, all of Flagler, and
14:34 9 most of Volusia. And we added that to what we had
14:34 10 previously drawn with District 3 and District 11.
14:34 11 And so now we did a regional compactness
14:34 12 average of District 3, 4, 6, and 11. So now both
14:34 13 drafts had all four of the districts. So you can see
14:34 14 draft 17, which is the draft where we take District 4
14:34 15 into St. Johns County. It's clearly starting to come
14:34 16 out ahead.
14:34 17 Since we don't have to do functional analysis
14:34 18 of any of these scores, compactness scores and visual
14:34 19 compactness are the only driver there. At this point
14:34 20 we are already leaning toward moving the version of
14:35 21 District 4 forward, where we go into St. Johns and the
14:35 22 rest of the region as that looks.
14:35 23 But now as we move forward, once we kind of
14:35 24 made that decision, in draft 22 -- in draft 22, this
14:35 25 is just a further -- in order to give us a better idea
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 223 145
14:35 1 of how the rest of the map would play out, we felt it
14:35 2 necessary to -- even though we felt we were going to
14:35 3 move in the other direction, we wanted to complete
14:35 4 this draft with the Clay County version of District 4
14:35 5 just to see how the rest of the -- the rest of Central
14:35 6 Florida would fill out to see if, you know, what the
14:35 7 rest of the map would look like.
14:35 8 There are actually some interesting things.
14:35 9 You can see here,I think in one of the next slides,
14:35 10 you can see District 15, which in the draft -- the
14:35 11 other draft actually went to three counties. It went
14:35 12 all the way up into Lake County, whereas this one is
14:35 13 just in Hillsborough and Polk County.
14:35 14 And now there's a concept, that was an idea
14:35 15 that we thought worth exploring. You can also see
14:35 16 here District 8 going into Volusia County rather than
14:36 17 Orange County, which is just another way of possibly
14:36 18 drawing that district that we decided to explore in
14:36 19 this particular draft.
14:36 20 So now you can see as we move forward with the
14:36 21 development. Some of the districts that we have
14:36 22 clearly made decisions on because of the regional
14:36 23 compactness and other things we have locked in 1 and
14:36 24 2, 4 and 5, 10, which is the Orange County district;
14:36 25 12, 13, and 14, which were Tampa Bay districts; and
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 224 146
14:36 1 the new versions of 16 and 17, which are more compact.
14:36 2 And we start to do a rotation around District 10.
14:36 3 District 10 is locked in, but the areas around
14:36 4 it, District 11, 6, some of the northern part of 17
14:36 5 really, but 9, 15, that can be moved around. That's
14:36 6 just kind of rotating the population around that
14:36 7 District 10. These are different -- several
14:36 8 variations of that.
14:36 9 So you can see here in draft 23 we liked
14:36 10 keeping -- the idea of keeping District 15 entirely
14:37 11 within just Polk and Hillsborough. We decided to do
14:37 12 that in a draft, where we also go into St. Johns
14:37 13 County with District 4 rather than Clay County like we
14:37 14 had done before. So this is our way of doing that.
14:37 15 So really what this is doing now, all of this
14:37 16 is just different versions of moving 77,000 people
14:37 17 around in different districts around District 10,
14:37 18 either clockwise or counterclockwise. That's really
14:37 19 all this is. At this point we have a pretty good idea
14:37 20 of what most of the map is going to look like, and
14:37 21 we're just doing refinement, really, moving the 77,000
14:37 22 people around.
14:37 23 So you can see here, this is what that area
14:37 24 kind of looks like. What this does is it actually
14:37 25 puts four districts into Marion County rather than
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 225 147
14:37 1 three. That's really the biggest change of kind of
14:37 2 that population rotation. It also split Volusia
14:37 3 County in that District 7.
14:37 4 Now had the -- in keeping with that population
14:37 5 rotation, we had to go up into Volusia County 77,000
14:37 6 people as it kind of went around that district.
14:38 7 So that was another drawback, but something
14:38 8 that we were wanting to explore to see how the rest of
14:38 9 the map would play out. Let's move forward.
14:38 10 This is kind of a zoomed-in version -- we can
14:38 11 go forward.A lot of these next drafts we can move
14:38 12 forward quickly.
14:38 13 This is another version where you can see we
14:38 14 kind of go back to how it was before. We only have
14:38 15 three districts in Marion County, three districts back
14:38 16 in Lake County. Move forward to the next one.
14:38 17 I think this was a way of before you can
14:38 18 remember the -- what I referred affectionately to as
14:38 19 the Christmas tree on top of District 15 in Lake
14:38 20 County, we --I decided to make the decision to split
14:38 21 that city -- actually ended up being split at
14:38 22 Groveland, which is another city in Lake County, in
14:38 23 order to make that a more visually appealing line so
14:38 24 we didn't have a big bump on the district.
14:38 25 You can see here that's how we did that. We
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 226 148
14:38 1 kept Minneola, split Groveland. That's just some of
14:38 2 the tradeoffs as we were drawing trying to find
14:39 3 different ways of drawing. We were unsure how that
14:39 4 would affect the compactness scores. We wanted to see
14:39 5 that, because that was something that we just visually
14:39 6 didn't think was very appealing.
14:39 7 So now in draft 25, this is similar to the
14:39 8 draft that we just did, but instead of putting
14:39 9 District 8 in Orange County, we took that version of
14:39 10 District 8 that goes up into Volusia County, which is
14:39 11 a population rotation of just 15,000 people, so that
14:39 12 changed the district slightly.
14:39 13 We didn't know if that extra 15,000 people
14:39 14 would allow us to keep another city whole or do
14:39 15 something else with the map.
14:39 16 That's what that draft is.
14:39 17 We can move forward.
14:39 18 Kind of the zoomed-in version of the cities.
14:39 19 Lake County.
14:39 20 Now draft 26 is just another way of trying to
14:40 21 combine that idea of having District 15 only in two
14:40 22 counties, just kind of a different way of splitting
14:40 23 Marion County there. We didn't really like -- that
14:40 24 was very awkward, so we tried to do that differently.
14:40 25 Otherwise the map was the same as that previous draft
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 227 149
14:40 1 where you see four districts into Marion County.
14:40 2 Now District 27 is a slightly different
14:40 3 version of Congressional District 6. We actually
14:40 4 ended up splitting Putnam County. You can move to the
14:40 5 next slide.
14:40 6 We were just trying to see what different
14:40 7 decisions would make in the map if we had split Putnam
14:40 8 County along the St. Johns River what that would do to
14:40 9 District 6 and how it would affect the rest of the
14:40 10 map. This was our attempt at that.
14:40 11 And you can see it didn't affect anything down
14:40 12 in this region.
14:41 13 So now you can see we did a compactness
14:41 14 comparison on a lot of the drafts we had just been
14:41 15 drawing. You can see that the compactness is all
14:41 16 very, very similar between all of these drafts in the
14:41 17 aggregate. This is the 17 district compactness
14:41 18 average. And it's all very, very similar.
14:41 19 The one real difference -- and the city
14:41 20 splits, you can see that District 20 -- draft 25 only
14:41 21 had 6, 9, 7, and some of the other ones. It's similar
14:41 22 enough, but the big difference is we were actually
14:41 23 able to keep a county whole in draft 24.
14:41 24 Ultimately we selected draft 24 to move on
14:41 25 because we were able to keep the extra county, which
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 228 150
14:41 1 is Volusia County, whole because the other compactness
14:41 2 scores were about the same. If the compactness score
14:41 3 were different, it might have been a different
14:41 4 decision. But all things being equal, and everything
14:41 5 else, we chose the map -- or the part of the map to
14:41 6 move forward that split only one county.
14:42 7 So now we -- as I mentioned before, we split
14:42 8 Groveland. There was Auburndale sitting in Polk,
14:42 9 which we previously kept whole. We decided to try
14:42 10 to -- what it would look like if we kept it whole in
14:42 11 draft 24 or split it, kind of see what the difference
14:42 12 of splitting it up one extra city or keeping it whole
14:42 13 would look like with the district lines. So very
14:42 14 small changes at this point.
14:42 15 Auburndale is in Polk County. You can see the
14:42 16 main difference there in Polk County. You can see the
14:42 17 jagged line that kind of goes around just the orange
14:42 18 district and the blue district. That's the change
14:42 19 that we made in this map.
14:42 20 Q Let me stop you there, see if I understand.
14:42 21 You're saying these jagged lines --
14:42 22 A Yes.
14:42 23 Q -- were to keep Auburndale whole?
14:43 24 A Yes. And now you can see in the next draft
14:43 25 where we split Auburndale -- move forward one more.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 229 151
14:43 1 You can -- one more, one more slide. You can see the
14:43 2 lines were much cleaner, and that's as a result of us
14:43 3 splitting Auburndale. So those are some of the
14:43 4 tradeoffs that you can make while drawing the map.
14:43 5 So now draft 30 we had kind of locked in what
14:43 6 we had done in North Florida. So now in draft 30 we
14:43 7 just kind of -- we took our ten districts in the south
14:43 8 and just did some refinement, meaning we literally
14:43 9 walked each and every district line, making sure there
14:43 10 wasn't an accidental lock over a road or accidentally
14:43 11 split a city, just anything we can do to refine the
14:43 12 districts as much as we can to make sure that we
14:43 13 didn't have a mistake somewhere or something like
14:43 14 that.
14:43 15 That's what draft 30 is. Draft 31 is we did
14:43 16 the same thing to the version of the map to the north
14:43 17 that -- with all the 17 districts to the north. We
14:44 18 walked every boundary line, making sure we didn't make
14:44 19 any errors, cleaning up any lines where we thought
14:44 20 possible, very, very minor changes in the less than
14:44 21 100 people, sometimes, just one person, sometimes it
14:44 22 was no people, just connecting empty blocks that were
14:44 23 over a road, things like that, just to clean up the
14:44 24 boundary lines.
14:44 25 Once we did that, we combined them into kind
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 230 152
14:44 1 of the last draft that we did. We ran our final
14:44 2 report. We actually found one straight block we had
14:44 3 left unassigned, found that, and then we locked that
14:44 4 in. And that is the draft that became the base map,
14:44 5 plan 9065, that we released to the public.
14:44 6 Q Mr. Poreda, let me ask you, when the -- when
14:44 7 did you begin the map-drawing process?
14:44 8 A We began on Thursday after -- Thursday
14:44 9 afternoon,I believe it was July 23rd.
14:44 10 Q And when did you finish?
14:45 11 A We released the base map on August 5th, in the
14:45 12 afternoon.
14:45 13 Q And did you work both weekdays and weekend
14:45 14 days at times?
14:45 15 A Yes, sir.
14:45 16 Q And when you published this map -- or when the
14:45 17 House and Senate published this map, did you have
14:45 18 occasion to brief anyone about the base map and the
14:45 19 various decisions you made?
14:45 20 A Yes. Once we released them to the public,
14:45 21 that -- we gave a briefing to Chairman Oliva, who then
14:45 22 also offered a briefing to Leader Pafford, who was the
14:45 23 leader in the minority office. He accepted, and he
14:45 24 brought Representative Jenne with him, along with some
14:45 25 of the minority office staff, and gave him a briefing
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 231 153
14:45 1 as well --
14:45 2 Q And then --
14:45 3 A I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
14:45 4 Q Go ahead.
14:45 5 A Any other member that had any questions about
14:45 6 the map in any way, we -- we were more than willing to
14:45 7 answer any of them for them as well.
14:46 8 Q Okay. And did Chair Oliva suggest any changes
14:46 9 or indicate any concerns about any part of the map?
14:46 10 A No. That's not really what the briefing was
14:46 11 designed for. It wasn't really to get his feedback on
14:46 12 how we could change it. It was really for us to let
14:46 13 him know, hey, this is the base map. This is what we
14:46 14 drew. This is our starting point, and how we did a
14:46 15 very similar thing with him and Pafford that I just
14:46 16 did here for the Court.
14:46 17 Q And in the first committee meeting, which was
14:46 18 the joint House and Senate committee meeting, did you
14:46 19 go through the map and the process very much like you
14:46 20 have today?
14:46 21 A Yes. But myself, Jeff Takacs and Jay Ferrin,
14:46 22 we all went through a very similar presentation that
14:46 23 we just did, but in slightly even more detail than I
14:46 24 just did, if you can believe that. And all three of
14:46 25 us kind of took turns talking about different regions,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 232 154
14:46 1 and we answered questions.
14:46 2 Q Okay. And did there come a time when -- was
14:46 3 there a committee meeting, a House committee meeting
14:47 4 after the Senate and House joint?
14:47 5 A Yes, there was.
14:47 6 Q And what happened there?
14:47 7 A At that House meeting, Chairman Oliva had
14:47 8 offered the base map as a bill. So we considered that
14:47 9 bill, which was the base map. We also considered,I
14:47 10 believe, two amendments that were offered to the base
14:47 11 map.
14:47 12 Q And what -- do you recall what those
14:47 13 amendments were?
14:47 14 A One of them was from Representative Kerner
14:47 15 that would have changed Districts 21 and 22 back to a
14:47 16 more similar configuration that they were in the
14:47 17 previously enacted map. And there was another
14:47 18 amendment from Representative Hill that would have
14:47 19 reverted the entire map back to the 2012 map.
14:47 20 Q And did there come a time when this base map
14:47 21 was amended by the House?
14:47 22 A There was, yes.
14:47 23 Q Explain that, if you would, please.
14:47 24 A Later after we had -- we had actually -- when
14:47 25 I say "we,"I mean the House had passed the map on the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 233 155
14:48 1 floor. And we had -- at that point we had sent the
14:48 2 map to the Senate. The Senate had returned a
14:48 3 different map that they had amended in committee.
14:48 4 At that point Chairman Oliva asked myself and
14:48 5 Jeff Takacs to try our hand at drawing an amendment to
14:48 6 the base map that would keep some additional cities
14:48 7 whole than we had with the base map.
14:48 8 Q And did you do that?
14:48 9 A Yes, we did.
14:48 10 Q And what cities did you keep whole that had
14:48 11 not been whole before?
14:48 12 A There was four cities where; it was -- the
14:48 13 cities I had mentioned before and two additional ones
14:48 14 Groveland in Lake County -- are in Lake County.
14:48 15 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Groveland and what?
14:48 16 A Groveland in Lake County, Auburndale in Polk
14:48 17 County, Riviera Beach in Palm Beach County, and the
14:48 18 city of Sunrise in Broward County.
14:48 19 BY MR. MEROS:
14:48 20 Q Did the creation or the preservation of
14:48 21 Sunrise and Riviera Beach cause any significant
14:48 22 reduction in compactness in any districts where they
14:49 23 resided?
14:49 24 A No. The compactness scores were very, very
14:49 25 similar,I think in all of the districts that were
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 234 156
14:49 1 affected, which would have been Districts 11, 15, 9,
14:49 2 17, 21, 22, 20. There were very, very minor
14:49 3 changes -- maybe a couple thousand people to --I
14:49 4 think the biggest change was Sunrise, which was closer
14:49 5 to 20,000 people.
14:49 6 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, if I may have a
14:49 7 minute?
14:49 8 BY MR. MEROS:
14:49 9 Q Mr. Poreda,I think we have a comparison chart
14:49 10 of the base map with prior maps. I'm going to ask --
14:49 11 yes. Have you seen that before?
14:49 12 A Yes. That was in our presentation that we did
14:50 13 to the joint committee.
14:50 14 Q Okay. Tell us what this shows.
14:50 15 A This is just a complete comparison of the
14:50 16 compactness scores from the base plan that we drew,
14:50 17 which is the plan 9065 in the top, to the two
14:50 18 previously enacted maps that were passed in 2012 and
14:50 19 2014. Those are represented by 9047 and 9057, and
14:50 20 then also the Romo A map mentioned specifically by the
14:50 21 Supreme Court, and the League of Women Voters map that
14:50 22 was offered in 2014 as a remedial map when we were
14:50 23 going through that redrawing process.
14:50 24 MR. MEROS: All right. Excuse me one minute.
14:51 25 Judge, may I -- I'm sorry. Your Honor, may I
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 235 157
14:51 1 ask, do you have a chart H110 and one that says
14:51 2 CP-1?
14:51 3 May I approach the witness?
14:52 4 BY MR. MEROS:
14:52 5 Q Now, are you familiar with H110C9071?
14:52 6 A Yes.
14:52 7 Q What is that?
14:52 8 A And that is the amended base map, the one
14:52 9 myself and Jeff Takacs had drawn.
14:52 10 Q You're aware that CP-1 is the League of Women
14:52 11 Voters and Common Cause map?
14:52 12 A Yes, the coalition, one of the maps they
14:52 13 submitted, yes.
14:52 14 Q And do you see in District 20 in CP-1 that
14:52 15 there is an appendage going eastward on the north side
14:52 16 of that district and in the central part of the
14:52 17 district, and there is now an appendage going through
14:52 18 Miramar toward the beach; do you see that?
14:52 19 A Yes.
14:52 20 Q Did you ever consider in this map-drawing
14:52 21 process drawing -- redrawing District 20 to have a --
14:52 22 an appendage on the south side of the district?
14:52 23 A We haven't quite got this far. But, yes, when
14:53 24 we were trying to keep Hendry County whole, one of the
14:53 25 first ways -- once we added Hendry County entirely to
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 236 158
14:53 1 District 25, we needed to add population to District
14:53 2 20. And we did explore going south further in Broward
14:53 3 County and kind of over in a very similar fashion that
14:53 4 is seen here to add that population.
14:53 5 But we very early on, even before we even
14:53 6 really got very far, we rejected that idea --
14:53 7 Q Why?
14:53 8 A Because it -- we're going further south, and
14:53 9 we're adding what would be a third appendage to the
14:53 10 district. We're adding a very visually uncompact
14:53 11 finger or appendage to a district. That was just
14:53 12 something that we didn't like visually and we thought
14:53 13 would raise too many questions on why we did that.
14:53 14 Q Tell me what you mean by raise questions as to
14:53 15 why --
14:53 16 A We had -- in previous versions of the map we
14:53 17 had been criticized for adding appendages and things
14:53 18 of that nature. And we just felt that doing that was
14:54 19 just not the right decision when the district already
14:54 20 has two appendages that are already pretty visually
14:54 21 unappealing.
14:54 22 To add a whole another one would just be
14:54 23 something that -- it was a decision that we just
14:54 24 didn't feel was the right decision to make on the map.
14:54 25 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, you're either really
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 237 159
14:54 1 mad at me or perplexed by something.
14:54 2 THE COURT: Perplexed. He's talking about
14:54 3 appendages, and I'm trying to figure out what
14:54 4 appendage. It's not up there. Do you want to
14:54 5 point me --
14:54 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry.
14:54 7 THE COURT: What's the appendage -- okay.I
14:54 8 gotcha.
14:54 9 THE WITNESS: So we didn't quite draw the full
14:54 10 appendages that you see there in that southern
14:54 11 part, but that would be a third finger or a third
14:54 12 appendage that would be added to this particular
14:54 13 district. And that was something that we initially
14:54 14 started to explore when we had to add more
14:54 15 population to District 20.
14:54 16 But it was something that we -- we just kind
14:54 17 of -- we decided that that wouldn't be a good idea
14:54 18 for all of those reasons. And we were having
14:55 19 difficulty keeping the district above 50 percent.
14:55 20 Really, adding that third appendage was something
14:55 21 we didn't feel like was a good idea.
14:55 22 We felt like it would be hard to defend that,
14:55 23 adding a third appendage to the district.
14:55 24 MR. MEROS: No further questions. Thank you
14:55 25 very much.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 238 160
14:55 1 THE COURT: Why don't we take a break here.
14:55 2 But I thought maybe I would give all the defendants
14:55 3 on this side -- Ms. Riggs maybe doesn't have too
14:55 4 many questions.
14:55 5 Do you have any questions?
14:55 6 MR. ZAKIA: We'll talk about that during the
14:55 7 break, Your Honor.
14:55 8 THE COURT:I was going to let the defendants
14:55 9 go and then you all go. Let's take a break about
14:55 10 ten minutes, and then we will come back.
14:58 11 (In recess from 2:48 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.)
15:20 12 THE BAILIFF: All rise. Come to order. Court
15:20 13 is back in session.
15:20 14 THE COURT:I guess you have some questions
15:20 15 over there.
15:20 16 MR. ZAKIA: Your Honor, Jason Zakia for the
15:20 17 Senate, very briefly.
15:20 18 CROSS EXAMINATION
15:20 19 BY MR. ZAKIA:
15:20 20 Q Just a couple of questions about the metrics
15:20 21 that you discussed on your direct examination.I want
15:20 22 to make sure we're on the same page. I'm correct that
15:20 23 one of the things you tried to do in drawing the map
15:20 24 is to follow recognized political and geographic
15:20 25 boundaries?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 239 161
15:20 1 A Yes.
15:20 2 Q And am I correct that probably the best
15:20 3 political boundary you could pick would be a county
15:20 4 line?
15:20 5 A Yes.
15:20 6 Q And also an excellent boundary would be a city
15:20 7 line?
15:20 8 A Yes.
15:20 9 Q Those would be two examples of well-recognized
15:21 10 political boundaries that you use whenever possible?
15:21 11 A We can, yes.
15:21 12 Q Am I also correct, sir, that one of your goals
15:21 13 in drawing the map is to try and keep as many of
15:21 14 Florida's counties whole as possible?
15:21 15 A When we can, yes.
15:21 16 Q And I think you just testified on direct that
15:21 17 when you reached the decision point,I think it was
15:21 18 between drafts 25 and 26, one of the things that
15:21 19 caused you to go in a certain direction is you had the
15:21 20 ability to keep an extra county whole; right?
15:21 21 A When the two drafts were so similar to each
15:21 22 other, that was the deciding factor.
15:21 23 Q In your words, it's a big deal?
15:21 24 A Yes.
15:21 25 Q In fact, the base map was able to keep 49 of
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 240 162
15:21 1 Florida's counties whole; right?
15:21 2 AI believe that's accurate.
15:21 3 Q That was an improvement over the prior-enacted
15:21 4 plan?
15:21 5 A Yes.
15:21 6 Q And that's a good thing?
15:21 7 A Yes.
15:21 8 Q And you would agree with me, sir, that if,
15:21 9 using the same methodology, so consistent with your
15:21 10 methodology, and not having any negative impact on
15:21 11 compactness and not running afoul of any Tier 1
15:22 12 consideration, if with all those things being true you
15:22 13 could keep 50 counties whole, that would be even
15:22 14 better; right?
15:22 15 A Not necessarily.
15:22 16 Q It's not better if you can keep an extra
15:22 17 county and all other things being equal?
15:22 18 A Depending what the draft is. There could be
15:22 19 other factors that could come into play. You have to
15:22 20 look at the totality of the circumstances. When I was
15:22 21 comparing the two drafts before, as we did in the base
15:22 22 map drawing room, those two drafts were so remarkably
15:22 23 similar to each other that a deciding factor was a
15:22 24 county.
15:22 25 If you have something that is completely
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 241 163
15:22 1 different, but you keep an extra county whole, that's
15:22 2 not necessarily a deciding factor because you have to
15:22 3 look at the totality of circumstances behind each
15:22 4 draft.
15:22 5 Q And the totality of the circumstances that you
15:22 6 would look at when trying to comply with the Supreme
15:22 7 Court's order in trying to -- the instructions you
15:22 8 were given by the presiding officer in this, the Tier
15:22 9 1 considerations?
15:22 10 A Yes.
15:22 11 Q And you wanted to make sure that it complied
15:22 12 with all the Tier 1 considerations?
15:22 13 A Yes.
15:22 14 Q That's continuous districts, no retrogression,
15:22 15 no improper intent?
15:23 16 A Yes.
15:23 17 Q And you want to look at --
15:23 18 A Excuse me. Sorry. And no favoritism for
15:23 19 political parties as well.
15:23 20 Q I'm sorry. When I said "improper intent,"I
15:23 21 meant without the intent to favor or disfavor any
15:23 22 political party or intent to favor or disfavor any
15:23 23 incumbent.
15:23 24 A Right.
15:23 25 Q Okay. So those are considerations you would
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 242 164
15:23 1 look at. And then you would also look at whether you
15:23 2 were following geographic boundaries or political
15:23 3 boundaries; right?
15:23 4 AA consideration, yes.
15:23 5 Q And compactness?
15:23 6 A Yes.
15:23 7 Q Those are the constitutional requirements that
15:23 8 set out and that guided your work on this process?
15:23 9 A Yes.
15:23 10 Q Those are all of the constitutional
15:23 11 requirements that are set out; right? Did I miss any?
15:23 12 AI don't believe that you did.
15:23 13 Q So my question is, consistent-- so assuming
15:23 14 that none of those factors are impacted at all -- and
15:23 15 this is a hypothetical. I'm not asking you about any
15:23 16 particular map or to agree to any set of facts.
15:23 17 Hypothetical.
15:23 18 If all other things were equal, if they were
15:23 19 identical or remarkably similar, as you just said, it
15:23 20 would, all other things being equal, be a good thing
15:23 21 to keep one extra county whole; right?
15:24 22 A Yes.
15:24 23 MR. ZAKIA: Thank you. No further questions,
15:24 24 Your Honor.
15:24 25 THE COURT: Ms. Riggs, you didn't have
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 243 165
15:24 1 questions; did you?
15:24 2 MS. RIGGS: Nothing, Your Honor.
15:24 3 THE COURT: Okay.
15:24 4 CROSS EXAMINATION
15:24 5 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:24 6 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Poreda.
15:24 7 A Good afternoon.
15:24 8 Q I would like to talk to you about how you and
15:24 9 your colleagues came up with the configuration of CDs
15:24 10 26 and 27 that are in the House and the Senate draft
15:24 11 maps.
15:24 12 And first of all, the exact configuration is
15:24 13 the same in the two Senate maps, 9062, 9066, and the
15:24 14 House map, 9071; correct?
15:24 15 AI believe so, yes.
15:24 16 Q So just to sort of set the stage, the reason
15:24 17 you were redrawing CDs 26 and 27 is because the
15:25 18 Florida Supreme Court, in apportionment 7, had ruled
15:25 19 that the Legislature had drawn those districts by
15:25 20 splitting Homestead in particular in a way that
15:25 21 improved Republican performance in CD-26; correct?
15:25 22 AI believe so, yes.
15:25 23 Q The Court concluded that by splitting
15:25 24 Homestead and moving the Homestead population, or at
15:25 25 least a portion of it into 27, that improved
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 244 166
15:25 1 Republican performance in 26; correct?
15:25 2 AI believe so, yes.
15:25 3 Q The Court even said that had the political
15:25 4 impact of taking one Republican-performing district
15:25 5 and one Democrat-performing district and turning them
15:25 6 into two Republican-leaning districts; right?
15:25 7 AI believe that's what the Court said, yes.
15:25 8 Q So the tool by which the Legislature used to
15:25 9 reach that result was to split Homestead, put the
15:25 10 Democratic population of Homestead in 27, thereby
15:25 11 increasing the Republican performance in 26; correct?
15:26 12 AI think that's what the Court said, yes.
15:26 13 Q Now, when you considered how to fix this
15:26 14 problem, you -- you guys got together and decided,
15:26 15 well, there are two ways to do it. We keep Homestead
15:26 16 whole in CD-26, or we keep Homestead whole in CD-27;
15:26 17 right?
15:26 18 A Yes.
15:26 19 Q And is it correct, sir, based on what you've
15:26 20 told us today, that your group only drew one version
15:26 21 of each of those configurations?
15:26 22 A Yes.
15:26 23 Q And ultimately you decided to go with the
15:26 24 option that put Homestead in CD-26; right?
15:26 25 A That is correct.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 245 167
15:26 1 Q That was draft 1?
15:26 2 A Yes.
15:26 3 Q Now, Mr. Poreda, do you agree with me that
15:26 4 there are many ways you could have drawn 26 and 27
15:26 5 while keeping Homestead whole in 26?
15:26 6 AI will agree that there are probably other
15:26 7 ways we could have done it, yes.
15:26 8 Q Right. The coalition plaintiffs, for example,
15:26 9 have shown three different ways to do it in CP-1,
15:27 10 CP-2, and CP-3; right?
15:27 11 A Yes.
15:27 12 Q And the Romo plaintiffs in their maps have a
15:27 13 fourth way to do it?
15:27 14 A Yes.
15:27 15 Q And you recall during a special session
15:27 16 Senator Bullard offered an amendment that was a fifth
15:27 17 way to keep Homestead whole in CD-26; right?
15:27 18 AI didn't see that amendment in the House
15:27 19 chamber, so I'm not very familiar with it.
15:27 20 Q So that's five different ways it could have
15:27 21 been drawn; correct?
15:27 22 A Yes.
15:27 23 Q Assuming Senator Bullard drew it that way?
15:27 24 A Yes.
15:27 25 Q But you chose only to do it one way?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 246 168
15:27 1 A Yes.
15:27 2 Q Well, you knew that in this remedial
15:27 3 proceeding, after apportionment 7, that the
15:27 4 Legislature would have the burden to explain and
15:27 5 justify, the Court said, why it drew the configuration
15:27 6 26 and 27 the way it did; right?
15:27 7 A Yes.
15:27 8 Q It would have the burden of proof to say, this
15:27 9 is why it was appropriate to pick this configuration
15:27 10 over another configuration; correct?
15:27 11 A Yes.
15:28 12 Q So what steps did you and Mr. Ferrin and
15:28 13 Mr. Takacs and the lawyers that were in the room from
15:28 14 time to time, what steps did y'all take to ensure that
15:28 15 you had drawn the very best version of 26 and 27,
15:28 16 keeping Homestead whole in 26?
15:28 17 A Let me be clear. Our job was not to draw the
15:28 18 best way; it was to draw a compliant way.I recognize
15:28 19 there could be other ways to have drawn that district.
15:28 20 But it doesn't impugn the way that we decided to do
15:28 21 it.
15:28 22 We ensured that the way that we drew it was a
15:28 23 compliant way, because we did not look at any racial
15:28 24 or political data when we picked the area to -- while
15:28 25 we kept Homestead whole in District 26 and had to add
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 247 169
15:28 1 population to District 27, we were compliant, in my
15:28 2 opinion, because we did not look at any of the
15:28 3 political data or racial data for where we decided to
15:28 4 add population to District 27.
15:28 5 Q But if you didn't try other ways to draw it,
15:29 6 how did you assure yourself that the way you had drawn
15:29 7 it was the most appropriate, most faithful in
15:29 8 compliance with the constitutional criteria and most
15:29 9 faithful and compliant with apportionment 7?
15:29 10 A We followed the most major roadway in the
15:29 11 area, the Florida Turnpike, and we determined that the
15:29 12 district that we drew was a performing minority
15:29 13 district. So at that point we determined that the
15:29 14 district -- both of the districts were still able to
15:29 15 perform for the minority candidates of choice, and we
15:29 16 had drawn them in a way where we did not consider
15:29 17 political result of either district.
15:29 18 So, therefore, we drew a compliant version of
15:29 19 both of those districts. That was our charge. Our
15:29 20 charge wasn't to draw the best way. Our job was to
15:29 21 draw a compliant two districts and comply with the
15:29 22 Supreme Court order. And we felt that we did that.
15:29 23 Q And that's your understanding, even after
15:29 24 apportionment 7 when the Court says the burden is on
15:30 25 the Legislature to explain why it picked one
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 248 170
15:30 1 configuration over another?
15:30 2 A Yes.
15:30 3 MR. MEROS: Objection, Your Honor, he's now
15:30 4 arguing about what the Florida Supreme Court said.
15:30 5 MR. ZEHNDER: Just making sure I understand.
15:30 6 THE COURT: He testified that that was his
15:30 7 guide in doing the maps. So it's a topic you've
15:30 8 already asked him a couple of times.
15:30 9 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:30 10 Q Let's look at what you did draw.
15:30 11 MR. ZEHNDER: Ms. Price, can you pull up
15:30 12 CP-34?
15:30 13 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:30 14 Q Now is it correct, sir, that this is the
15:30 15 configuration of CD-26 and 27 --
15:30 16 MR. ZEHNDER: Yeah, great. If you can zoom
15:30 17 that in.
15:30 18 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:30 19 Q -- that you ultimately went with?
15:30 20 A Yes.
15:30 21 Q And this is the one that keeps Homestead whole
15:30 22 here in 26; right?
15:30 23 A Yes.
15:30 24 Q Okay. And you can see there from the district
15:30 25 line between the two districts that what you've done
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 249 171
15:30 1 is gone up along U.S. 1 here north of Homestead;
15:30 2 right?
15:30 3 A Yes.
15:30 4 Q And here is where you turn onto the Turnpike
15:31 5 north --
15:31 6 A Yes.
15:31 7 Q -- instead of continuing on U.S. 1; correct?
15:31 8 A Yes.
15:31 9 Q And then after the Turnpike, you cut east over
15:31 10 here?
15:31 11 A Yes.
15:31 12 Q This is not a road or a major road; right?
15:31 13 A In every Congressional district there has to
15:31 14 be an area where you will go through a neighborhood.
15:31 15 There are roads that we are following there; they just
15:31 16 happen to be through neighborhoods.
15:31 17 Q Right. It wouldn't be one of the major roads
15:31 18 that you were trying to follow when you were doing
15:31 19 this district?
15:31 20 A No. But that's, again, in every district
15:31 21 there will be an area where you have to do that,
15:31 22 because we have to achieve people population.
15:31 23 Q And then you head north a little bit, cut east
15:31 24 again, and then you get on that State Road 973; right?
15:31 25 A That vertical road you bypassed and the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 250 172
15:31 1 east-road extension, those are major roads.
15:31 2 Q And one of those -- sorry.
15:31 3 A Go ahead.
15:31 4 Q One of those is 97th Avenue?
15:31 5 A Southwest 97th Ave. And another state road
15:31 6 going to the east and another that goes north on
15:31 7 another road.I don't know the state road
15:31 8 designation, because the people in the area don't use
15:32 9 the state road designation; they use whatever the road
15:32 10 name is. That's -- I think that's Southwest 87th or
15:32 11 86th Street,I believe.
15:32 12 Q Okay.
15:32 13 A Or Avenue.
15:32 14 MR. ZEHNDER: Ms. Price, can you go to page 3
15:32 15 of CP-34.
15:32 16 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:32 17 Q Included in this document that the Legislature
15:32 18 produced to us on page 3 here is the data that you
15:32 19 would have utilized to perform your functional
15:32 20 analysis; correct?
15:32 21 A Yes.
15:32 22 Q And this is also election performance data;
15:32 23 right?
15:32 24 A Yes.
15:32 25 Q So you definitely had this data available once
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 251 173
15:32 1 you drew these districts; correct?
15:32 2 A Once we drew them, yes.
15:32 3 Q And, of course, it was important for you to
15:32 4 look at this data and study it very closely, because
15:32 5 these were minority districts; right?
15:32 6 A Yes.
15:32 7 Q And you would have been able to utilize this
15:32 8 data to assess the political performance in the
15:32 9 districts; right?
15:32 10 A Yes.
15:32 11 Q And also, based on these charts, you know
15:33 12 something, at least, about the demographics of the
15:33 13 district the way you've drawn it, in terms of the
15:33 14 percent of African-Americans and the percent of
15:33 15 Hispanics that are in the district?
15:33 16 A Primarily Hispanics for this district, but
15:33 17 yes.
15:33 18 Q So in terms of performance, at the time you
15:33 19 drew this -- this version, which is the one you
15:33 20 selected, you knew, for example, that the Democratic
15:33 21 performance of this version for CD-26 under the 2010
15:33 22 governor's race was 48 percent; right?
15:33 23 A For that particular race,I believe, for the
15:33 24 district -- yes, 48 percent, yes.
15:33 25 Q And you also knew that the Democratic
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 252 174
15:33 1 performance for the 2000 -- 2008 presidential race was
15:33 2 48.3 percent; right?
15:33 3 A Yes. But you can also note the 2012
15:33 4 presidential race where the district performed 52
15:33 5 percent for Obama.
15:33 6 Q No question about it. You've got political
15:33 7 data for all sorts of races; right?
15:33 8 A That's right.
15:34 9 Q So you knew, looking at this, that the
15:34 10 performance, at least in those two races, the 2008
15:34 11 presidential and the 2010 gubernatorial, that the
15:34 12 performance for Democrats in District 26 you drew here
15:34 13 was even lower than the performance for Democrats in
15:34 14 CD-26 that was in the invalid configuration in 9047;
15:34 15 correct?
15:34 16 AI actually don't know, because we didn't look
15:34 17 at that data.
15:34 18 Q Okay. Well, you did look at the performance
15:34 19 data when you drew this district; right?
15:34 20 A For the new district, yes.
15:34 21 Q You didn't go back and compare it to how it
15:34 22 performed in relation to the 9047 --
15:34 23 AI don't believe that we did, no.
15:34 24 Q The 9047 map?
15:34 25 AI don't believe that we did.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 253 175
15:34 1 MR. ZEHNDER: Ms. Price, can you pull up Joint
15:34 2 Trial Exhibit 3, please.
15:34 3 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:34 4 Q I show you what the parties have admitted into
15:35 5 evidence --
15:35 6 MR. ZEHNDER: By the way, Your Honor, CP-34 is
15:35 7 in evidence already as well. That was part of the
15:35 8 stipulated exhibits.
15:35 9 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:35 10 Q This also is in evidence as Joint Trial
15:35 11 Exhibit 3. You see that that's 9057; correct?
15:35 12 A Yes.
15:35 13 Q That's the 2014 Congressional remedial plan;
15:35 14 right?
15:35 15 A Yes, sir.
15:35 16 Q And for purposes of this discussion, you agree
15:35 17 with me that the configuration of CDs 26 and 27 in
15:35 18 this map is the same as what it was in 9047?
15:35 19 A Yes.
15:35 20 Q The Legislature didn't have to change those
15:35 21 two districts for purposes of the remedial map;
15:35 22 correct?
15:35 23 A Correct.
15:35 24 Q By the way, were you involved in the drawing
15:35 25 of these two CDs, 9047 and 9057?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 254 176
15:35 1 A Yes.
15:35 2 Q And did you participate in performing a
15:35 3 functional analysis of those districts at the time to
15:35 4 ensure that they preserved the ability to elect for
15:35 5 Hispanics and didn't retrogress?
15:35 6 A Either myself or the staff director at the
15:36 7 time, Alex Kelly, did.I don't remember specifically
15:36 8 doing a functional analysis there. It would have been
15:36 9 done by either he or I.
15:36 10 Q Okay.
15:36 11 MR. ZEHNDER: Can we go quickly to page 2 of
15:36 12 this exhibit, Ms. Price?
15:36 13 Thank you.
15:36 14 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:36 15 Q Okay. So page 2 shows us performance data for
15:36 16 all the districts in this map; correct?
15:36 17 A Yes.
15:36 18 Q And you can see there that in 9057 and 9047,
15:36 19 the Democratic performance for CD-26 in the 2010
15:36 20 governor's race was 49.9 percent; right?
15:36 21 THE COURT: If he's looking, you're going to
15:36 22 have to magnify it. I'm sure you can't read it
15:36 23 from there.
15:36 24 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:36 25 Q See the top there?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 255 177
15:36 1 A Yes.
15:36 2 Q Okay. And the Democratic performance for the
15:36 3 2008 presidential race in this map was 49.8 percent.
15:37 4 See that?
15:37 5 A Yes.
15:37 6 Q And those percentages actually reflect lower
15:37 7 Republican performance in CD-26 in this map that the
15:37 8 Supreme Court invalidated than what you drew and
15:37 9 proposed in the maps today; right?
15:37 10 A You would have to put them back up so I can
15:37 11 compare them, but I will -- yes.
15:37 12 Q Well, you had, for example, in the governor's
15:37 13 race under 9071 you have 48 percent Democratic
15:37 14 performance, and in this map you have 49.9 percent.
15:37 15 A For that particular election, yes. But as you
15:37 16 noted before, we have a multitude of elections to look
15:37 17 at.
15:37 18 Q Sure. And the presidential results, 48.3
15:37 19 percent in 9071 and 49.8 percent in 9047 and 9057;
15:38 20 right?
15:38 21 A Yes.
15:38 22 Q So just so I understand, as a means to correct
15:38 23 the problem that the Supreme Court identified, which
15:38 24 was that the Legislature had figured out a way,
15:38 25 through the split of Homestead in that instance, to
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 256 178
15:38 1 draw CDs 26 and 27 in a way that would improve
15:38 2 Republican performance in 26, your solution to that
15:38 3 was to draw a configuration that even further improved
15:38 4 Republican performance in CD-26; correct?
15:38 5 A No. We drew a district that -- we didn't look
15:38 6 at any of the political performance. We didn't know
15:38 7 the results until after the district had already been
15:38 8 drawn.
15:38 9 Q Right. And once you drew them and looked at
15:38 10 the performance, you saw that you had managed to
15:38 11 draw -- both configurations you had drawn were better
15:38 12 performing for Republicans in CD-26 than in the
15:38 13 invalidated version of CD-26 in 9047; right?
15:38 14 A We looked at the data to determine if the four
15:39 15 districts we had drawn in both drafts would perform as
15:39 16 minority districts. Because we didn't pick areas to
15:39 17 add population to based on political performance, we
15:39 18 didn't compare that to how the district had previously
15:39 19 performed. All we were determining was whether or not
15:39 20 these two districts would perform for minority
15:39 21 candidates.
15:39 22 Q So based on the two alternatives that you
15:39 23 drew, you knew that whichever one ultimately got
15:39 24 selected, Republicans would do better in CD-26 than
15:39 25 they had under the enacted map and the remedial map;
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 257 179
15:39 1 correct?
15:39 2 AI didn't know that, no.
15:39 3 Q You knew that once you saw the data?
15:39 4 A Again, we didn't compare it to the previous
15:39 5 maps, so I did not know that.
15:39 6 Q Now, ultimately, as you've said, you didn't
15:39 7 choose the option that was in CD-35, the one with
15:39 8 Homestead all in District 27; you picked the other
15:39 9 one, with Homestead in 26. And as between the two,
15:39 10 that is the one that performs best in CD-26 for
15:40 11 Republicans; right?
15:40 12 A Again,I didn't -- at the time we did not
15:40 13 compare it that way, so I don't -- we didn't use the
15:40 14 political data for those purposes. So I don't -- I
15:40 15 can't answer that question.
15:40 16 Q So it's just a coincidence that the
15:40 17 configuration that staff recommended and that went
15:40 18 forward was the configuration that performed best for
15:40 19 Republicans in 26; right?
15:40 20 AI guess you could say that. We didn't look at
15:40 21 that data.
15:40 22 Q Now, you explained during the special session
15:40 23 and some today as well that you were trying to follow
15:40 24 major roads as much as possible when you set about to
15:40 25 draw these districts; correct?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 258 180
15:40 1 A Yes.
15:40 2 Q But isn't it correct, sir, that of the two
15:40 3 options that you drew, you picked the one that
15:40 4 followed roads less faithfully than the other?
15:40 5 AI would not agree with that.
15:41 6 Q Okay.
15:41 7 MR. ZEHNDER: Let's take a look at
15:41 8 Demonstrative 5, please, Ms. Price.
15:41 9 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:41 10 Q So this is a demonstrative that we created
15:41 11 that puts your two alternatives side by side. Do you
15:41 12 recognize those?
15:41 13 A Yes.
15:41 14 Q Okay. And so here on the left we have the
15:41 15 alternative that puts Homestead in CD-26, and on the
15:41 16 right, the alternative that puts Homestead in CD-27;
15:41 17 right?
15:41 18 A Yes.
15:41 19 Q And you see that in the version that you
15:41 20 didn't select, north of Homestead, you start out on
15:41 21 U.S. Highway 1, a major road in South Florida; right?
15:41 22 A Yes.
15:41 23 Q And you take it all the way up until you hit
15:41 24 another state road, and then you stay on another state
15:41 25 road, and then you finish out the district in the same
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 259 181
15:41 1 way as in the configuration on the left; right?
15:42 2 A Yes.
15:42 3 Q So in north Homestead you don't deviate off a
15:42 4 major road at all?
15:42 5 A Yes.
15:42 6 Q So the configuration you picked on the left,
15:42 7 you see that once again you started out on U.S. 1, and
15:42 8 then you curved off north onto the Turnpike, and then
15:42 9 right around Richmond Heights you go off the Turnpike,
15:42 10 continue north, and then head east, again, not on a
15:42 11 major road, head north some more.I guess this is on
15:42 12 97th Avenue; right?
15:42 13 A Yes.
15:42 14 Q Before you ultimately rejoin State Road 973
15:42 15 and finish out the district the --
15:42 16 AI would argue that actually -- when you're
15:42 17 saying we're departing from roads, we did not depart
15:42 18 from roads where you're claiming that we are. We used
15:42 19 Southwest 97th Avenue, and where we leave the Turnpike
15:42 20 there, we did that along a roadway. And again, we go
15:42 21 through a neighborhood as we do in the other draft to
15:42 22 achieve equal population.
15:42 23 So the part that goes east-west in that
15:42 24 district --
15:42 25 Q This part here?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 260 182
15:42 1 A That part there,I will grant you that, that
15:43 2 is not a major road. That is going through a
15:43 3 neighborhood to equalize population.
15:43 4 The two northern roads on both sides,I would
15:43 5 disagree with your interpretation that we were
15:43 6 departing from major roadways there.
15:43 7 Q Even if we accept your explanation there, this
15:43 8 area here departs from a major road, and you don't
15:43 9 have that departure in the configuration on the right;
15:43 10 correct?
15:43 11 A You do. Because if you look on the western
15:43 12 side of Homestead there --
15:43 13 Q This here?
15:43 14 A-- is an area -- yes -- where we have to
15:43 15 depart from major roads as well.
15:43 16 Q All right. And you departed from major roads
15:43 17 more on the left than you have down here on the right;
15:43 18 correct?
15:43 19 AI wouldn't agree with your interpretation of
15:43 20 that.
15:43 21 Q Well, you think those distances are the same,
15:43 22 sir?
15:43 23 AI don't think the actual distance necessarily
15:43 24 matters. When you're talking about the departure to
15:43 25 equalize population, you're going to do that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 261 183
15:43 1 throughout the map. Where you can minimize that,
15:43 2 that's great. But where you're unable to do that due
15:43 3 to equal population, we did it as little as possible.
15:44 4 And I don't believe your characterization of
15:44 5 what we did was improper.
15:44 6 MR. ZEHNDER: Ms. Price, let's go back to
15:44 7 CP-34 and see if we can zoom in again there on the
15:44 8 configuration on the lower left.
15:44 9 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:44 10 Q Now, if I understand your testimony from the
15:44 11 special session and -- and what you gave earlier today
15:44 12 with Mr. Meros, you explained that the reason you went
15:44 13 off of U.S. 1 here right around,I guess, Cutler Bay
15:44 14 and onto the Turnpike was so that you could equalize
15:44 15 population between the two districts because you were
15:44 16 gaining population in 26 by putting Homestead in there
15:44 17 entirely; correct?
15:44 18 A Yes.
15:44 19 Q Okay. Of course, you didn't have to go up the
15:44 20 Turnpike to find a way to equalize population between
15:44 21 the two districts; right?
15:44 22 A No. We picked the most major road in the
15:44 23 area.
15:45 24 Q I mean, we just looked at the other
15:45 25 configuration, the one you rejected, and you stayed on
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 262 184
15:45 1 U.S. 1 the whole way and still managed to equalize
15:45 2 population between the two districts; correct?
15:45 3 A It's two different -- you're putting the city
15:45 4 in different districts. You can't really -- in this
15:45 5 version we put Homestead entirely within 26. So we
15:45 6 were unable to follow U.S. 1 further, because we're
15:45 7 trying to add population to District 27. So it's
15:45 8 therefore going to push further west. At some point
15:45 9 you're going to have to do that.
15:45 10 So in order to do that, we picked the most
15:45 11 major road, even more major than U.S. 1 or the Dixie
15:45 12 Highway in that area, and we picked the Florida
15:45 13 Turnpike.
15:45 14 Q And just so I understand it, this is the area
15:45 15 here that you used to equalize the population between
15:45 16 the two districts; right?
15:45 17 A Yes.
15:45 18 Q Okay. And if I understood your testimony
15:45 19 earlier, you said that you had no idea -- in fact,
15:45 20 none of the drawers did in the room -- that that area
15:45 21 was three African-American enclaves that you utilized
15:46 22 to equalize population?
15:46 23 AI will speak for myself right now, but I had
15:46 24 no idea.
15:46 25 Q Did anybody discuss the fact that those were
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 263 185
15:46 1 African-Americans?
15:46 2 A It never came up.I don't believe that my
15:46 3 other fellow map drawers had any idea as well. It
15:46 4 never came up. We never discussed it. But I don't
15:46 5 want to speak for them.
15:46 6 Q So even though you know, for example, on 97th
15:46 7 Avenue that there is a hospital and a city park and a
15:46 8 high school,I think you said, you didn't know that
15:46 9 that area of the state here was African-American?
15:46 10 A No.
15:46 11 Q So if you didn't know it just by looking at
15:46 12 it, in your general familiarity with the state and
15:46 13 South Florida in particular, you certainly had the
15:46 14 data in your possession that could have revealed that
15:46 15 to you; right?
15:46 16 A But we did not look at it -- let me further
15:47 17 explain that the reason why we can see hospitals and
15:47 18 things like that is because we can see the satellite
15:47 19 view of Bing maps. In the map that we're drawing you
15:47 20 can't -- unless you turn the data on, you cannot see
15:47 21 if the population is Hispanic or black or Republican
15:47 22 or Democrat or anything else.
15:47 23 The only data we had turned on was total
15:47 24 population. So there would have been no way for us to
15:47 25 physically see that.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 264 186
15:47 1 Q And that's -- you're talking about at the
15:47 2 actual time you drew the line in the -- in the
15:47 3 redistricting suite; right?
15:47 4 A Yes, sir.
15:47 5 Q But right after that, once you had drawn the
15:47 6 configurations, you had the data available to you to
15:47 7 understand what the demographics of these districts
15:47 8 was; right?
15:47 9 A Well, the overall demographics. We did not
15:47 10 turn on the data to look at specific neighborhoods and
15:47 11 look at the census blocks to determine what areas were
15:47 12 Democratic or Republican or black or Hispanic.
15:47 13 We had the overall statistics of the 696,000
15:48 14 people in the district. We did not look at the data
15:48 15 individually by neighborhood, so we didn't know that
15:48 16 that area was predominantly African-American.
15:48 17 Q Let's talk about the data that you did have.
15:48 18 Let's go back to CP-34. There you go. You're already
15:48 19 on it. If you go to page 2 of that document. And
15:48 20 let's go ahead and expand this upper right-hand corner
15:48 21 here.
15:48 22 What I wanted to show you here was among the
15:48 23 data generated in the reports that you said you
15:48 24 created shortly after you drew these districts, you
15:48 25 had data that showed you that the black VAP in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 265 187
15:48 1 District 26 that you had drawn in this configuration
15:48 2 was 8.2 percent; right?
15:48 3 A Yes.
15:48 4 MR. ZEHNDER: And, Ang, if you could go
15:48 5 quickly to CP-35?
15:48 6 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:48 7 Q This, Mr. Poreda, is the other configuration
15:49 8 that you guys drew of 26 and 27; right? Is that a
15:49 9 yes? I'm sorry?
15:49 10 A Sorry. Yes.
15:49 11 MR. ZEHNDER: Page 2, please, Ang. And you
15:49 12 can highlight the same area.
15:49 13 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:49 14 Q You can see there that the BVAP is 9.1 percent
15:49 15 black; right?
15:49 16 A Yes.
15:49 17 Q It's almost a percentage point higher than the
15:49 18 configuration we just looked at; right?
15:49 19 A Yes.
15:49 20 Q And the configuration we looked at first was
15:49 21 the one that had all of Homestead whole in 26;
15:49 22 correct?
15:49 23 A Yes.
15:49 24 Q And you know, I'm sure, that the demographic
15:49 25 mix of Homestead is -- there is a significant
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 266 188
15:49 1 African-American percentage in that city; correct?
15:49 2 AI actually didn't know that. But okay.
15:49 3 Q Well, one of the ways that CD-26 was improved
15:49 4 in terms of Republican performance was in -- in 9047
15:49 5 was to divide Homestead and take those
15:49 6 African-American Democratic voters and put them in 27;
15:49 7 you know that; right?
15:49 8 A That's what the Court said.I did not know
15:49 9 that.I actually did not know that prior to the Court
15:50 10 saying that.
15:50 11 Q So if you are looking at BVAP, and you've
15:50 12 taken Homestead and put it whole in 26, knowing now
15:50 13 that the African-American population, that there is a
15:50 14 significant population of African-Americans in
15:50 15 Homestead, you would expect the BVAP of 26 to be
15:50 16 higher than the BVAP of the district that doesn't
15:50 17 have -- the version of 26 that doesn't have Homestead
15:50 18 whole in it; correct?
15:50 19 A We didn't -- that wasn't a consideration -- we
15:50 20 didn't look at BVAP, because these are Hispanic --
15:50 21 majority Hispanic districts. So we concentrated on
15:50 22 that data point.
15:50 23 Q You didn't look at BVAP at all for purposes of
15:50 24 your functional analysis?
15:50 25 A No. It was not necessary, since they were
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 267 189
15:50 1 Hispanic majority-minority districts.
15:50 2 Q Had you looked at it, you would have seen sort
15:50 3 of the opposite of what you would expect; right? If
15:50 4 you're putting Homestead whole in 26, you would expect
15:50 5 the BVAP to be higher. But as it turns out, you've
15:51 6 got a higher BVAP in the version of 26 that doesn't
15:51 7 have Homestead in it; right?
15:51 8 MR. MEROS: Objection, Your Honor. Now Mr.--
15:51 9 THE COURT: He's already said he didn't
15:51 10 include it. What he would expect or not expect --
15:51 11 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:51 12 Q Well, let me make sure I understand.
15:51 13 These are minority districts; correct?
15:51 14 A Hispanic minority districts.
15:51 15 Q Hispanic minority districts. And as you've
15:51 16 testified in the special session and here today, the
15:51 17 functional analysis associated with these districts
15:51 18 is -- it's difficult; right? It's complicated?
15:51 19 A It is a complicated area, looking at the
15:51 20 Hispanic population in that area, yes.
15:51 21 Q And isn't it correct, sir, that one of the
15:51 22 reasons it's complicated is because you have a mix of
15:51 23 African-Americans and Hispanics in these districts,
15:51 24 and so when you're drawing the district, the
15:51 25 Hispanic-performing district, you need to make sure
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 268 190
15:51 1 you understand how many African-Americans are in that
15:51 2 district as it relates to the number of Hispanics in
15:52 3 that district; right?
15:52 4 AI think the district is -- it's complicated
15:52 5 enough solely looking at the Hispanic population.I
15:52 6 don't believe that I really necessarily considered
15:52 7 the -- the black voting age population as the deciding
15:52 8 factor in either of these districts.
15:52 9 Q Okay. Just so I'm clear, it's your testimony
15:52 10 for purposes of doing a functional analysis of these
15:52 11 CDs, you don't need to worry about the percentage of
15:52 12 blacks in the district versus their ratio to the
15:52 13 percentage of Hispanics?
15:52 14 A For our purposes, which is a more high level
15:52 15 functional analysis,I do not think it was necessary.
15:52 16 That's part of the reason why we wanted -- after we
15:52 17 had picked versions of the district, we wanted an
15:52 18 expert who is more familiar with the populations of
15:52 19 this area of the state to weigh in and make sure that
15:52 20 what we had done in our analysis was accurate, because
15:52 21 it is so complicated.
15:52 22 We focused on the Hispanic populations. Even
15:53 23 among the Hispanic populations, because it is not --
15:53 24 the Hispanic population in that area is not
15:53 25 predominantly -- it's mostly Republican; it's about 47
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 269 191
15:53 1 percent Republican. But there is a very high
15:53 2 percentage of Democrat Hispanics as well and a very
15:53 3 large Independent population.
15:53 4 So that in and of itself, just looking at that
15:53 5 Hispanic population, it's very difficult.
15:53 6 Q And if you're concerned about retrogressing
15:53 7 the Hispanic Democratic population in those districts,
15:53 8 you would want to be mindful of the percent of blacks
15:53 9 in that district; correct?
15:53 10 A No, not necessarily. You can look at the
15:53 11 Hispanic population, as I stated.
15:53 12 MR. ZEHNDER: Can you show us demonstrative
15:53 13 14, please.
15:53 14 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
15:53 15 Q You still have the side-by-side?
15:53 16 A Yes, sir.
15:53 17 Q Mr. Meros asked you a couple of questions
15:53 18 about this in District 20.I just wanted to come back
15:53 19 to that.
15:53 20 As I understood it, you were suggesting that
15:53 21 in CP-1, with this additional appendage here, that
15:54 22 that created a potential problem with the
15:54 23 configuration of District 20; is that right?
15:54 24 A That is something -- that is an idea that we
15:54 25 explored very briefly. But we ruled it out as being a
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 270 192
15:54 1 problem, yes.
15:54 2 Q And that was because, in your analysis, you
15:54 3 were adding a third appendage?
15:54 4 A Yes.
15:54 5 Q Well, you see that in CP-1 you're actually
15:54 6 removing this appendage; right?
15:54 7 AI would consider that as part of the northern
15:54 8 appendage that is still there. Granted, it changes a
15:54 9 little bit.
15:54 10 But adding an entirely different area that
15:54 11 would not have previously been an appendage, that is
15:54 12 not something that we were, at the time, for the
15:54 13 district we were drawing, that we were willing to
15:54 14 consider.
15:54 15 Q And in terms of this offshoot, you see that in
15:54 16 CP-1 we have actually made that offshoot smaller;
15:54 17 right? Less of an incursion; right?
15:54 18 AI wouldn't necessarily agree with that. But
15:54 19 okay.
15:54 20 Q You don't think this appendage is smaller than
15:55 21 this one?
15:55 22 AI think they're --I can't really see it very
15:55 23 well.I think that there's still an appendage. It's
15:55 24 still -- well,I have that right here.
15:55 25 I mean, one gets a little shorter and fatter,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 271 193
15:55 1 and the other is longer and skinnier. So I'm not
15:55 2 really sure I would necessarily say that one would be
15:55 3 better than the other.
15:55 4 Q Well, one extends from Pompano Beach all the
15:55 5 way past Deerfield Beach to the north, and the other
15:55 6 stops just north of Pompano; right?
15:55 7 A Yes. But one, like I said, is shorter and
15:55 8 fatter, and the other is skinnier and longer.
15:55 9 Q And you also know as a result of this
15:55 10 configuration of District 20 in CP-1 that we have
15:55 11 gained city splits; correct? We have less city splits
15:55 12 as a result of that configuration of District 20?
15:55 13 AI believe that's correct, yes.
15:55 14 Q As you and Mr. Zakia covered, that is an
15:55 15 improvement to the map; right?
15:55 16 A Not necessarily, because, again, you have to
15:56 17 look at the totality of the circumstances and adding
15:56 18 that third appendage that you're adding to CD-20.
15:56 19 Q And you know that, notwithstanding what you've
15:56 20 characterized here as the third appendage, the
15:56 21 compactness scores for District 20 in CP-1 are the
15:56 22 same as District 20 in 9071; right?
15:56 23 AI wouldn't say that either district is more
15:56 24 compact than the other. They're both very uncompact
15:56 25 districts. And when looking at minority districts in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 272 194
15:56 1 that way, not looking at the compactness of the
15:56 2 minority communities within the district, but looking
15:56 3 at the overall compactness of the district like you
15:56 4 would a nonminority district, you can't really compare
15:56 5 those scores; they're not as telling as another type
15:56 6 of district.
15:56 7 Adding a third appendage is -- is,I think,
15:56 8 adding more problems to the district than just looking
15:56 9 solely at compactness scores at that point.
15:56 10 Q But if you do look at the compactness scores
15:56 11 you see that they're basically the same; right?
15:57 12 AI think that that is an example of a flaw in
15:57 13 that lateral compactness, and why you can't solely
15:57 14 rely on that lateral compactness as being a better,
15:57 15 more compact district.
15:57 16 Q Mr. Poreda, were you part of any discussions
15:57 17 about whether or not it would have been a good idea or
15:57 18 whether you should have a court reporter during the
15:57 19 base map-drawing sessions or otherwise had some sort
15:57 20 of audio recording of that session?
15:57 21 A No.
15:57 22 Q Did anybody in your presence ever discuss that
15:57 23 issue?
15:57 24 A No.
15:57 25 Q Do you know why the base map-drawing sessions
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 273 195
15:57 1 were not in public?
15:57 2 A Well, they -- first of all, we're waiving all
15:57 3 our privilege to those conversations. But we were
15:57 4 drawing a map that would be drawn in a way that was
15:57 5 insulated from any potential outside influences and
15:57 6 drawing that clean map in a way that was insulated
15:58 7 from all of those outside influences as a starting
15:58 8 point of what was a due process.
15:58 9 So if we had a map that we could answer
15:58 10 questions with and move forward that began without any
15:58 11 outside influence was preferential.
15:58 12 Q All right. There wouldn't be any outside
15:58 13 influence if you just televised through web streaming
15:58 14 or live on the Florida Channel, for example, your
15:58 15 map-drawing session for the base map; right?
15:58 16 A Well, again, our conversations are not
15:58 17 privileged that took place in that room. So feel free
15:58 18 to ask me anything that happened in those rooms, and I
15:58 19 will be happy to answer.
15:58 20 Q I understand that.I have to rely on your
15:58 21 memory to tell us what happened during those
15:58 22 map-drawing sessions; right?
15:58 23 A And the memory of my colleagues.
15:58 24 Q You would agree with me, of course, having a
15:58 25 transcript that recorded what everybody said would be
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 274 196
15:58 1 a lot better than relying on folks' memories; right?
15:58 2 A Not necessarily. But --
15:58 3 Q Not necessarily?
15:58 4 A No.
15:58 5 MR. ZEHNDER: Okay. No further questions,
15:58 6 Mr. Poreda.
15:59 7 THE COURT: Mr. Devaney?
15:59 8 CROSS EXAMINATION
15:59 9 BY MR. DEVANEY:
15:59 10 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Poreda. John Devaney for
15:59 11 the Romo plaintiffs.
15:59 12 In drawing 9701, did you consider any of the
15:59 13 testimony that was put forth in the special session?
15:59 14 AI don't believe so, no.
15:59 15 Q Were you aware that there is testimony about
15:59 16 communities of interest in CDs 21 and 22?
15:59 17 A There was an amendment that was presented to
15:59 18 our House committee regarding CD-21 and 22, so we
15:59 19 heard some argument along that line, yes.
15:59 20 Q Okay. And did you evaluate any public
15:59 21 testimony relating to communities of interest in 21
15:59 22 and 22, or you did not?
16:00 23 A We received some public comment both in the
16:00 24 committee meetings and written comment that was
16:00 25 submitted to us.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 275 197
16:00 1 Q And did you give those comments any weight?
16:00 2 A No, because we were unable to do so.
16:00 3 Q Why were you unable to do so?
16:00 4 A Because communities of interest in districts
16:00 5 that are not a minority district don't have any
16:00 6 relevance. The Florida Supreme Court said so in
16:00 7 apportionment 1.
16:00 8 Q So your position in drawing maps with
16:00 9 communities of interest, other than minority
16:00 10 districts, have no relevance at all; is that correct?
16:00 11 A When -- they may have some relevance if you
16:00 12 can comply with Tier 2 or Tier 1 standards. But
16:00 13 beyond that, no.
16:00 14 Q But just to be clear, while they may have some
16:00 15 relevance, you didn't consider communities of interest
16:00 16 in drawing 21 and 22; is that correct?
16:00 17 A No.
16:00 18 Q When you -- let me back up.
16:00 19 You participated in the drawing of the --I
16:01 20 will just call it the 2012-2014 Congressional maps;
16:01 21 correct?
16:01 22 A Yes.
16:01 23 Q And when you drew those maps, did you take
16:01 24 into consideration whether incumbents should or should
16:01 25 not be paired in the same district?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 276 198
16:01 1 A Not while we were drawing either of the maps,
16:01 2 no.
16:01 3 Q I'm just curious, why didn't you take that
16:01 4 into consideration?
16:01 5 A We didn't consider whether we were pairing or
16:01 6 not pairing any of the incumbents. We didn't know
16:01 7 where any of them lived or anything.
16:01 8 Q Did you feel that looking at that was
16:01 9 prohibited by the Fair Districts amendments?
16:01 10 A Yes. Because if we were to effectively pair
16:01 11 or not pair an incumbent on purpose, that would be
16:01 12 favoring or disfavoring an incumbent, which is
16:01 13 specifically prohibited by the constitution.
16:01 14 Q And, as you said, the constitution prohibits
16:01 15 disfavoring an incumbent. What does that mean in your
16:01 16 mind?
16:01 17 A That would be if we were to be drawing a
16:01 18 district to specifically disfavor them in some way,
16:02 19 which could be a variety of different reasons.
16:02 20 Q And it's your view that pairing incumbents in
16:02 21 the same district is not a disfavorment; is that
16:02 22 correct?
16:02 23 A Incumbents who happen to be paired --I mean,
16:02 24 I'm sure they would probably tell you that they were
16:02 25 disfavored. But we did not draw any districts with
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 277 199
16:02 1 the intent to disfavor. That's kind of the important
16:02 2 point, the result or the intent of doing so.
16:02 3 Q But would you agree that pairing incumbents in
16:02 4 the same district does disfavor them?
16:02 5 A Yes.
16:02 6 Q Did you attempt to draw a version of 21 and 22
16:02 7 that did not pair incumbents in the same district?
16:02 8 A No.
16:02 9 MR. DEVANEY: Thank you. That's all I have.
16:02 10 THE COURT: Redirect?
16:02 11 MR. MEROS: Yes.
16:02 12 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
16:02 13 BY MR. MEROS:
16:02 14 Q Mr. Poreda, let me go from the back -- from
16:03 15 the most recent backwards. Do you recall in
16:03 16 reapportionment 1 -- in reapportionment 7 and in 1,
16:03 17 but I will quote from reapportionment 7, "We reject
16:03 18 any suggestion that the Legislature is required to
16:03 19 compensation for a natural packing effect of urban
16:03 20 Democrats in order to create a fair plan. We also
16:03 21 reject the suggestion that, once the political results
16:03 22 of the plan are known, the Legislature must alter the
16:03 23 plan to bring it more in balance with the composition
16:03 24 of voters statewide.
16:03 25 "The Florida Constitution does not require the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 278 200
16:03 1 affirmative creation of a fair plan, but rather a
16:03 2 neutral one in which no improper intent was involved."
16:03 3 Do you recall that?
16:03 4 A Yes.
16:03 5 Q And is that part of your charge in the map
16:03 6 drawing that you have done over the years?
16:03 7 AI think very much so, yes.
16:03 8 Q And so, in fact, if you sit there, and you
16:03 9 have a list of incumbents, and you are drawing maps
16:03 10 with that in mind, is that helpful to you to draw
16:04 11 without intent to favor or disfavor an incumbent?
16:04 12 A To have a list?
16:04 13 Q Yes.
16:04 14 A That would be extremely difficult to -- if we
16:04 15 had a list to draw districts, because we would then
16:04 16 know where they all are, and it would be very, very
16:04 17 difficult.
16:04 18 Q Doesn't that suggest that if you have a list
16:04 19 of incumbents, if you have other data such as that,
16:04 20 and you were trying to comply with the neutral
16:04 21 criteria, that would be clear evidence that you had an
16:04 22 intent to favor or disfavor a political party or
16:04 23 incumbent?
16:04 24 A Yes.
16:04 25 Q But you didn't do that; did you?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 279 201
16:04 1 A We did not.
16:04 2 Q And, in fact, when you and the House drew the
16:04 3 Florida House of Representatives map, there were 20 or
16:04 4 30 Republicans paired and a number of Democrats
16:04 5 paired; do you recall that?
16:04 6 AI don't recall the exact number. But I know
16:04 7 that there was a significant portion of the House body
16:05 8 of both Democrat and Republican that ended up being
16:05 9 paired, yes.
16:05 10 Q And there were key members of House leadership
16:05 11 that were paired by virtue of what you, as map
16:05 12 drawers, did; do you remember that?
16:05 13 A Yes.
16:05 14 Q And do you remember being lauded for that by
16:05 15 these very same folks, that that shows that there --
16:05 16 that there was no intent, mal intent in what you were
16:05 17 doing?
16:05 18 AI don't remember who lauded us for that, but I
16:05 19 remember that --I believe in apportionment 1 that was
16:05 20 brought up by the Florida Supreme Court as being a
16:05 21 good part of what we did in that map.
16:05 22 Q Now let's go to the question about whether or
16:05 23 not the map-drawing process was to be recorded, or
16:05 24 even more important, you had a TV and a live stream.
16:05 25 Did you ever have any concern about whether,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 280 202
16:05 1 if you were in a -- in making an effort to draw a map
16:05 2 compliant with what the Court did, and that was being
16:06 3 live streamed to our friends in the media here, and
16:06 4 our friends in the media here were immediately
16:06 5 blogging and retweeting the impact of what you were
16:06 6 doing, did it ever occur to you that that's not
16:06 7 necessarily a good thing, that you would be infected
16:06 8 with things as you were trying to draw the map?
16:06 9 A If we were told of those results as they were
16:06 10 being blogged or live tweeted, that would be a bad
16:06 11 thing in my opinion, yes.
16:06 12 Q And might you have accidental access to that
16:06 13 information if you have a TV camera, and people are
16:06 14 broadcasting what they believe to be the impacts on
16:06 15 radio and TV or the Internet?
16:06 16 MR. ZEHNDER: Your Honor,I object. He's
16:06 17 leading the witness.
16:06 18 THE COURT: About as leading as I've heard, so
16:06 19 I agree.
16:06 20 MR. MEROS: He's absolutely right.
16:06 21 BY MR. MEROS:
16:06 22 Q And were you comfortable or uncomfortable with
16:06 23 the notion that there was a place where those impacts
16:06 24 would not have any chance of being felt in this base
16:07 25 map process?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 281 203
16:07 1 A It actually gave great comfort to me, as I
16:07 2 have full faith in myself and my fellow map drawers.
16:07 3 And to be isolated like that where we could spend the
16:07 4 time needed to draw these maps without any outside
16:07 5 influence,I think that was a great comfort to make
16:07 6 sure that the base map was a good map.
16:07 7 Q And within a few days after that, when you
16:07 8 presented the -- your evaluation, your analysis to the
16:07 9 Legislature, did you share with the public and the
16:07 10 Legislature all of the information that you had while
16:07 11 you were in that base map process?
16:07 12 A Yes. All of the drafts, all of the reports
16:07 13 that we had all went up on both the Senate and the
16:07 14 House website,I believe.
16:07 15 Q Were committee hearings recorded?
16:07 16 A Yes.
16:07 17 Q And transcribed?
16:07 18 A Yes.
16:07 19 Q Were they televised or live streamed?
16:08 20 AI believe they were, yes.
16:08 21 Q And were there admonitions by the legislative
16:08 22 leaders about when or if legislators could discuss
16:08 23 information relating to those maps outside of the
16:08 24 noticed hearing?
16:08 25 A Yes.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 282 204
16:08 1 Q And were -- and were most, if not all,
16:08 2 conversations required to be in the public thereafter?
16:08 3 A Yes. Anytime where we were making a decision
16:08 4 about changing lines on the map, those final decisions
16:08 5 were all made in public.
16:08 6 Q Considering what Mr. Zehnder was talking to
16:08 7 you about in District 20, tell us a little bit about
16:08 8 the original history of District 20 and its
16:08 9 configuration, as you recall.
16:08 10 AI can speak to the 2002 district, which is a
16:08 11 district that looks similar to what we have now, but
16:08 12 it did have that third appendage that went further
16:09 13 south. It may have even gone into Miami-Dade County.
16:09 14 It went into Hendry County, which we no longer could
16:09 15 do. And it extended as far north as Ft. Pierce in
16:09 16 St. Lucie County.
16:09 17 Q So all the way from Ft. Pierce possibly to
16:09 18 Dade County?
16:09 19 A Yes.
16:09 20 Q Did that receive criticism over the years?
16:09 21 A Very much so.
16:09 22 Q And was it, for your purposes, worth creating
16:09 23 a third appendage again in order to pick up nine
16:09 24 cities?
16:09 25 A No.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 283 205
16:09 1 Q Why not?
16:09 2 A Well, we were -- in this base map process and
16:09 3 this legislative process, because we have the burden
16:09 4 of proof where we had to defend all of the decisions
16:09 5 that we made in the map, adding a third appendage
16:09 6 would have opened our map up to further criticism and
16:09 7 further questions, whether we intended to do that
16:09 8 improperly or not.
16:09 9 It certainly would have added a lot of
16:09 10 question marks, since we were criticized for adding
16:09 11 appendages, like the one we did in CD-5 in Seminole
16:10 12 County and CD-10 in Orange County and other things in
16:10 13 the previous maps, adding appendages like that for
16:10 14 seemingly very little benefit was not something that
16:10 15 we were prepared to do.
16:10 16 Q Now, Mr. Poreda,I am reading from the
16:10 17 redistricting decision from the Florida Supreme Court
16:10 18 that says:"These districts"-- which are 26 and
16:10 19 27 --"must be redrawn to avoid splitting Homestead."
16:10 20 You've read that?
16:10 21 A Yes.
16:10 22 Q Do you recall any other direction from the
16:10 23 Supreme Court as to what to do other than to split
16:10 24 Homestead?
16:10 25 AI believe that that was the primary objective
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 284 206
16:10 1 that was given to us is to avoid splitting Homestead.
16:10 2 Q And was there any direction, or was there any
16:10 3 effort by -- by the map drawers to keep Homestead
16:10 4 whole, then figure out how many Rs and Ds are in the
16:10 5 district, and then to equalize them?
16:11 6 A No.
16:11 7 Q Would that be consistent with your
16:11 8 understanding of the Florida Constitution?
16:11 9 A No, the way I understand it, if we did that,
16:11 10 it would be a direct violation of the Florida
16:11 11 Constitution.
16:11 12 Q And do I understand correctly that -- or tell
16:11 13 me, did you ever turn on black population screens on
16:11 14 the computer when you were determining or when --
16:11 15 where to equalize population?
16:11 16 A No.
16:11 17 Q Did you ever turn on black population on the
16:11 18 screen at all in what you did with regard to your
16:11 19 drawing of 26 and 27?
16:11 20 A Not with those two districts, no.
16:11 21 Q And as Mr. King said in opening statement, did
16:11 22 you ever find a way or try to find a way to draw
16:11 23 District 26 more Republican than it might have been
16:11 24 before?
16:11 25 A No.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 285 207
16:11 1 Q What did you try to do?
16:12 2 A We tried to not split Homestead and maintain
16:12 3 the minority -- the minority ability -- the minority
16:12 4 community's ability to elect candidates of their
16:12 5 choice in both districts.
16:12 6 MR. MEROS: Thank you. That's all I have.
16:12 7 THE COURT: Anybody else on the Senate side?
16:12 8 MR. ZAKIA: No questions, Your Honor.
16:12 9 MR. ZEHNDER: Your Honor, just real brief?
16:12 10 THE COURT: Go ahead.
16:12 11 RECROSS EXAMINATION
16:12 12 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
16:12 13 Q Mr. Poreda, just a couple of follow-ups.
16:12 14 I think you've testified today that you
16:12 15 studied apportionment 7, read it closely, made sure
16:12 16 you were following the directions of the Court;
16:12 17 correct?
16:12 18 A Yes.
16:12 19 Q Do you recall in apportionment 7 the Court
16:12 20 saying, quote, We encourage the Legislature to conduct
16:12 21 all meetings in which it makes decisions on the new
16:12 22 map in public and to record any nonpublic meetings for
16:12 23 preservation?
16:12 24 A Yes.
16:12 25 Q So notwithstanding the encouragement from the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 286 208
16:12 1 Florida Supreme Court, your group, in drawing the base
16:13 2 map, did not record that meeting in any way; correct?
16:13 3 A No. But the map that we were drawing was a
16:13 4 starting point for the legislative process. Once the
16:13 5 legislative process started, all meetings were --
16:13 6 things were done in public in all the committee
16:13 7 meetings.
16:13 8 Q And many of the decisions that were made
16:13 9 during those private, closed sessions about the map
16:13 10 ended up making it through the legislative process and
16:13 11 are in the maps that the Legislature is offering in
16:13 12 this remedial proceeding; correct?
16:13 13 A Many of the decisions we made in creating the
16:13 14 base map made it into the final map that the House
16:13 15 passed and that the Senate passed.
16:13 16 MR. ZEHNDER: No further questions.
16:13 17 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, may I?
16:13 18 THE COURT: Sure.
16:13 19 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
16:13 20 BY MR. MEROS:
16:13 21 Q Mr. Poreda, was there a single legislative
16:13 22 decision made when any of you were in the
16:13 23 redistricting suite?
16:13 24 A No. And any decision that we made in the
16:13 25 redistricting suite could have been changed by any
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 287 209
16:14 1 member of the Legislature.
16:14 2 Q Could the Legislature have completely rejected
16:14 3 that map and redrawn a map entirely?
16:14 4 A Yes.
16:14 5 Q Could it have changed any of the districts at
16:14 6 issue here?
16:14 7 A Yes.
16:14 8 Q And would those deliberations and those
16:14 9 decisions have been made completely, openly, and
16:14 10 transparently?
16:14 11 A Yes.
16:14 12 Q Speaking of openly and transparently, did you
16:14 13 ever receive any input from the League of Women
16:14 14 Voters, Common Cause, or the Romo plaintiffs about how
16:14 15 those districts should be drawn, other than a letter
16:14 16 saying that they should be drawn more Democratic?
16:14 17 MR. DEVANEY: Your Honor, objection; no
16:14 18 foundation.
16:14 19 THE COURT: Sustained.
16:14 20 MR. MEROS: No more.
16:14 21 THE COURT:I have a couple of questions if
16:14 22 everybody else is done.
16:14 23 EXAMINATION
16:14 24 BY THE COURT:
16:14 25 Q I understood your testimony earlier about you
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 288 210
16:14 1 weren't looking at the best -- best way to do it; you
16:15 2 were looking at a way that was compliant. And I think
16:15 3 that would be entirely appropriate under the standard
16:15 4 where, if the Legislature passed the map and came back
16:15 5 to me as the Supreme Court originally intended,I
16:15 6 would like to see whether it complied with the
16:15 7 direction of the constitution.
16:15 8 Now the direction is, tell me which of these
16:15 9 best complied with what we said and what best meets
16:15 10 the constitution, not just that's compliant.
16:15 11 So my question is, has anybody asked you, or
16:15 12 have you on your own looked at the various maps that
16:15 13 have been proposed to remedy this map?
16:15 14 A I'm -- I'm sorry. What was the question?
16:15 15 Q The question is: Has anybody asked you to, or
16:15 16 have you on your own, looked at any of the other maps
16:15 17 that have been presented to me? Have you?
16:15 18 AI have looked at the other maps, yes.
16:15 19 Q Have you analyzed them in terms of whether
16:15 20 they better comply with the Supreme Court's directions
16:15 21 and the constitution?
16:15 22 A Yes.
16:15 23 Q Okay. Tell me about it. Tell me what your
16:15 24 analysis was and what your conclusions were.
16:16 25 A Okay. The --
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 289 211
16:16 1 Q You can start with any one you want.
16:16 2 A Okay. So I will start with CP-1.
16:16 3 Q Okay.
16:16 4 A The District 27 -- 26 and 27 drawn there,I
16:16 5 believe, have significant problems with their
16:16 6 functional analysis. Both of those districts are --
16:16 7 are more Democratic than we drew, which I would
16:16 8 consider as toss-up districts. The districts drawn in
16:16 9 CP-1 --
16:16 10 Q Let me go back. When you say "functional
16:16 11 analysis,"I thought we were talking about a minority
16:16 12 district and whether minorities could elect somebody
16:16 13 they --
16:16 14 A Yes. But the first part of that analysis is
16:16 15 determining the districts, how they lean politically.
16:16 16 At that point you can look at the Democratic and
16:16 17 Republican primaries, depending on if it leans
16:16 18 Democratic or leans Republican, to determine the
16:16 19 Hispanic's community's influence over those particular
16:16 20 primaries.
16:16 21 When you get to the general election, if you
16:16 22 have a Hispanic candidate who is Republican who cannot
16:17 23 win a general election, because the district itself
16:17 24 leans Democratic, then that minority candidate would
16:17 25 not have a chance to win -- they would not elect a
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 290 212
16:17 1 candidate of their choice at the end.
16:17 2 So you have to look at the first part of the
16:17 3 functional analysis to determine how the district
16:17 4 performs politically.
16:17 5 Q Okay.
16:17 6 A So in the districts we drew, they are what I
16:17 7 would consider very 50-50 districts, where either
16:17 8 party would have a chance to elect any candidate that
16:17 9 happened to be running in that district.
16:17 10 And there is a really good chance on the
16:17 11 Republican side that a Hispanic candidate will win
16:17 12 that primary, and there's also a chance, not as good
16:17 13 of a chance, but a chance that a Hispanic Democrat
16:17 14 would be elected. And, therefore, you would have
16:17 15 two -- potentially two Hispanic candidates in a
16:17 16 general election.
16:17 17 So either candidate winning would result in a
16:17 18 Hispanic candidate.
16:17 19 Specifically the District 26 in CP-1, in my
16:18 20 opinion, leans so heavily Democratic that a Republican
16:18 21 candidate would not be able to win, regardless of
16:18 22 whether they're Hispanic or not.
16:18 23 So --
16:18 24 Q So 26 under CP-1?
16:18 25 A Under CP-1. I believe 27 as well follows in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 291 213
16:18 1 that same line or right --I could be wrong about
16:18 2 that. It could be one or the other. But one of those
16:18 3 districts -- at least one of them; it could be both --
16:18 4 leans much more heavily Democratic.
16:18 5 Now in that area, more heavily Democratic
16:18 6 would just be 1 or 2 percentages points one way or the
16:18 7 other, and then you don't allow a Republican Hispanic
16:18 8 candidate to win that particular primary.
16:18 9 And on the Democratic side, then, because the
16:18 10 Republican candidate can't win the general, you have
16:18 11 to look more closely at the Democratic primary. And
16:18 12 in that Democratic primary, the Hispanic candidates
16:18 13 control in the low 20s percent of the Democrat
16:18 14 primary, so they more than likely would not be able to
16:18 15 elect a Hispanic candidate in the Democratic primary
16:19 16 and would result in either a black or a white Democrat
16:19 17 winning the Democratic primary, which then would
16:19 18 dominate the general election and therefore not elect
16:19 19 a Hispanic candidate of choice.
16:19 20 I believe that was a significant problem, in
16:19 21 my opinion, in the CP-26 and 27 for that.
16:19 22 Q Any other problems with CP-1, in your opinion,
16:19 23 from that?
16:19 24 A Well, what we talked about, a third appendage
16:19 25 in District 20,I believe that's a problem. And I
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 292 214
16:19 1 believe that the gain in city splits is not worth
16:19 2 those negative -- specifically in 26 and 27 and the
16:19 3 third appendage.
16:19 4 Looking at CP-2 and 3, and then with the other
16:19 5 alternative way of drawing District 26 and 27,I have
16:19 6 to look more closely at the data.I looked at it
16:19 7 before.I believe they have similar problems with
16:19 8 their ability to perform, but less so.
16:19 9 But at that point you're looking at -- let's
16:20 10 just say for the sake of argument that they all
16:20 11 perform. At that point you're kind of splitting
16:20 12 hairs. The compactness is all very similar, and
16:20 13 you're just picking which roads to follow to gain
16:20 14 population.
16:20 15 So in my opinion there wouldn't be one that
16:20 16 would be any better than any other one, between any of
16:20 17 the alternatives or ours, assuming those other
16:20 18 alternatives perform.
16:20 19 I don't know if that's necessarily the case in
16:20 20 those other ones.I didn't look at those as closely.
16:20 21 Q As far as you know, you may have similar
16:20 22 problems in 2 and 3, CP-2 and 3?
16:20 23 A Potentially, but I don't want to definitively
16:20 24 say that like with CP-1. Again,I would have to look
16:20 25 more closely.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 293 215
16:20 1 Let's just say for the sake of argument that
16:20 2 they don't, or they have -- they do perform just like
16:20 3 the districts that we drew. At that point I think --
16:20 4 your compactness scores,I think, were all very
16:20 5 relatively similar. So at that point you're not
16:20 6 picking which one is better; you're just picking which
16:21 7 one you prefer.
16:21 8 And at that point I think the one that we
16:21 9 drew, since we drew it without --
16:21 10 Q Assuming arguendo that they do perform
16:21 11 similarly, and you don't have the appendage problem
16:21 12 that you said, and they are more compact, and they
16:21 13 don't divide up more cities, wouldn't that be a better
16:21 14 choice?
16:21 15 A Well,I don't believe that CP-2 or 3 does
16:21 16 split fewer cities --
16:21 17 Q That's why I'm asking.
16:21 18 AI believe CP-2 and 3, they just deal with 26
16:21 19 and 27.
16:21 20 Q Okay. So CP-1 is the one that has less
16:21 21 splits, but you say it's not worth it?
16:21 22 A Correct. It's not worth it to use it. It has
16:21 23 bigger problems.
16:21 24 Q So 2 and 3 don't perform better --
16:21 25 A Yeah,I actually believe that there is
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 294 216
16:21 1 performance problems with -- with I think their 27,
16:21 2 which would be similar to CP-1, but not as dramatic.
16:21 3 But just for the sake of argument, if they didn't,
16:21 4 then at that point you're -- assuming the compactness
16:22 5 scores are all similar,I don't know if ours were
16:22 6 better or were not -- at that point you're not picking
16:22 7 which one is better; you're simply picking which one
16:22 8 that you -- you prefer to draw.
16:22 9 I know that we drew ours without looking at
16:22 10 politics at all. The CP-1 -- or 2 and 3 and the Romo
16:22 11 plaintiffs, with the letter that was sent, they know
16:22 12 that they specifically drew them to even out the
16:22 13 politics the way that they wanted to, at least
16:22 14 according to their letter.
16:22 15 So I would --I would be very cautious about
16:22 16 that political intent that those two maps were drawn
16:22 17 with.I know ours was not.
16:22 18 Q How about District 5?
16:22 19 A District 5?
16:22 20 Q Uh-huh.
16:22 21 A We drew District 5 --
16:22 22 Q I thought you said you adopted Romo?
16:22 23 A We did.
16:22 24 Q Don't you have concerns about the Romo map?
16:22 25 A The Supreme Court used it as an example in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 295 217
16:22 1 their opinion. They believed that that district would
16:22 2 perform. And they specifically rejected those
16:22 3 political implications for that particular district.
16:23 4 I would have a problem with that district, but the
16:23 5 Supreme Court --
16:23 6 Q I was asking you, not the Supreme Court.
16:23 7 A Okay. Well, we chose that, but we're also
16:23 8 trying to draw a map that the Supreme Court would --
16:23 9 and yourself would ultimately approve. And that is --
16:23 10 that is why we chose to go that way.
16:23 11 Q Okay. What about the other maps?
16:23 12 A Which other maps?
16:23 13 Q Senate didn't have a map?
16:23 14 A Oh, the other maps.
16:23 15 Q Yeah.
16:23 16 A I'm trying to refresh my memory. So 62, we
16:23 17 had a problem with 9062 because we don't feel that it
16:23 18 had a consistent methodology applied to the map, which
16:23 19 will allow questions to be answered about why certain
16:23 20 lines were drawn in certain ways, whether they were or
16:23 21 were not.
16:23 22 I'm not trying to impugn anyone in the other
16:23 23 chamber or any of the map drawers or any of the
16:23 24 senators over there. We just felt that it didn't have
16:23 25 a consistent methodology applied to it which would
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 296 218
16:23 1 open questions to it and make it less defensible for
16:23 2 the Supreme Court.
16:24 3 I think that the justices were --
16:24 4 Q Well, but we're kind of beyond that. In other
16:24 5 words, let's -- like I said, if I'm sitting in your
16:24 6 position, and the Legislature -- people are giving me
16:24 7 maps, I'm going to have a grain of salt depending who
16:24 8 it comes from and how it's done.
16:24 9 But if I'm going to look at it and say,I made
16:24 10 the best map I can, the best map that complies with
16:24 11 Tier 1 and 2, and assuming it performs -- I'm looking
16:24 12 at Tier 2 stuff, have you analyzed it to say whether
16:24 13 the Senate's version is more compact; it doesn't split
16:24 14 cities and counties, all those things that you
16:24 15 normally do?
16:24 16 A The Senate map is very comparable to the map
16:24 17 that the House drew. As far as compactness and city
16:24 18 splits, it's very comparable. In 9056 they split one
16:24 19 fewer county, but I would still prefer 9071 simply
16:24 20 because I know how that map was drawn and everything.
16:24 21 Again, I'm not trying to impugn anybody, but I don't
16:24 22 know where that map came from. It was never passed by
16:24 23 any of our chambers.
16:24 24 Q But I mean, still, same thing. You're sitting
16:25 25 there; you're getting maps, and you may have a grain
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 297 219
16:25 1 of salt -- you have a grain of salt --
16:25 2 A Yeah.
16:25 3 Q -- about --
16:25 4 A Yeah.
16:25 5 Q -- the Senate map?
16:25 6 A That's true.
16:25 7 Q You have a grain of salt?
16:25 8 AI would say so.
16:25 9 Q Okay.
16:25 10 AI think 9066 is a map that complies better
16:25 11 than 9062. I have a smaller grain of salt, but still
16:25 12 a grain of salt.
16:25 13 Q Okay. But if you were just looking at them,
16:25 14 you don't have any questions about --
16:25 15 A If you just --
16:25 16 Q -- where it came from?
16:25 17 A If you just look at it from a pure map-drawing
16:25 18 perspective, as I stated to my colleagues at the time,
16:25 19 it was a good map. We split one fewer county,
16:25 20 forgetting the grain of salt.
16:25 21 Q Okay. Is that all the maps?
16:25 22 AI believe so.
16:25 23 THE COURT: Any follow-up questions from the
16:25 24 lawyers?
16:25 25 MR. ZEHNDER: No questions, Your Honor.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 298 220
16:25 1 THE COURT: All right. You can step down.
16:25 2 Shall we take another break?I mean,I can take a
16:25 3 short break and go for a little longer, or do you
16:25 4 want to try to go get somebody on fairly quickly?
16:26 5 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, our next witness will
16:26 6 be very, very brief,I would say --
16:26 7 THE COURT: How is my clerk doing? Need to
16:26 8 take a break?
16:26 9 MR. MEROS:I definitely need a break.
16:26 10 THE COURT: Let's take a short break either
16:26 11 way then.
16:26 12 MR. ZEHNDER: And, Your Honor, we would be
16:26 13 happy to stay a little longer today, if we need to.
16:26 14 THE COURT: Okay.I will stay here a little
16:26 15 later too. We'll see how we do with the next
16:26 16 witness.
16:26 17 (In recess from 4:26 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.)
16:39 18 THE BAILIFF: All rise. Come to order. Court
16:39 19 is now back in session.
16:39 20 THE COURT: Have a seat. Mr. Meros, call your
16:40 21 next witness.
16:40 22 MR. MEROS: Yes, call Mr. Jeff Takacs.
16:40 23 Thereupon,
16:40 24 JEFFREY MARK TAKACS
16:40 25 was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 299 221
16:40 1 was examined and testified as follows:
16:40 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION
16:40 3 BY MR. MEROS:
16:40 4 Q Hello, Mr. Takacs; how are you?
16:40 5 A Good afternoon.
16:40 6 Q Could you tell us your full name and business
16:40 7 address?
16:40 8 A Certainly. My whole name is Jeffrey Mark
16:40 9 Takacs. My business is 418 The Capitol, 400 South
16:40 10 Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399.
16:40 11 Q And for the court reporter, could you spell
16:40 12 your last name.
16:40 13 A Certainly.T, as in Tom,A-K-A-C, as in cat,
16:40 14 S as in Sam.
16:40 15 Q So there is a C in there?
16:40 16 A Yes, sir.
16:40 17 Q Supposed to be an A; isn't it?
16:40 18 A Get that a lot.
16:40 19 Q What is your present position -- what is your
16:41 20 present employment?
16:41 21 AI am the special advisor to the House Select
16:41 22 Committee on Redistricting.
16:41 23 Q Okay. And were you involved in the 2012 and
16:41 24 2014 redistricting processes?
16:41 25 AI was involved, although in the 2014
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 300 222
16:41 1 redistricting process in the special session,I was
16:41 2 not a map drawer;I was just on committee staff for
16:41 3 that.
16:41 4 Q And what, if any, participation did you have
16:41 5 in the drawing of the Florida House state map in 2012?
16:41 6 A In 2012 I was one of the principal architects
16:41 7 of that map.
16:41 8 Q Of the Florida House map that was approved by
16:41 9 the Florida Supreme Court?
16:41 10 A Yes, sir, 70.
16:41 11 Q What role, if any, did you play in this
16:41 12 remedial process?
16:41 13 AI was one of the map drawers; there were three
16:41 14 map drawers in this process; myself, Mr. Poreda, and
16:41 15 Mr. Ferrin from the Senate.
16:41 16 Q And let me get right to it and not take too
16:41 17 much time.
16:41 18 I wanted to talk to you first about two
16:41 19 district choices or district -- map choices, one
16:42 20 relating to Districts 26 and 27 in the map.
16:42 21 A Uh-huh.
16:42 22 Q And also Districts 21 and 22. Do you recall
16:42 23 those districts?
16:42 24 A Yes,I do.
16:42 25 Q And can you tell us briefly from your
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 301 223
16:42 1 perspective as a map drawer what occurred with -- as
16:42 2 far as you perceived it -- with the decisions made
16:42 3 about 26 and 27?
16:42 4 A Certainly. As we drafted districts to comply
16:42 5 with the Supreme Court's order to keep Homestead
16:42 6 whole, first we tried drawing Homestead all within
16:42 7 District 26. And then we tried the other way, trying
16:42 8 to have Homestead whole all within District 27.
16:42 9 Once we completed those drafts -- both drafts
16:42 10 had equal population -- we completed that draft. We
16:42 11 then created the reports for both of those drafts so
16:42 12 that we could look at the functional analysis data of
16:42 13 both drafts to make sure that all four districts, both
16:43 14 options would perform for the Hispanic community's
16:43 15 candidate of choice.
16:43 16 And then once we were able to determine that
16:43 17 they would, the next thing that we looked at was the
16:43 18 compactness in the report of both of those options,
16:43 19 and we chose draft 1 because it was the more compact;
16:43 20 it had the better Convex Hull score than the other
16:43 21 draft.
16:43 22 Q Okay. Now, in -- in determining -- in getting
16:43 23 equal population in the map that kept Homestead whole
16:43 24 within 26, did you have any idea of the racial or
16:43 25 political composition of the individuals who were
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 302 224
16:43 1 moved from District 26 into District 27?
16:43 2 A No,I did not. When we were working to
16:43 3 equalize that population, what we did was look at the
16:43 4 major roadway that was there in between the two
16:43 5 districts, which was the Florida Turnpike, and just
16:44 6 worked our way south to north to fill that area,
16:44 7 moving along the Turnpike to equalize that population.
16:44 8 Q At any time during this process did you ever
16:44 9 see the screen on MyDistrictBuilder activated to
16:44 10 reflect minority populations in given areas of the
16:44 11 state?
16:44 12 A No. We didn't turn that data on to the
16:44 13 screen.
16:44 14 Q Did you have any idea or any way to determine
16:44 15 the political performance, or did you try to determine
16:44 16 the political performance among those 30,000 or so
16:44 17 individuals that were moved from District 26 to 27?
16:44 18 A No,I did not.I did not try to see the
16:44 19 political makeup of that particular population.
16:44 20 Q Now, you talked about major roadways. From
16:44 21 your perspective as a map drawer, which is the most --
16:44 22 which is a more major roadway, the Florida Turnpike,
16:45 23 or U.S. 1?
16:45 24 A The Turnpike for sure.
16:45 25 Q And at what -- why did you ultimately stop
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 303 225
16:45 1 using the Turnpike?
16:45 2 A When we started working to, again, balance out
16:45 3 the populations and get the districts to have that
16:45 4 plus or minus one person deviation that we need in
16:45 5 Congressional districts, basically we just went as far
16:45 6 north as we could and then connected the district, you
16:45 7 know, to the east.
16:45 8 Q Okay. And in connecting the districts to the
16:45 9 east, did you try to make any determination as to
16:45 10 whether they were Republicans, Democrats,
16:45 11 Independents, whatever?
16:45 12 A No. We were just following a roadway.
16:45 13 Q Okay.
16:45 14 A When we could.
16:45 15 Q Okay. So let's talk about Districts 21 and 22
16:45 16 in Broward and Palm Beach Counties,I believe. Tell
16:45 17 me what you recall about that mandate from the Court
16:45 18 and what you did.
16:45 19 A Yeah, certainly. The Supreme Court didn't
16:45 20 specifically invalidate Districts 21 and 22. But they
16:45 21 did charge the Legislature with redrawing those
16:46 22 districts in a more compact manner.
16:46 23 They had used as an example a House draft that
16:46 24 had been drawn in 2012 as an example of how those two
16:46 25 districts could be drawn in a more compact manner. In
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 304 226
16:46 1 fact, they actually included,I believe, a picture of
16:46 2 that draft in apportionment 7.
16:46 3 Q And did you -- did you make any efforts to
16:46 4 draw a more compact 21 and 22 with a north-south
16:46 5 configuration -- more compact than the enacted map in
16:46 6 2012?
16:46 7 A In the base map-drawing process, no. When we
16:46 8 were -- when you look at the districts in that region
16:46 9 and the minority districts that are in that region,
16:46 10 the Tier 1 protected districts, and you look at the
16:46 11 population that remains in that area, there is --
16:46 12 there is only really two options that are available,
16:47 13 substantial options, one being the way that the
16:47 14 districts were, as the Legislature enacted them in
16:47 15 2012 and 2014.
16:47 16 And then the other configuration about -- the
16:47 17 configuration that was in the House draft, that is
16:47 18 very similar to what we did in the base map.
16:47 19 Q And when you drew the east-west configuration,
16:47 20 did that map become more compact than the north-south
16:47 21 configuration that the Supreme Court rejected?
16:47 22 A Yes, it did. It was substantially more
16:47 23 compact.
16:47 24 Q And is that why you elected an east-west
16:47 25 configuration?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 305 227
16:47 1 A It was. And we also took the suggestion of
16:47 2 the Court with having the specific picture in
16:47 3 apportionment 7 as well.
16:47 4 Q Now, going back very briefly, were you aware
16:47 5 that the speaker and the Senate president sent out
16:47 6 instructions and directions for the map drawers to
16:47 7 follow in the map-drawing process?
16:47 8 A Yes,I did.I received those and reviewed
16:48 9 them, yes.
16:48 10 Q And did you follow all of the admonitions that
16:48 11 the Senate president and the House speaker imposed on
16:48 12 the map drawers?
16:48 13 A Yes,I did.
16:48 14 Q Okay. Did you have any discomfort or concern
16:48 15 about drawing a base map without a TV camera there or
16:48 16 a recording -- recorder on?
16:48 17 AI was not uncomfortable; in fact, quite the
16:48 18 opposite.I was very comfortable with the decision
16:48 19 that was made in the instructions that we received to
16:48 20 draw the base map in a sterile environment where we
16:48 21 were free from any political interference or anyone
16:48 22 trying to attempt to influence that process.
16:48 23 I was very comfortable with that decision,
16:48 24 also knowing that we were going to be waiving our
16:48 25 attorney-client privilege so that we could openly talk
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 306 228
16:48 1 about what the decisions were that were made in that
16:48 2 room to draw that map, which was the starting point of
16:48 3 this process, knowing that all of the legislative
16:49 4 decisions would be made by the policymakers, the
16:49 5 legislators.
16:49 6 Q Now I simply want to follow up on some
16:49 7 questions that Judge Lewis has asked and go ahead and
16:49 8 ask you those questions.
16:49 9 Do you -- do you believe that there was a
16:49 10 particular map in this process that was the best map,
16:49 11 drawn to comply with the Supreme Court requirements?
16:49 12 AI do.I believe that there is one map that is
16:49 13 the best, and it's 9071.
16:49 14 Q And why is that?
16:49 15 AI believe that 9071 has the most consistently
16:49 16 applied methodology throughout the entire state. It
16:49 17 has extremely good metrics in the world of keeping
16:49 18 cities and counties whole, as well as overall
16:49 19 compactness, and it's one that personally, from my
16:49 20 personal involvement in the process, know that there
16:49 21 are no Tier 1 concerns as far as intent to favor or
16:49 22 disfavor a political party or an incumbent, as well as
16:49 23 that Tier 1 requirement of allowing the minority
16:49 24 communities in the specific districts to elect a
16:50 25 candidate of their choice.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 307 229
16:50 1 Q And do you believe that that map is better
16:50 2 than the coalition plaintiffs' maps?
16:50 3 A Yes,I do.
16:50 4 Q Let's start with CP-1. Why do you believe
16:50 5 that the House map is superior to CP-1?
16:50 6 MR. ZEHNDER: Your Honor, we would object to
16:50 7 this line of questioning from the House. As the
16:50 8 Court knows, you entered an order that required the
16:50 9 parties to disclose their district challenges to
16:50 10 each other in writing in advance.
16:50 11 The House and the Senate didn't say one word
16:50 12 about any of these districts, other than District
16:50 13 26.I appreciate the Court's inquiry of
16:50 14 Mr. Poreda, and maybe you will make the same
16:50 15 inquiry of Mr. Takacs yourself.
16:50 16 But for the legislative parties to now put on
16:50 17 evidence about what's wrong with these districts
16:50 18 that they didn't challenge in writing to us as they
16:50 19 were required to do we think is prejudicial and
16:50 20 unfair. We ask the Court to not allow them to
16:50 21 question about anything under the 26, which is the
16:50 22 only feedback they alleged in writing about on
16:50 23 that.
16:50 24 THE COURT: You're probably procedurally
16:50 25 correct. You didn't want to object to me asking
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 308 230
16:51 1 questions,I guess. But I don't think it really
16:51 2 matters.
16:51 3 I'm curious, because these are people that
16:51 4 draw maps, that drew the maps. I'm curious as to
16:51 5 what they think about the ones coming afterwards,
16:51 6 because like I said with Mr. Poreda, it's a
16:51 7 different animal if you say that the Legislature
16:51 8 has drawn a map, then y'all get to challenge it and
16:51 9 suggest alternatives to suggest why their map is
16:51 10 not good.
16:51 11 But here I've got your maps as well as the
16:51 12 Senate map and the House map to say to the Supreme
16:51 13 Court,I think you should choose this or this
16:51 14 combination thereof because of X,Y, and Z. This
16:51 15 guy has a lot of knowledge. He drew the map -- if
16:51 16 he's looked at the other ones I would like to hear
16:51 17 from him.I can ask him that when he's done.
16:51 18 It seems to be just as efficient for him to do
16:51 19 it now. Then you can cross him on it.
16:51 20 MR. ZEHNDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
16:51 21 BY MR. MEROS:
16:51 22 Q Do you remember the question?
16:51 23 A Could you repeat the question, please?
16:51 24 Q Can you tell us why you believe the House map
16:51 25 to be superior to CP-1?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 309 231
16:51 1 A Certainly.I have several concerns with CP-1,
16:52 2 first of which is just the nature of its origin,
16:52 3 thinking about the letter that we had received from
16:52 4 the various plaintiffs in the special session thinking
16:52 5 about seeking to move the population of a district to
16:52 6 intend to favor one political party over the other
16:52 7 does give me a significant amount of pause.
16:52 8 Also thinking about Tier 1 standards, thinking
16:52 9 about the Hispanic districts within South Florida,I
16:52 10 do have some concerns that the Hispanic community's
16:52 11 candidate of choice may not prevail in that election,
16:52 12 which, of course, is the reason to -- that we have the
16:52 13 federal Voting Rights Act in place is so that those
16:52 14 minority communities can elect a candidate of their
16:52 15 choice. So I have that concern within CP-1 with one
16:52 16 of those districts.
16:52 17 Thinking about Tier 2 concerns,I look to
16:52 18 District 20. District 20, it does keep a significant
16:53 19 number of cities whole than the 9071 map, which is a
16:53 20 positive attribute, certainly. But what gives me some
16:53 21 concern is what they do on the other end to do that
16:53 22 and create a third appendage to -- to that district.
16:53 23 That is a district, as it was stated earlier,
16:53 24 that used to extend all the way up to Ft. Pierce in
16:53 25 St. Lucie County and extend all the way into Broward
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 310 232
16:53 1 County.
16:53 2 And so, when that district was initially
16:53 3 drafted, even thinking about in 2012 and 2014, the
16:53 4 Legislature was very mindful to have that district
16:53 5 have as little number of appendages as possible, while
16:53 6 also allowing for the African-American community in
16:53 7 that area to elect a candidate of their choice, which
16:53 8 is why it has the appendages that it does.
16:53 9 And so chopping off a portion of an appendage
16:53 10 to create a third appendage to me is not an
16:53 11 appropriate tradeoff, even with the number of cities
16:54 12 they keep whole in that district.
16:54 13 Q How about CP-2 and CP-3?
16:54 14 A Certainly. My concerns there are very similar
16:54 15 to CP-1 in the South Florida districts there, 26 and
16:54 16 27. And forgive me,I don't have the map in front of
16:54 17 me, and I'm speaking a little off the cuff.
16:54 18 But that concern I have remains of the Tier 1
16:54 19 implications again of thinking about making a specific
16:54 20 move to a district in order to favor or disfavor a
16:54 21 political party. And I also have the concern there,
16:54 22 that Tier 1 concern that those districts may not allow
16:54 23 the Hispanic community to elect a candidate of their
16:54 24 choice.
16:54 25 Q Turning to the Romo map, if you believe that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 311 233
16:54 1 the House map is a better map, explain why.
16:54 2 A Yes. And I do.I believe that 9071 is the
16:54 3 superior map. It's a very similar concern than what I
16:54 4 said for CP-2 and 3, again, thinking about making
16:55 5 moves in a district in order to have a political
16:55 6 effect gives me a lot of pause, thinking about the
16:55 7 constitution requirements that we have to not do so,
16:55 8 and also just the ability that those districts would
16:55 9 have to elect a candidate of their choice in the
16:55 10 Hispanic communities in Districts 26 and 27 --I
16:55 11 believe it's 27, but I don't have it in front of me.
16:55 12 I don't want to --
16:55 13 Q And again, with regard to the Romo map, are
16:55 14 you aware that in Districts 21 and 22 in the Romo map,
16:55 15 the effect of their districts is to unpair two
16:55 16 Democratic Congresspersons, Lois Frankel and Ted
16:55 17 Deutch?
16:55 18 AI am aware of that. And that also would give
16:55 19 me an extreme amount of concern. If the intent was to
16:55 20 do so, if there was a thought of having the residences
16:55 21 of incumbents pinpointed on a map and then districts
16:56 22 drawn around them in an effort to unpair them, to me
16:56 23 that's a very flagrant Tier 1 violation, to work to
16:56 24 try to favor or disfavor incumbents and political
16:56 25 parties.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 312 234
16:56 1 Q Turning to the Senate map that was passed by
16:56 2 the Senate, tell us, if you would, why you believe the
16:56 3 House map to be a better map.
16:56 4 A Certainly. And I do.I believe that 9071 is
16:56 5 the most superior map. The map there you're referring
16:56 6 to is 9062. The concern I have with 9062 is that it
16:56 7 doesn't have a consistent methodology applied
16:56 8 throughout the state as the districts are drawn.
16:56 9 What I mean specifically by that is that there
16:56 10 are areas in the base map, specifically thinking about
16:56 11 Orange County, with CD-5 having an east-west
16:56 12 configuration as mandated by the Supreme Court, that
16:56 13 left a significant population within Orange County.
16:56 14 It also let us know that Orange County's population
16:57 15 now could have a Congressional district entirely
16:57 16 within it.
16:57 17 So that was what we did in the base map, to
16:57 18 have that CD-10 there entirely within that -- within
16:57 19 that county. When I look at 9062, I know that there
16:57 20 was an effort to try to minimize the concept of
16:57 21 Hillsborough County being a donor county, having
16:57 22 multiple districts kind of chop that up in order to
16:57 23 reduce that number, which could be a laudable goal,
16:57 24 had it been done for other counties around the state,
16:57 25 especially in Central Florida. When I look at like
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 313 235
16:57 1 Polk County or Marion County, there was no effort to
16:57 2 try to minimize the number of times those counties
16:57 3 were split by a district.
16:57 4 And also as you move eastward, thinking about
16:57 5 Orange County, Congressional District 10 there,
16:57 6 instead of being wholly within Orange County, it does
16:57 7 then kind of splash over into Lake County, which gives
16:58 8 me that concern, knowing that Orange County has the
16:58 9 ability to have a district all within it.
16:58 10 Q With regard to Hillsborough County, whether it
16:58 11 is a donor county, in 9071 does Hillsborough County
16:58 12 have one Congressional district within it?
16:58 13 A Yes, it does. It's CD-14, the one that has
16:58 14 all of the City of Tampa.
16:58 15 Q And does it have a significant portion of
16:58 16 another Congressional district within it?
16:58 17 A Yes, it does.I believe it's 15, but don't
16:58 18 quote me on the number. But there is another district
16:58 19 there in Hillsborough County that has 53 percent of
16:58 20 the district's population being the Hillsborough
16:58 21 County portion of it. Theoretically Hillsborough
16:58 22 County, it is the majority of the district, and they
16:58 23 could drive who their representative is in Congress if
16:58 24 they choose to.
16:58 25 Q Now, turning last to the map created by the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 314 236
16:58 1 Senate chair after the special session concluded, can
16:59 2 you tell me what, if any -- what, if anything, you can
16:59 3 tell us about why 9071, in your view, is a better map?
16:59 4 A Certainly, and I do.I believe that 9071 is
16:59 5 superior to the map you just referenced, which is
16:59 6 9066. 9066, the most positive attribute to that map,
16:59 7 versus 9071, is that it does keep one more county
16:59 8 whole. It keeps Sarasota County whole, which is a
16:59 9 very good attribute.
16:59 10 But just like every other thing, any other
16:59 11 concept in redistricting, there is always a tradeoff.
16:59 12 And there are two tradeoffs that give me a little bit
16:59 13 of pause, one of which is -- and forgive me,I don't
16:59 14 know the number of the district off the top of my
16:59 15 head. But there is a district that has kind of a J
16:59 16 shape to it.
16:59 17 I definitely recognize that that J shape is
16:59 18 all whole counties. But just from that visual
16:59 19 compactness issue, it's one that, when I first looked
16:59 20 at it,I had concern over.
17:00 21 The second concern that I have is how they
17:00 22 handle -- in Hillsborough County, when you look at
17:00 23 just the county shape, it has, as it extends from the
17:00 24 west to the east, thinking about where Tampa Bay is,
17:00 25 the county boundary itself creates this tail. There
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 315 237
17:00 1 is a tail there.
17:00 2 And the way that that map handles that tail
17:00 3 having the district that has all of Sarasota in it,I
17:00 4 believe -- and, again, I'm not looking at it, so
17:00 5 forgive me. But it extends northward, just to grab
17:00 6 that tail, that unpopulated area within Hillsborough
17:00 7 County, and that gives me some pause.
17:00 8 Overall,I don't want to impugn the Senate or
17:00 9 anything or say anything ill of the Senate, because I
17:00 10 think they worked hard to create a good map.I just
17:00 11 personally believe that 9071 is the superior map.
17:00 12 Q Does 9071 split more or fewer cities than the
17:00 13 map you were just discussing?
17:01 14 A It splits fewer. 9066, while it does keep
17:01 15 that one county whole, it does so at the sacrifice of
17:01 16 splitting one more city.
17:01 17 MR. MEROS: Thank you. That's all I have.
17:01 18 MR. ZAKIA: Your Honor?
17:01 19 THE COURT: Yes?
17:01 20 MR. ZAKIA: Jason Zakia for the Senate.
17:01 21 CROSS EXAMINATION
17:01 22 BY MR. ZAKIA:
17:01 23 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Takacs.
17:01 24 A Good afternoon.
17:01 25 Q First,I will be like Mr. Meros. Let's start
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 316 238
17:01 1 at the end and work our way back.
17:01 2 A Sure.
17:01 3 Q 9066 keeps one additional county whole and
17:01 4 splits one additional city when compared to 9071;
17:01 5 correct?
17:01 6 A Yes.
17:01 7 Q And that city that is split is the City of
17:01 8 Longboat Key?
17:01 9 A Yes.
17:01 10 Q And that city is itself in two counties;
17:01 11 correct?
17:01 12 A It is. And when I was answering the question
17:01 13 before, it's just a simple account.
17:01 14 Q Right. So I understand. But I just want His
17:01 15 Honor to understand. When 9066 splits that additional
17:01 16 city, it's because it is following the county line,
17:01 17 and in this,I guess, unusual case you have a city
17:02 18 that's half in one county and half in the other;
17:02 19 right?
17:02 20 A And that is unusual, and yes.
17:02 21 Q And you would agree with me that a county
17:02 22 line -- agree with me and Mr. Poreda -- that a county
17:02 23 line is probably the best political boundary you can
17:02 24 pick in drawing a map?
17:02 25 A Most of the time, yes.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 317 239
17:02 1 Q Okay.I also want to be real clear about one
17:02 2 thing. We talked about Tier 1 concerns. It's the
17:02 3 House's position that they are not alleging there is
17:02 4 any Tier 1 defect with regard to any of the Senate
17:02 5 maps; correct?
17:02 6 A I'm not in a position to talk about any Tier 1
17:02 7 implication of the Senate.I wasn't involved in the
17:02 8 drawing of any of those maps.I can't speak to that.
17:02 9 I can't speak --
17:02 10 MR. ZAKIA: May I approach, Your Honor? I'm
17:02 11 sorry. We didn't get our video stuff hooked up.
17:02 12 We will switch over when the House is done.
17:02 13 Your Honor, this is Senate Exhibit 31, which I
17:03 14 believe has been previously admitted into evidence.
17:03 15 BY MR. ZAKIA:
17:03 16 Q If you will look -- do you see this document,
17:03 17 sir?
17:03 18 AI do.
17:03 19 Q Okay. Have you ever seen it before?
17:03 20 A Yes.
17:03 21 Q Okay. It's the Florida House of
17:03 22 Representatives' objection to the Florida Senate
17:03 23 proposed remedial plan; right?
17:03 24 A That's my understanding.
17:03 25 Q If you will look at page 5, it's signed by
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 318 240
17:03 1 your counsel on behalf of the House and the Speaker?
17:03 2 A Page 5, yes.
17:03 3 Q Okay. And if you turn, please, sir, to page
17:03 4 2, paragraph 2.
17:03 5 A Okay.
17:03 6 Q I just want to make sure we're all on the same
17:03 7 page,I guess literally and figuratively.
17:03 8 "To be clear, the House does not impugn or
17:03 9 question the intent of the Senate, period."
17:03 10 Do you see that sentence?
17:03 11 AI do.
17:03 12 Q Do you agree with that sentence?
17:03 13 AI do. That's consistent with my testimony a
17:03 14 few moments ago.
17:03 15 Q Okay. It does not impugn or question the
17:03 16 intent of any individual Senator; do you agree with
17:03 17 that, sir?
17:03 18 A Yes.
17:03 19 Q "The House does not contend that the Senate or
17:03 20 any Senator drew plan 9062 or plan 9066 with an intent
17:04 21 to favor or disfavor a political party or an
17:04 22 incumbent."
17:04 23 Do you see that, sir?
17:04 24 AI do, yes.
17:04 25 Q Do you agree with that?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 319 241
17:04 1 A Yes,I do.
17:04 2 Q Okay. And so I guess the other Tier 1
17:04 3 concerns are contiguity? Contiguity?
17:04 4 A Contiguity, sure.
17:04 5 Q And you don't contend that the Senate plans
17:04 6 have noncontiguous districts?
17:04 7 AI don't.
17:04 8 Q And retrogression, you don't contend that the
17:04 9 Senate plans retrogress the ability of any minority
17:04 10 group to elect their candidate of choice; right?
17:04 11 AI don't, no.
17:04 12 Q Okay. So you do not contend that any of the
17:04 13 Senate plans have any Tier 1 problems whatsoever;
17:04 14 right?
17:04 15 A As I said,I don't have the ability to contend
17:04 16 if there is a Tier 1, thinking about the other aspect
17:04 17 of Tier 1 as far as favoring or disfavoring a
17:04 18 political party or an incumbent.I simply don't have
17:04 19 the ability to make that determination.
17:04 20 Q And as you sit here today, you're not alleging
17:04 21 or contending or asserting that the Senate drew any
17:05 22 plan with the intent to benefit or favor or disfavor
17:05 23 any party or incumbent; right?
17:05 24 AI am not.
17:05 25 Q Okay. So after we get by Tier 1, we have
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 320 242
17:05 1 Tier 2. Tier 2 is following geographic and political
17:05 2 boundaries?
17:05 3 A Again, as well assuming that every factor of
17:05 4 Tier 1 has been satisfied --
17:05 5 Q You're not alleging otherwise with regard --
17:05 6 A Correct. I'm not alleging otherwise. I'm
17:05 7 just saying I can't satisfy one of those requirements
17:05 8 of Tier 1.
17:05 9 Q No. We're going to do that with our own
17:05 10 witnesses.I just want to make sure I understand the
17:05 11 House's objections.
17:05 12 A Sure. Certainly.
17:05 13 Q Okay. So once we get by Tier 1 --
17:05 14 A These are my objections,I should add. Sorry
17:05 15 to interrupt.I speak for myself.
17:05 16 Q Fair point. Thank you, sir, for the
17:05 17 clarification. Let me make just sure that I have
17:05 18 covered that. We read some statements about positions
17:05 19 of the House. You personally, Mr. Takacs, don't have
17:05 20 a different view with regard to any of the issues that
17:05 21 we just read --
17:05 22 A Correct. That is correct, yes, sir.
17:05 23 Q So once we put Tier 1 aside, we have to look
17:05 24 at Tier 2, and the Tier 2 concerns are compactness;
17:05 25 yes?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 321 243
17:05 1 A Yes.
17:05 2 Q And respecting political and geographic
17:06 3 boundaries; right?
17:06 4 A Yes.
17:06 5 Q Did I miss any, or did I get them?
17:06 6 A You got them.
17:06 7 Q Okay. And would you agree with me, sir, that
17:06 8 plans 9071, the House plan, and 9062 and 9066 are
17:06 9 effectively the same with regard to compactness?
17:06 10 A Yes, they are similar in numeric compactness.
17:06 11 Again,I mentioned that the one district that gave me
17:06 12 concern from a visual perspective. But metrically,
17:06 13 yes, they're very similar.
17:06 14 Q Okay. The district that you mentioned with
17:06 15 visual compactness in 9066, which you said was -- you
17:06 16 don't remember the number, but a J shaped district?
17:06 17 A Yes.
17:06 18 Q Okay. And that was a district made out
17:06 19 entirely of Polk County?
17:06 20 A Correct.
17:06 21 Q Respecting county boundaries is consistent
17:06 22 with the Tier 2 requirements of the constitution;
17:06 23 right?
17:06 24 A Yes. Again, you can't think about those
17:06 25 things solely in isolation. But, yes, obviously
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 322 244
17:06 1 following county boundaries is a part of the
17:07 2 constitution. Again, when you think about all of the
17:07 3 Tier 2 issues of compactness and county lines and city
17:07 4 lines, there is definitely a balancing act there of
17:07 5 all of those together.
17:07 6 Q And you would agree with me that the metrics
17:07 7 that you've used and that are generally acceptable
17:07 8 with regard to determining Tier 2 compliance are the
17:07 9 number of city splits, the number of county splits,
17:07 10 the number of counties, those were all metrics that
17:07 11 you used to determine compliance with --
17:07 12 A Yes.
17:07 13 Q Okay. And we talked about --
17:07 14 A Not in isolation. But, yes, those are
17:07 15 metrically evaluated.
17:07 16 Q You agree with Mr. Poreda, who testified that
17:07 17 he thought 9066 was a good map?
17:07 18 A Generally.
17:07 19 Q Are you one of the colleagues that he referred
17:07 20 to when he said he informed his colleagues that he
17:07 21 thought it was a good map?
17:07 22 A Excuse me. Yes.
17:07 23 Q Now, you talked about consistent methodology,
17:07 24 and I just want to make sure I understand.I believe
17:07 25 you said that there was an effort by the Senate to
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 323 245
17:08 1 reduce the number of times Hillsborough County was
17:08 2 split; right?
17:08 3 A Yes.
17:08 4 Q Okay. And you had a concern about -- well,
17:08 5 that by itself could be a laudable goal I think you
17:08 6 said; right?
17:08 7 AI did.
17:08 8 Q There is certainly nothing wrong with trying
17:08 9 to reduce county splits?
17:08 10 A And just to be -- just to make sure that we're
17:08 11 correct, thinking about the phrase "county split,"
17:08 12 what I believe you're referring to is the number of
17:08 13 times a county is split by districts, not the other
17:08 14 way around, where it's just like counties whole versus
17:08 15 counties not whole.
17:08 16 Q Yeah. Just to make sure we stay on the same
17:08 17 page,I'll tell you the terminology. If you disagree
17:08 18 with it, I'm happy to utilize yours.
17:08 19 A Sure.
17:08 20 Q So the number of times counties are split,I
17:08 21 refer to county splits, and the number of times
17:08 22 counties are kept whole,I refer to that as split
17:08 23 counties. Is that --
17:08 24 AI will try to keep up with you --
17:08 25 Q If you have a preference, I'd be happy to --
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 324 246
17:08 1 AI just --
17:08 2 Q Whatever you like.
17:08 3 A Just the number of times a county is split by
17:08 4 a district,I like to spell that all the way out, just
17:08 5 so that everyone is clear, even when we've had those
17:08 6 discussions for years.
17:09 7 Q Fair enough. So you would agree with me, sir,
17:09 8 that reducing the number of times a county is --
17:09 9 sorry -- a county is split in two districts is a
17:09 10 laudable goal?
17:09 11 A Yes, if applied throughout the state, yes.
17:09 12 Q I want to understand that. So I think you
17:09 13 said that part of your concern is if you're going to
17:09 14 do that in Hillsborough, you've got to do that
17:09 15 everywhere else?
17:09 16 A When the -- the population and the mathematics
17:09 17 of the population would allow for that, yes.
17:09 18 Q I'm sorry. You know a lot more about this
17:09 19 than me, so I--
17:09 20 A Certainly.
17:09 21 Q When you say -- when the mathematics of the
17:09 22 population would allow you to reduce the number of
17:09 23 times that county is split into districts, what do you
17:09 24 mean by that?
17:09 25 A As you're working to draw a map, and you look
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 325 247
17:09 1 at the different county populations, and you can't
17:09 2 look at those county populations in isolation all the
17:09 3 time; you have to look at the population figures of
17:09 4 the counties around it.
17:10 5 And sometimes there is an impact based on,
17:10 6 again, when you're thinking about a Congressional
17:10 7 district, where we're drawing a district that's plus
17:10 8 or minus one person, you know, over 696,000 people.
17:10 9 So sometimes you have to look at counties together and
17:10 10 also try to look at them in isolation --I know that's
17:10 11 a hard thing to truly explain, but that's what I mean
17:10 12 as far as like, as an example, in Orange County,
17:10 13 again, thinking about the configuration of the
17:10 14 east-west CD-5 that the Supreme Court mandated, what
17:10 15 was left there, we knew that Orange County had the
17:10 16 population to keep a district wholly within it.
17:10 17 And so that was something that was done in
17:10 18 other areas of that map as well. When you look at 21,
17:10 19 21 is wholly within Palm Beach. When you look at 14,
17:10 20 14 is wholly within Hillsborough.
17:10 21 Q Well, let me make sure I understand, because I
17:10 22 had interpreted that to be two different concerns, so
17:10 23 let me explore that with you a little bit.I thought
17:10 24 it was separate and apart, but you tell me.
17:10 25 I thought you said one of your concerns was
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 326 248
17:11 1 that you wanted certain districts to have counties
17:11 2 wholly within it. And then another concern was that
17:11 3 there was no consistent methodology with regard to the
17:11 4 Senate's effort to reduce the number of times
17:11 5 Hillsborough County was split into districts.
17:11 6 Were those the same concern or different
17:11 7 concerns?
17:11 8 AI want to make sure I follow you, so --
17:11 9 Q Sure.
17:11 10 A-- let me understand that.
17:11 11 I think that the concern that I have is that
17:11 12 when the base map was crafted, and it was out
17:11 13 before -- for the Legislature and the ability to be
17:11 14 amended by members of the Legislature, the thought
17:11 15 pattern that led to the creation of 9062 was to focus
17:11 16 on one particular county's -- the number of times it's
17:11 17 split by a district. And, again, so that thought
17:11 18 process, that methodology, was not applied throughout
17:11 19 the remainder of the map, again, thinking about
17:11 20 apportionment 1 when I--
17:12 21 Q I'm sorry.I don't mean to cut you off,I
17:12 22 just --I want to make sure I follow.
17:12 23 MR. MEROS: Objection, Your Honor. Can he
17:12 24 finish his answer?
17:12 25 MR. ZAKIA:I just don't want to lose the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 327 249
17:12 1 thing he expressed so that we don't get confused.
17:12 2 BY MR. ZAKIA:
17:12 3 Q You said that they --
17:12 4 THE COURT:I didn't understand his question,
17:12 5 the terminology he is using, so I'll let him
17:12 6 interrupt.
17:12 7 MR. ZAKIA: Okay. I'm sorry. I'm really not
17:12 8 trying to be difficult.
17:12 9 BY MR. ZAKIA:
17:12 10 Q Did you say that when the base map was
17:12 11 created, reducing the number of times the county was
17:12 12 split into districts, was or was not part of your
17:12 13 methodology?
17:12 14 A Yeah, and let me explain that in detail, as
17:12 15 best I can.
17:12 16 Thinking about the methodology that led to the
17:12 17 creation of the base map, what we did was, we kept
17:12 18 counties whole as often as we could. And sometimes
17:12 19 there are -- there is a county where it has to be
17:12 20 split, based on its population, based on other
17:12 21 factors.
17:12 22 And what we did in the creation of the base
17:12 23 map was that we would allow for those particular
17:12 24 counties and the populations therein to allow for as
17:12 25 many counties that could be kept whole as possible, as
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 328 250
17:13 1 opposed to I think what we were talking about here is
17:13 2 that if you had two counties that were next to each
17:13 3 other, and one was split three ways, and one was split
17:13 4 no ways, that maybe you could reduce the split of
17:13 5 three to two by making this one go from zero to one.
17:13 6 That was not the methodology that we used in
17:13 7 the creation of the base map.
17:13 8 Q So the methodology that you used was to
17:13 9 maximize the number of the -- of counties that were
17:13 10 kept whole?
17:13 11 A Yes.
17:13 12 Q Okay. And am I correct, sir, that plan 9062,
17:13 13 the map that passed the Senate; and plan 9071, the map
17:13 14 that passed the House, had the identical number of
17:13 15 counties kept whole?
17:13 16 AI believe so, but I don't it have in front of
17:13 17 me to compare it, but, yes,I believe so. But, again,
17:13 18 kind of going further into that, there is this concept
17:13 19 of when the population allows for a district to be
17:13 20 wholly within a county --
17:13 21 Q I don't want to interrupt.I want to take
17:14 22 baby steps. This is complicated stuff. So they have
17:14 23 9062, 9071, same number of whole counties, and that
17:14 24 was the methodology that you used in drawing a base
17:14 25 map; right?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 329 251
17:14 1 A Not entirely.
17:14 2 Q Part of your methodology was to maximize the
17:14 3 number of counties kept whole;I thought that was what
17:14 4 you just said.
17:14 5 A Well, right. What I was about to go on to say
17:14 6 was that a part of that was also keeping districts
17:14 7 wholly within a county when possible --
17:14 8 Q I just want to get to that --
17:14 9 MR. MEROS: Your Honor,I apologize. He's
17:14 10 jumping right in the middle of what he's saying.
17:14 11 MR. ZAKIA: Your Honor, I'm just trying to get
17:14 12 one question answered at a time.
17:14 13 THE COURT: Well, and I think I understand the
17:14 14 different concepts, and I don't know that the
17:14 15 witness and the attorney are on the same
17:14 16 wavelength.
17:14 17 Why don't you start over, and let's make sure
17:14 18 that everybody understands what you're talking
17:14 19 about. And I think there is a difference between
17:14 20 having a district that's totally within one county
17:14 21 and trying to keep a county complete -- you know,
17:14 22 within a district whole, not split.
17:14 23 MR. ZAKIA: Right. And I'm just trying to
17:15 24 deal with those one at a time.
17:15 25 THE COURT: Okay.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 330 252
17:15 1 THE WITNESS: And we were trying to deal with
17:15 2 them both.I just want to make sure --
17:15 3 BY MR. ZAKIA:
17:15 4 Q Okay. We'll talk about them both.I just
17:15 5 want to talk first about keeping counties whole.
17:15 6 Okay?
17:15 7 A Sure.
17:15 8 Q That was part of your method?
17:15 9 A Yes.
17:15 10 Q Maximizing the number of counties kept whole?
17:15 11 A Yes.
17:15 12 Q Okay. 9062 and 9071 keep the same number of
17:15 13 counties?
17:15 14 A That's my understanding, yes.
17:15 15 Q 9066 keeps one additional county whole as
17:15 16 compared to 9071?
17:15 17 A That is correct.
17:15 18 Q Now, the other part of your methodology that
17:15 19 you mentioned was keeping districts wholly within
17:15 20 counties when you were able. Right?
17:15 21 A Excuse me. Yes.
17:15 22 Q And just so that I understand, that's not a
17:15 23 constitutional requirement; right?
17:15 24 A That in isolation is not, but, again, looking
17:15 25 back at apportionment 1, when the Supreme Court upheld
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 331 253
17:15 1 the State House districts, the methodology that we
17:15 2 chose to use consistently applied throughout the map
17:15 3 was a part of their factoring into, as they mentioned
17:16 4 in the way they validated the State House map.
17:16 5 Q Right. I'm sorry, just so that I'm clear,
17:16 6 keeping a district -- sorry -- keeping a district
17:16 7 wholly within a county, the constitution doesn't
17:16 8 require that to be done; right?
17:16 9 A Well, the constitution does say that we need
17:16 10 to respect political and geographic boundary lines.
17:16 11 And so I would --I would actually argue that keeping
17:16 12 a district wholly within a county is the way you could
17:16 13 respect that county line as much as possible if it
17:16 14 cannot be kept whole based on its population.
17:16 15 Q So your -- just so I understand your position,
17:16 16 is that keeping districts wholly within a county is
17:16 17 required under Tier 2?
17:16 18 AI would argue that consistently when possible,
17:16 19 keeping districts wholly within a county is a
17:16 20 methodology that is consistent with the constitution.
17:17 21 Q The district that you're concerned of with
17:17 22 respect to 9062 that's not kept wholly within the
17:17 23 county, but which is in 9071 is District 10?
17:17 24 A Yes.
17:17 25 Q And in 9066, the second Senate plan, District
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 332 254
17:17 1 10 is kept wholly within Orange County?
17:17 2 A That's my understanding.
17:17 3 Q And that's consistent with the methodology
17:17 4 that you followed in drawing the base map?
17:17 5 A Yes.
17:17 6 Q Now, in -- during Mr. Poreda's testimony --
17:17 7 you were here for that; right?
17:17 8 A Yes.
17:17 9 Q Okay.I think I remember there was an
17:17 10 instance in which we looked at one of the draft maps,
17:17 11 and in a draft -- Marion County had been split into
17:17 12 four different Congressional districts?
17:17 13 A Right.
17:17 14 Q Do you remember that?
17:17 15 A Yes.
17:17 16 Q And one of the things that the map drawer did
17:17 17 is they were able to reduce that from splitting it
17:17 18 into four different districts to three different
17:17 19 districts; is that right?
17:17 20 A That's correct.
17:17 21 Q And that was a good thing; right?
17:18 22 A It was, although that wasn't the motivation
17:18 23 for that particular draft. It was what the effect of
17:18 24 that would have on the other counties and cities
17:18 25 around the map. Again, when thinking about
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 333 255
17:18 1 Mr. Poreda's testimony, we were in a process of
17:18 2 exploring how to maximize the number of keeping
17:18 3 counties and cities whole in that drafting process.
17:18 4 And so as we were exploring, there was an
17:18 5 option there that would have Marion County split four
17:18 6 ways versus three ways. But that didn't have a
17:18 7 positive impact.
17:18 8 That fourth split, as we found, didn't have a
17:18 9 positive effect in other areas of the map as it
17:18 10 relates to keeping counties and cities whole as well
17:18 11 as drawing a compact map.
17:18 12 Q Okay. But you did elect to go with the draft
17:18 13 which reduced the number of times Marion County was
17:18 14 split into three districts instead of four districts;
17:18 15 right?
17:18 16 A Yes, because of the benefits of having other
17:18 17 areas of the map. Had that fourth cut been to the
17:18 18 benefit of other counties or cities throughout the
17:18 19 map -- again,I can't speak for my fellow map
17:19 20 drawers -- but that would have been something we would
17:19 21 have weighed even more significantly than we did.
17:19 22 But there just wasn't that positive attribute
17:19 23 that we found in that fourth splitting of Marion
17:19 24 County.
17:19 25 Q Okay. So with regard to the split of Marion,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 334 256
17:19 1 you reduced that from four to three; yeah?
17:19 2 A The base map has three.
17:19 3 Q Right. And the base map has four splits to
17:19 4 Hillsborough County?
17:19 5 A Yes.
17:19 6 Q And so the decision to reduce the split to
17:19 7 Marion, but not to Hillsborough, was in no way
17:19 8 inconsistent with the methodologies that you were
17:19 9 applying in that case; right?
17:19 10 A That is accurate, that as far as the concept
17:19 11 of keeping the district wholly within Hillsborough
17:19 12 County was a recognition of that population within
17:19 13 that county. We then went further and kept all of
17:19 14 Tampa whole within that district, and -- as well as in
17:19 15 keeping a district wholly within Orange County --
17:19 16 Q Right.
17:19 17 A-- in the map.
17:19 18 Q I'm sorry.I just want to make sure I
17:19 19 understand that the decision to reduce the number of
17:20 20 times Marion was split while leaving the number of
17:20 21 times Hillsborough was split was not inconsistent with
17:20 22 that policy, in that case; right?
17:20 23 A That is correct. Because of, again, the
17:20 24 benefits that the other areas of the map would have by
17:20 25 the splitting of a county that's already split.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 335 257
17:20 1 Q Last question.I think one of the other
17:20 2 concerns you expressed with respect to the Senate map
17:20 3 is that there was an unpopulated portion of Tampa Bay?
17:20 4 A Uh-huh.
17:20 5 Q I'm sorry.I forget. What district was that?
17:20 6 A Forgive me,I don't have a map in front of me,
17:20 7 so I don't want to give a wrong number.I just recall
17:20 8 as I reviewed the various maps that tail being a
17:20 9 concern. Forgive me.
17:20 10 Q One of your concerns is where that tail was
17:20 11 included?
17:20 12 A Uh-huh.
17:20 13 Q So I'm correct, sir, that there are no people
17:20 14 that live in that tail; right?
17:20 15 A That is correct. But it is an incursion into
17:20 16 that county to grab an unpopulated area.I would
17:20 17 assume that was for a compactness benefit. But that
17:20 18 is an intrusion into a county to grab an unpopulated
17:21 19 area.
17:21 20 Q Right about the --
17:21 21 A Crossing water.
17:21 22 Q -- no people live there?
17:21 23 A But there is water there, yes; right.
17:21 24 Q Water, no people?
17:21 25 AI believe it's unpopulated.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 336 258
17:21 1 MR. ZAKIA: Okay. Thank you.
17:21 2 No further questions, Your Honor.
17:21 3 THE COURT: If I don't hear from Ms. Riggs --
17:21 4 she's hiding from me. If she doesn't stand up, I'm
17:21 5 going to assume she doesn't have any questions.
17:21 6 Going over to the plaintiffs.
17:21 7 CROSS EXAMINATION
17:21 8 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
17:21 9 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Takacs.
17:21 10 A Good afternoon.
17:21 11 Q Did you review apportionment 7 before you got
17:21 12 together with your colleagues to begin work on the
17:21 13 base map?
17:21 14 A Yes.
17:21 15 Q I presume you read that opinion very
17:21 16 carefully?
17:21 17 AI did.
17:21 18 Q You wanted to assure yourself that you
17:21 19 understood the problems with the districts that the
17:21 20 Court had identified; right?
17:21 21 A Yes. And how to fix them, yes.
17:21 22 Q Exactly. You wanted to make sure you
17:21 23 understood the violations the Court had found and the
17:22 24 instructions that the Court had made to ensure that
17:22 25 those violations were correct --
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 337 259
17:22 1 A Yes.
17:22 2 Q -- right?
17:22 3 A Uh-huh.
17:22 4 Q And so with respect to Districts 26 and 27,
17:22 5 you read the section of the opinion very carefully
17:22 6 about that; correct?
17:22 7 AI did.
17:22 8 Q You understood that the Supreme Court
17:22 9 invalidated that configuration in 9047, because it
17:22 10 concluded that using the tool of splitting Homestead,
17:22 11 the Legislature had drawn those districts in a way
17:22 12 that improved Republican performance in CD-26; right?
17:22 13 AI believe so, and I believe they believed
17:22 14 there was an intent to that, yes.
17:22 15 Q Right. And they talked about the impact
17:22 16 politically of splitting Homestead in that situation,
17:22 17 that it turned one Republican-performing district and
17:22 18 one Democrat-performing district into two Republican
17:22 19 leaning districts; correct?
17:22 20 A Yes.
17:22 21 Q And so when you drew the alternative fixes for
17:22 22 that by putting Homestead whole in CD-26 in one
17:22 23 version and Homestead whole in CD-27 in the other, did
17:22 24 you look at the performance result of those two
17:23 25 configurations?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 338 260
17:23 1 A Only after they were drawn for functional
17:23 2 analysis purposes.
17:23 3 Q And so once you did that, you realized, now we
17:23 4 have drawn two different options that further increase
17:23 5 Republican performance in CD-26; correct?
17:23 6 A That's incorrect.I-- when looking at the
17:23 7 data that we had produced after creating those drafts,
17:23 8 thinking about keeping Homestead whole, what we were
17:23 9 looking for there was to make sure that both of the
17:23 10 districts in both of the drafts could allow the
17:23 11 Hispanic community there to elect a candidate of their
17:23 12 choice.
17:23 13 We did not --I did not, and I believe my
17:23 14 other map drawers did not as well -- compare that data
17:23 15 to the data that had been in the previously-enacted
17:23 16 map, 9057, so I did not know that.
17:23 17 Q You knew that in apportionment 7 the Supreme
17:23 18 Court set out in the opinion what the political
17:23 19 performance was of CD-26 and 27 under 9047; right?
17:24 20 AI did.
17:24 21 Q And it did that because it was illustrating
17:24 22 how the Homestead split had effectuated that increase
17:24 23 in Republican performance in CD-26; right?
17:24 24 A Correct. Which is what led to their mandate
17:24 25 of remedying that by keeping Homestead whole, yes.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 339 261
17:24 1 Q When you drew the two configurations you drew,
17:24 2 and you saw that CD-26 performed worse for Democrats
17:24 3 than the configuration that the Court invalidated,
17:24 4 it's your testimony you didn't understand what that
17:24 5 meant?
17:24 6 AI didn't look at that data. As I said before,
17:24 7 we did no comparison of the base map drafts to 9057.
17:24 8 What we were looking at there when we created those
17:24 9 reports was to assess to make sure that those
17:24 10 districts could allow the Hispanic community to elect
17:24 11 a candidate of their choice.
17:24 12 Q So when was the first time that you learned
17:24 13 that the configurations you had drawn of 26 and 27
17:24 14 performed better for Republicans in CD-26 than 9047?
17:24 15 AI believe -- and forgive me; I'm trying to go
17:25 16 back in my mind --I believe I was aware of the letter
17:25 17 that the plaintiffs had sent to the Legislature that
17:25 18 they had concerns with 26 and 27. And I just can't
17:25 19 remember the specific date.
17:25 20 But it was well after the base map had been
17:25 21 drawn and created and when we were in the legislative
17:25 22 process,I was made aware of that letter with that
17:25 23 information in it.
17:25 24 Q But took no action to address the issues in
17:25 25 the letter; correct?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 340 262
17:25 1 A That is correct, because my fear was, was that
17:25 2 if we had done so specifically to try to include
17:25 3 Republicans or Democrats into this district or that
17:25 4 district, the fear that I had was that then we would
17:25 5 be intending to favor or disfavor a political party.
17:25 6 And thinking about political data as we draw
17:25 7 lines is never a part of what we do with that one
17:25 8 exception of -- of thinking about the minority
17:25 9 communities in the various districts to allow them to
17:25 10 elect a candidate of their choice.
17:25 11 Q Mr. Takacs, were you ever a part of any
17:25 12 discussions with your colleagues or with the lawyers
17:26 13 who were involved in the drawing of the base map about
17:26 14 whether those discussions ought to be transcribed,
17:26 15 should there be a written record of them?
17:26 16 A No,I was not.
17:26 17 Q So is it as far as you know, then, correct
17:26 18 that at no time nobody ever talked about whether it
17:26 19 would be a good idea to have a court reporter there
17:26 20 recording what the discussions about the base map --
17:26 21 AI don't believe so, no.
17:26 22 Q -- consisted?
17:26 23 A But I-- again,I wasn't a party to those
17:26 24 conversations, so I don't know if there were any.
17:26 25 Q You remember the Supreme Court opinion in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 341 263
17:26 1 apportionment 7 encouraging the Legislature to record
17:26 2 nonpublic meetings; right?
17:26 3 AI do.
17:26 4 Q You were asked what you thought the best map
17:26 5 was among the options that are before Judge Lewis.
17:26 6 And I think you said 9071 was the best map; right?
17:26 7 A Yes.
17:26 8 Q That's the House map?
17:26 9 A Yes.
17:26 10 Q And you work for the House; right?
17:26 11 AI do.
17:26 12 Q And then you also talked about some problems
17:26 13 that you think CP-1 suffers from; right?
17:26 14 A Yes.
17:27 15 Q And you identified,I think, concerns with the
17:27 16 origin, concerns with 26 and 27 and whether they
17:27 17 retrogress. You had some Tier 2 concerns with CD-20
17:27 18 with the third appendage.
17:27 19 A Uh-huh.
17:27 20 Q And then you talked about CP-2 and CP-3;
17:27 21 right?
17:27 22 A Yes.
17:27 23 Q So with respect to the retrogression issue in
17:27 24 CD-26, you understand that when the Legislature drew
17:27 25 9047 and 9057 and drew CDs 26 and 27, it would have
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 342 264
17:27 1 done a functional analysis to ensure that those
17:27 2 district configurations preserve the Hispanic ability
17:27 3 to elect and didn't retrogress; right?
17:27 4 A That's correct. We as staff would do a very
17:27 5 high level functional analysis of the districts there.
17:27 6 And, again, thinking about the complexity of the
17:27 7 voting patterns and all the things in Miami-Dade
17:27 8 County we would have Dr. Moreno review districts as
17:28 9 well after they were completed.
17:28 10 Q Right. And, in fact, Dr. Moreno did review
17:28 11 those configurations and offered an opinion that they
17:28 12 did perform for Hispanics; correct?
17:28 13 A I'm sorry, which districts are you referring
17:28 14 to?
17:28 15 Q 26, 27, and 25 in 9047 and 9057?
17:28 16 A Yes, he did, yes.
17:28 17 Q So would you agree with me that if those same
17:28 18 districts are drawn in another map with very similar
17:28 19 percentages of HVAP and percent of Hispanics, you
17:28 20 know, that are Democrats and percentage of Hispanics
17:28 21 that are registered voters and percentage of Hispanics
17:28 22 in the turnout, if those percentages are all very,
17:28 23 very similar than the same percentages in 9047 and
17:28 24 9057, then those other districts should perform just
17:28 25 like they do in 9047 and 9057; right?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 343 265
17:28 1 A Not necessarily. And then the reason I say
17:28 2 that is that from that high level analysis that we
17:28 3 would have done, that may be correct and accurate.
17:28 4 But, again, not knowing the detail of the -- of the
17:29 5 voting patterns that Dr. Moreno does,I don't know if
17:29 6 there is something that would come out from that
17:29 7 research and those voting patterns that would allow
17:29 8 them to not perform.
17:29 9 Q Right. So utilizing Dr. Moreno's methodology,
17:29 10 if the percentages that he's analyzing between the
17:29 11 districts are virtually the same, you wouldn't expect
17:29 12 a different result in terms of performance; would you,
17:29 13 sir?
17:29 14 AI would expect Dr. Moreno to review all of the
17:29 15 specific data as it relates to the district, not just
17:29 16 a single data point in isolation. So I can't speak
17:29 17 for him, but I would expect, you know, that full
17:29 18 detailed analysis that he's so qualified to do and,
17:29 19 frankly,I am not.
17:29 20 Again,I can do the high level analysis. But
17:29 21 it would be his expertise that would be needed to come
17:29 22 in.
17:29 23 Q With respect to CD-20 you talked about the
17:29 24 fact that the House was concerned about adding a third
17:29 25 appendage; right?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 344 266
17:29 1 A Yes,I am.
17:30 2 Q You understand that CP-1, the compactness
17:30 3 scores are the same for CD-20 as they are in 9071;
17:30 4 right?
17:30 5 AI am.
17:30 6 Q And you understand that the configuration of
17:30 7 CD-20 and CP-1 picks up or splits several less cities
17:30 8 than it does in 9071; correct?
17:30 9 AI would. And thinking about the compactness
17:30 10 there that you mentioned, again, that's where that
17:30 11 visual compactness can come into play. Sometimes you
17:30 12 can look at two districts that are metrically
17:30 13 identical, but one can have an extra portion of it or
17:30 14 another attribute to it that would give it concern,
17:30 15 and that was what I had here with CP-1's CD-20.
17:30 16 Q Did you look at CP-1's South Florida
17:30 17 configuration to see if there were any things that
17:30 18 were better than the South Florida configuration in
17:30 19 9071?
17:30 20 A Well, certainly.I mean, when you look at a
17:30 21 map, you look at all of the positive and negative
17:30 22 attributes of it, certainly, yes. And then,
17:30 23 obviously, thinking about CP-1, you know, as you just
17:31 24 mentioned, keeping seven more cities whole,I think
17:31 25 that was number 7, is a positive attribute, certainly.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 345 267
17:31 1 Q And it's also positive that the compactness
17:31 2 scores, all three compactness scores for District 22,
17:31 3 are better in CP-1 than they are in 9071; correct?
17:31 4 A Again, in isolation, yes. But, again,
17:31 5 obviously thinking about the Tier 1 concerns that
17:31 6 would be there as far as favoring -- favoring or
17:31 7 disfavoring a political party or an incumbent as well
17:31 8 as allowing the minority communities to elect a
17:31 9 candidate of their choice would trump those Tier 2
17:31 10 requirements.
17:31 11 Q That wouldn't apply to 22, though; right?
17:31 12 A To 22? I'm sorry.
17:31 13 Q District 22.
17:31 14 A I'm trying to visualize in my mind -- CP-1, is
17:31 15 that the more stacked version, or is that the --
17:31 16 Q Yes.
17:31 17 A Okay. Then, yes, that is more compact than
17:31 18 the other alternative.
17:31 19 Q And it's certainly better that District 23 in
17:31 20 CP-1 is more compact on all three metric scores than
17:31 21 District 23 in 9071; right?
17:32 22 A In isolation that can be a positive attribute.
17:32 23 Again, you have to look at a map or a region of a map
17:32 24 in its totality. But in isolation, yes.
17:32 25 Q And District 24, the fact that it's more
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 346 268
17:32 1 compact in all three measures than District 24 in 9071
17:32 2 is a good thing; right?
17:32 3 A It would -- forgive me.I don't know which
17:32 4 District 24 is.I don't have any of that material in
17:32 5 front of me --
17:32 6 MR. ZEHNDER: May I approach, Your Honor?
17:32 7 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
17:32 8 BY MR. ZEHNDER:
17:32 9 Q District 24 here.
17:32 10 A Yes. Certainly, when you look at 24, that is
17:32 11 a majority minority African-American district. So
17:32 12 just looking at the actual map, that would be
17:32 13 something you would have to look at to make sure it
17:32 14 would still perform for the African-American community
17:32 15 and their candidate of choice. But, again, in
17:32 16 isolation by itself, that is a positive attribute if
17:32 17 it --
17:32 18 Q And -- sorry.
17:32 19 A Sure. If it performs under those Tier 1
17:33 20 standards.
17:33 21 Q You're, of course, as you sit here, not aware
17:33 22 of any performance problem in terms of the
17:33 23 African-Americans' ability to elect in CP-1's version
17:33 24 of District 24; right?
17:33 25 AI am not.I have not done an extensive review
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 347 269
17:33 1 of that, but I do not.
17:33 2 Q And finally, it would be a good thing, and it
17:33 3 is a good thing, that District 27 in CP-1 is more
17:33 4 compact on all three scores than District 27 in 9071;
17:33 5 right?
17:33 6 A Yes. In isolation, again, that would be.
17:33 7 But, again,I have to stress that, when you look at a
17:33 8 region, you have to look at the totality of the
17:33 9 region, making sure that districts perform for the
17:33 10 candidate of their choice in the federally protected
17:33 11 districts and looking at the overall region of the
17:33 12 map.
17:33 13 So, again, a district in isolation can
17:33 14 sometimes sound good but can be to the detriment of
17:33 15 something else that is a Tier 1 factor.
17:33 16 Q As you say, looking at these districts in the
17:33 17 same region altogether, and they are, one after
17:33 18 another, the fact that every one of them is more
17:33 19 compact than 9071 is a good thing; right?
17:34 20 A It is, again, in isolation. But what can
17:34 21 happen to the south of those districts affects what
17:34 22 happens to the rest of those districts. Yes, they are
17:34 23 all in a line. But, again, thinking about 21 and 22
17:34 24 and the minority communities there, which led us to
17:34 25 that kind of choice between the vertical districts and
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 348 270
17:34 1 more of the stacked districts, there is not a lot of
17:34 2 room to play with where the minority districts are.
17:34 3 It is quite possible that a move in Miami-Dade
17:34 4 County up there with District 27 could impact a
17:34 5 district, you know, like a District 23, as an example.
17:34 6 Q And are you aware of any of those kinds of
17:34 7 concerns with CP-1?
17:34 8 A Well,I do have some Tier 1 concerns that it
17:34 9 may not elect a candidate of choice for the Hispanic
17:34 10 community in that area, yes.
17:34 11 Q Sure. And that's kind of what we talked about
17:34 12 earlier with respect to those Hispanic districts. Is
17:34 13 it correct, though, am I understanding you correctly
17:34 14 that to the extent there is such an issue, you would
17:35 15 defer to Dr. Moreno's analysis on that, who would do a
17:35 16 much deeper analysis about whether those districts do,
17:35 17 in fact, perform or retrogress?
17:35 18 A At that deep down level of the voting patterns
17:35 19 of the residents there of Miami-Dade County, yes,I
17:35 20 would defer to him.
17:35 21 Q You mentioned the letter that the League of
17:35 22 Women Voters and Common Cause sent to the Legislature
17:35 23 during the session raising this concern that they had
17:35 24 about the configuration of 26 and 27 in the base map?
17:35 25 A Yes, sir.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 349 271
17:35 1 Q Did you read that letter?
17:35 2 A During the special session, no,I did not.
17:35 3 The first time I read that letter was yesterday.
17:35 4 Q And you heard Mr. Poreda's testimony about
17:35 5 that; correct, that he didn't read it either?
17:35 6 A That is correct. Yes,I did.
17:35 7 Q Do you know if anybody did read it other than
17:35 8 Chair Oliva, who wrote us back?
17:35 9 AI believe House counsel read the letter. But
17:35 10 I don't know specifically what individuals did or did
17:35 11 not, but I believe House counsel did.
17:35 12 Q Did you discuss the letter and what it was
17:35 13 contending with anybody?
17:36 14 A They mentioned to us that the letter existed
17:36 15 and at a very high level what the argument was or the
17:36 16 concern that was raised. So, yes, there were
17:36 17 conversations about it.
17:36 18 MR. ZEHNDER: One second, Your Honor.
17:36 19 Nothing further, Judge.
17:36 20 THE COURT: Mr. Devaney?
17:36 21 CROSS EXAMINATION
17:36 22 BY MR. DEVANEY:
17:36 23 Q Good afternoon.
17:36 24 A Good afternoon.
17:36 25 Q John Devaney for the Romo plaintiffs.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 350 272
17:36 1 A Hello.
17:36 2 Q Do you know, was map 9047 submitted to the
17:36 3 Department of Justice for preclearance under Section 5
17:36 4 of the Voting Rights Act?
17:36 5 A 9047 was, yes. But there was a requirement at
17:36 6 the time that maps be submitted to the DOJ for
17:36 7 preclearance thinking about the federal Voting Rights
17:36 8 Act.
17:36 9 Q And were you involved in that effort?
17:37 10 A To be honest with you, not entirely.I was --
17:37 11 I was really more in the House map process, so I was
17:37 12 more focused on that submission to DOJ at the time.
17:37 13 Q Okay. You understand that back in the days
17:37 14 when we had a Section 5 that applied, that what the
17:37 15 Department of Justice would look at was whether there
17:37 16 was retrogression with respect to minority voting
17:37 17 rights in looking at a map; is that correct?
17:37 18 A Yes.
17:37 19 Q And specifically retrogression with regard to
17:37 20 minority ability to elect in individual districts;
17:37 21 would you agree with that?
17:37 22 A Yes, for the districts that are federally
17:37 23 protected, yes.
17:37 24 Q Is it your understanding that when 9047 was
17:37 25 submitted, that it included Hispanic voting
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 351 273
17:37 1 percentages in Districts 25, 26, and 27 that were
17:37 2 deemed by the Department of Justice not to retrogress?
17:37 3 A That is my understanding that 9047 was
17:37 4 precleared by the DOJ.
17:38 5 Q And implicit in that approval is that whatever
17:38 6 percentages of Hispanic voters are in 25, 26, 27,
17:38 7 those percentages were sufficient to avoid
17:38 8 retrogression; correct?
17:38 9 AI can't speak to the methodology that the DOJ
17:38 10 used at the time in order to assess retrogression for
17:38 11 preclearance.I know they asked for a substantial
17:38 12 amount of data from the Legislature with that map. So
17:38 13 I can't speak for them.
17:38 14 I don't know what --I know their overall
17:38 15 goal, of course, but I don't know how they got there
17:38 16 as far as what data they used to make that assessment.
17:38 17 Q But you do agree that ultimately whatever
17:38 18 percentages were used in 9047 for those three
17:38 19 districts; that is, 25, 26, 27, were deemed sufficient
17:38 20 by the Department of Justice?
17:38 21 A Yes. 9047 was precleared, yes.
17:38 22 Q It follows, therefore, doesn't it, that
17:38 23 another map, say a map submitted by the coalition
17:38 24 plaintiffs, the Romo plaintiffs, if similar Hispanic
17:38 25 voting percentages were used in 25, 26, and 27, it
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 352 274
17:39 1 would not be retrogression?
17:39 2 A Not necessarily. Again, like I said,I
17:39 3 don't -- I know the DOJ asks for a lot of data in that
17:39 4 process when evaluating districts from the
17:39 5 Legislature. So I can't speak to one data point
17:39 6 amongst that data set, nor could I speak for how the
17:39 7 DOJ would preclear or not preclear on that that is in
17:39 8 this process now.
17:39 9 Q But you don't know of any data missing from
17:39 10 the coalition plaintiffs' or the Romo plaintiffs' maps
17:39 11 that would change the Department of Justice's
17:39 12 determination about nonretrogression of 25, 26, 27?
17:39 13 AI can't speak to that one way or the other.
17:39 14 Again, as I said,I know, just from my work in the
17:39 15 House map context, that the DOJ asked for a
17:39 16 substantial amount of data from us. And so I don't --
17:39 17 I would suspect that if -- if one of the maps that's
17:39 18 before us as one of the alternatives from the
17:39 19 plaintiffs were sent to the DOJ for preclearance, that
17:39 20 same large data set would be needed to be included
17:39 21 with that submission, along with the map.
17:39 22 Q Well, let's see if we can at least agree on
17:40 23 this. Given that the Department of Justice approved a
17:40 24 map, 9047, containing certain Hispanic percentages in
17:40 25 25, 26, and 27, would you agree that that finding is
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 353 275
17:40 1 entitled to some weight in evaluating maps with
17:40 2 similar percentages in those districts?
17:40 3 A Again, in isolation,I hesitate to answer that
17:40 4 in the affirmative, because, again,I believe that the
17:40 5 DOJ would look at a large swath of data before, you
17:40 6 know, preclearing a district or districts. So I can't
17:40 7 speak to one data point being what tips the scales for
17:40 8 them in the world of preclearing versus not
17:40 9 preclearing.
17:40 10 Q Do you know what additional data beyond
17:40 11 Hispanic voting percentages in those districts, both
17:40 12 HVAP and CVAP, would be required?
17:40 13 A It's been a long time since I've reviewed a
17:40 14 DOJ submission since we're no longer required to do
17:40 15 so.I can't say what specific data points they would
17:41 16 require or request of the Legislature. But I just
17:41 17 remember from my memory in 2012 that it was a large
17:41 18 amount of data.
17:41 19 MR. DEVANEY: All right. Thank you.
17:41 20 THE COURT: Redirect?
17:41 21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17:41 22 BY MR. MEROS:
17:41 23 Q Briefly, Mr. Takacs. Are you sure I can't
17:41 24 pronounce that C in there?
17:41 25 A You can try.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 354 276
17:41 1 Q Do you know whether or not the Supreme Court
17:41 2 of Florida believes it is sufficient to look at voting
17:41 3 percentages to determine retrogression?
17:41 4 AI can't speak for the Supreme Court, but,
17:41 5 again,I would hesitate to analyze a district and
17:41 6 whether it retrogresses or not solely based on one
17:41 7 data point.
17:41 8 Q Did you read reapportionment 1 when it came
17:41 9 out when the House map was approved?
17:42 10 AI did.
17:42 11 Q Do you recall anything about the type of
17:42 12 functional analysis the Florida Supreme Court said was
17:42 13 necessary?
17:42 14 AI do --I do recall that they talked about a
17:42 15 functional analysis and how to go about performing
17:42 16 that, yes.
17:42 17 Q And to your knowledge, did that limit itself
17:42 18 to determining a voting age population of a given
17:42 19 district, and that's all you needed to look at was
17:42 20 CVAP?
17:42 21 A No, it did not. No, there was much more data
17:42 22 that was used to perform that functional analysis just
17:42 23 besides HVAP and CVAP.
17:42 24 Q And in your high level functional analysis do
17:42 25 you use things such as turnout?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 355 277
17:42 1 A Yes.
17:42 2 Q Do you look at registration?
17:42 3 A Yes.
17:42 4 Q Do you look at primary elections?
17:42 5 A Yes.
17:42 6 Q Why do you look at primary elections?
17:42 7 A The reason you look at primary elections is,
17:42 8 again, when you look at the district as a whole, the
17:42 9 first thing you have to do is see which party controls
17:42 10 that district or if it's a politically competitive
17:43 11 district. So once you make that -- that
17:43 12 determination, you then want to -- so let's say it is
17:43 13 a district that performs for one party over another.
17:43 14 You take that next step down to look at the
17:43 15 specific like registration and voter turnout and
17:43 16 primary voter turnout for that district to ensure that
17:43 17 the minority community's candidate of choice can
17:43 18 emerge from the primary and then emerge in the general
17:43 19 as the winner.
17:43 20 Q Okay. And that's a sort of analysis you make
17:43 21 when you do a functional analysis; right?
17:43 22 A Yes.
17:43 23 Q Do you ever just look at VAP and CVAP and say
17:43 24 that's it?
17:43 25 A No.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 356 278
17:43 1 Q And do you know whether or not the Supreme
17:43 2 Court has talked -- has emphasized the importance of
17:43 3 looking at primary elections?
17:43 4 A Yes, it has. It specifically mentioned that,
17:43 5 I believe it was in apportionment 1, where they go
17:43 6 through the primary -- political party's primary data,
17:43 7 as I just said, to make sure that the minority
17:44 8 community can elect a candidate of their choice.
17:44 9 Q Do you know whether or not certain minority
17:44 10 groups within Miami-Dade County might vote cohesively
17:44 11 or, in fact, vote decisively?
17:44 12 AI would suspect that there are communities --
17:44 13 THE COURT: Don't suspect. If you know --
17:44 14 THE WITNESS: Understood.
17:44 15 AI believe that there are communities within
17:44 16 Miami-Dade County that do not vote cohesively and may,
17:44 17 in fact, vote in opposition to one another.
17:44 18 BY MR. MEROS:
17:44 19 Q Do you rely on Dr. Moreno for that intensely
17:44 20 local appraisal and analysis?
17:44 21 A Yes,I do.
17:44 22 Q And when you learned of a letter from the
17:44 23 League of Women Voters and Common Cause saying that
17:44 24 your District 26 needed to be more Democratic, did
17:44 25 that cause you any concern as to whether you erred in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 357 279
17:44 1 drawing the map as you did?
17:44 2 A It did not give me concern that we erred in
17:45 3 drawing the map, because we drew Districts 26 and 27
17:45 4 within that draft 1, which was the draft that we
17:45 5 ultimately chose for the base map, without having any
17:45 6 knowledge or data to know how those districts
17:45 7 performed politically, and also the additions that we
17:45 8 made after keeping Homestead whole, what those
17:45 9 additions meant politically as we increased the
17:45 10 population to equal them out.
17:45 11 Q And in your work on the House map in 2012 and
17:45 12 in this map, have you ever gone back and looked at a
17:45 13 district that was not a minority district to try to
17:45 14 determine how many Republicans were in it and how many
17:45 15 Democrats were in it, and then readjusted those
17:45 16 percentages?
17:45 17 A No, never.
17:45 18 Q Why not?
17:45 19 A Because I would believe that if there was a
17:45 20 thought of going in after a district was initially
17:45 21 drawn and then trying to change it or amend it in
17:45 22 order to have a political effect one way or the other
17:46 23 or to protect an incumbent one way or the other, that
17:46 24 that would be a direct violation of the Tier 1
17:46 25 standards within the constitution.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 358 280
17:46 1 Q Were you involved -- you were involved in the
17:46 2 drawing of the House map in 2012, if I understand
17:46 3 correctly?
17:46 4 A Yes,I was one of the principal architects of
17:46 5 that map.
17:46 6 Q Okay. And in that drawing did you pair
17:46 7 Republicans?
17:46 8 A Yes.
17:46 9 Q Did you unpair --
17:46 10 A Incumbents you mean?
17:46 11 Q Incumbents, yes.
17:46 12 A Yes.
17:46 13 Q Okay. Did you ever try to unpair them?
17:46 14 A No.
17:46 15 Q Were you ever criticized because you paired
17:46 16 them, that that somehow was in violation of
17:46 17 Amendment 5 or Amendment 6?
17:46 18 A No.
17:46 19 MR. MEROS: No further questions.
17:46 20 THE COURT: Mr. Zakia?
17:46 21 MR. ZAKIA: No questions, Your Honor.
17:46 22 THE COURT: Any questions from anybody else?
17:46 23 MR. ZEHNDER: No questions, Judge.
17:46 24 THE COURT: Looks like a good time to quit for
17:46 25 the day. See you back tomorrow at 9:00.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 359 281
17:46 1 MR. CANTERO: Your Honor, you said 9:00
17:46 2 tomorrow morning?
17:46 3 THE COURT: 9:00, yes.
17:47 4 MR. ZEHNDER: 9:00, Your Honor?
17:47 5 MR. KING: Your Honor, do you have an idea as
17:47 6 to how long we would go tomorrow?
17:47 7 THE COURT:I would like to quit a little
17:47 8 early if y'all don't mind, simply because I'm going
17:47 9 out of town. And the later I am, the later I will
17:47 10 be getting there. What have you got in mind?
17:47 11 MR. KING: Well we've just got a big logjam
17:47 12 tomorrow on the witnesses we've got to get done.
17:47 13 We've got experts from out of town.
17:47 14 We're supposed to put on our people after they
17:47 15 are. They have how many witnesses before we get to
17:47 16 us?
17:47 17 MR. ZAKIA: Four witnesses, Your Honor. We
17:47 18 suspect they will go quicker.
17:47 19 MR. KING: You've got two nonexperts and two
17:47 20 experts?
17:47 21 MR. ZAKIA: I'm sorry, five.
17:47 22 MR. KING: Three nonexperts and two experts?
17:47 23 MR. ZAKIA: We reached an agreement with the
17:47 24 plaintiffs to try to streamline some of the expert
17:47 25 testimony.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 360 282
17:48 1 THE COURT: Well,I sure don't want to go
17:48 2 late.I was trying to get out a little early.
17:48 3 But --
17:48 4 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, we have Monday.
17:48 5 THE COURT: Yeah,I know, but he says he has
17:48 6 an expert witness coming, which means they --
17:48 7 MR. MEROS: Already here.
17:48 8 THE COURT:-- are already here, so they would
17:48 9 have to go and come back over the weekend. I'm
17:48 10 sympathetic.
17:48 11 Maybe you can talk with them. Maybe they will
17:48 12 let you take some witness that can't come back out
17:48 13 of order if you can't get to them.
17:48 14 MR. KING: So we will likely quit about what
17:48 15 time tomorrow, Your Honor?
17:48 16 THE COURT:I was thinking about 4:30 if that
17:48 17 works out. Maybe we can take a smaller lunch, or I
17:48 18 can start at 8:30 if that will help.
17:48 19 MR. KING: Sure.
17:48 20 MR. MEROS: 9:00 is hard enough. Whatever.
17:48 21 THE COURT: Let's say 9:00. 9:00 will be
17:48 22 fine. We will see how it goes. Maybe it will go
17:48 23 quicker. If y'all don't ask so many questions it
17:48 24 will go easier.
17:49 25 (The proceedings were adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 361 283
17:49 1 and continue in Volume 3.)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 362 284
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF LEON ) 3
4 I, SARAH B. GILROY, Registered Professional Reporter,
5 and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing
6 proceedings were taken before me at the time and place
7 therein designated; and that the foregoing pages
8 numbered 96 through 284 are a true and correct record of
9 the aforesaid proceedings.
10
11 I further certify that I am not a relative, employee,
12 attorney or counsel of any parties, nor am I a relative
13 or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel
14 connected with the action, nor am I financially
15 interested in the action.
16 DATED this day of September, 2015.
17
18
19
20 /s/ Sarah B. Gilroy SARAH B. GILROY 21 [email protected] 850.878.2221 22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 363 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
RENE ROMO, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO: 2012-CA-412
KEN DETZNER and PAM BONDI, Defendants. /
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO: 2012-CA-490
KEN DETZNER, et al. Defendants. /
VOLUME 3 Pages 285 through 396
IN RE: Evidentiary Hearing
BEFORE: Honorable Terry P. Lewis
DATE: September 25, 2015
TIME: Commenced at 9:03 a.m. Adjourned at 12:00 noon
PLACE: Leon County Courthouse Courtroom 3G Tallahassee, Florida
REPORTED BY: SARAH B. GILROY, RPR, CRR [email protected]
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. Tallahassee, FL 32301 850.878.2221
J.A. 364 286
1 APPEARANCES:
2 REPRESENTING THE ROMO PLAINTIFFS: JOHN M. DEVANEY, ESQUIRE 3 [email protected] Perkins Coie, LLP 4 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington,D.C., 20005 5 REPRESENTING THE COALITION PLAINTIFFS: 6 DAVID B. KING, ESQUIRE [email protected] 7 THOMAS A. ZEHNDER, ESQUIRE [email protected] 8 FRITZ WERMUTH, ESQUIRE [email protected] 9 King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth 25 East Pine Street 10 Orlando, Florida 32301
11 REPRESENTING THE FLORIDA HOUSE: GEORGE N. MEROS, JR., ESQUIRE 12 [email protected] ANDY BARDOS, ESQUIRE 13 [email protected] GrayRobinson 14 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 15 REPRESENTING FLORIDA SENATE: 16 RAOUL G. CANTERO, III, ESQUIRE [email protected] 17 JASON N. ZAKIA, ESQUIRE [email protected] 18 JESSE L. GREEN, ESQUIRE [email protected] 19 White & Case, LLP Southeast Financial Center 20 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131 21
22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 365 287
1 INDEX - VOLUME 3
2 WITNESSES PAGE NO.
3 TOM LEE Direct Examination by Mr. Cantero 291 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Meros 312 Redirect Examination by Mr. Cantero 317 5 BAODONG LIU 6 Cross Examination by Mr. King 320 Redirect Examination by Mr. Green 339 7 Recross Examination by Mr. King 345
8 DARIO MORENO Direct Examination by Mr. Meros 346 9 Cross Examination by Mr. King 367
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 366 288
09:03 1 THE BAILIFF: All rise. Come to order.
09:03 2 Honorable Terry P. Lewis presiding.
09:03 3 THE COURT: Have a seat. You ready?
09:03 4 MR. ZAKIA: Good morning, Your Honor, Jason
09:03 5 Zakia for the Senate. Just a couple of
09:03 6 housekeeping issues to make sure everything works
09:03 7 for Your Honor. We consulted, as Mr. King
09:04 8 mentioned yesterday, we have a lot of experts in
09:04 9 from out of town. We didn't want to make them come
09:04 10 back on Monday, so the parties have agreed to going
09:04 11 a little bit out of order and also streamline some
09:04 12 of the experts.I just want to run through what we
09:04 13 talked about.
09:04 14 We're going to begin this morning with Senator
09:04 15 Lee, who will be a Senate witness. We have two
09:04 16 other Senate fact witnesses, but they also can be
09:04 17 available on Monday. We're going to defer them and
09:04 18 go right to the experts.
09:04 19 So we would begin with Professor Liu, who is a
09:04 20 joint expert for the Legislature, followed by
09:04 21 Professor Moreno, also a legislative expert. And
09:04 22 then we can go to the plaintiffs' experts,
09:04 23 Dr. Ansolabehere and Dr. Lichtman.
09:04 24 And then Senator Galvano will be the next fact
09:04 25 witness. He's here if we get to him. If not, we
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 367 289
09:04 1 can do it on Monday.
09:04 2 With regard to the experts, for two of them;
09:04 3 Professor Liu, who is one of our experts, and
09:04 4 Professor Lichtman, who is one of their experts, we
09:04 5 would agree to put in their directs through their
09:04 6 reports. Their reports aren't long, and we can
09:05 7 hand them up to Your Honor so that they would both
09:05 8 be available for cross examination and redirect.
09:05 9 But we wouldn't need to do direct. We can do that
09:05 10 in writing.
09:05 11 For Professor Moreno and Ansolabehere, that's
09:05 12 going to be done the old-fashioned way, starting
09:05 13 with direct. If that all meets with Your
09:05 14 Honor's --
09:05 15 THE COURT: Everybody else okay?
09:05 16 (All respond affirmatively.)
09:05 17 MR. ZAKIA: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
09:05 18 So Professor Liu's report, which is Senate
09:05 19 Exhibit 2-1, which would be offered into evidence
09:05 20 with agreement of the parties, and then Lichtman.
09:05 21 MR. ZEHNDER: Hot off the press here, Your
09:05 22 Honor, it's CP-31.
09:05 23 MR. ZAKIA: We will hand that up to Your Honor
09:05 24 now.
09:05 25 THE COURT: CP-31, this says for Lichtman.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 368 290
09:06 1 But also I have Dr. Liu. Is that a separate
09:06 2 exhibit? It says Senate Exhibit 2-1.
09:06 3 MR. ZAKIA: Yes, Your Honor. Those are two
09:06 4 different reports. One is Dr. Liu; that's a Senate
09:06 5 exhibit, and the one for the coalition plaintiffs'
09:06 6 expert, Dr. Lichtman.
09:06 7 THE COURT: Okay. Did you want me to read
09:06 8 these right now?
09:06 9 MR. ZEHNDER: Your Honor, you certainly don't
09:06 10 have to read them now. But we would ask the Court
09:06 11 to read them at some point before entering a
09:06 12 decision. The theory was to try to shorten the
09:06 13 presentation. Instead of doing a direct exam, we'd
09:06 14 just put the actual reports into evidence.
09:06 15 THE COURT:I can certainly read it probably
09:06 16 much quicker than you could present it.
09:06 17 MR. KING: It makes sense for the judge to
09:06 18 read the report before we put -- before we put
09:06 19 Dr. Liu up.
09:06 20 THE COURT: Sure. Is that going to be our
09:06 21 next witness?
09:06 22 MR. ZAKIA: He's not next, but Senator Lee's
09:06 23 next, so Dr. Liu will be after that. So you can
09:06 24 either read them now or between Senator Lee and
09:07 25 Dr. Liu.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 369 291
09:07 1 THE COURT: Let's go ahead and get your
09:07 2 witness on -- they can stay if they wish, but if
09:07 3 necessary,I will take some time to read it.
09:07 4 MR. CANTERO: Your Honor, Raoul Cantero for
09:07 5 the Florida Senate. We will call Tom Lee to the
09:07 6 stand.
09:07 7 Your Honor,I put on your bench some hard copy
09:07 8 maps in case you need. The witness has other
09:07 9 copies, and plaintiffs have their copies.
09:07 10 Thereupon,
09:07 11 TOM LEE
09:07 12 was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn,
09:07 13 was examined and testified as follows:
09:07 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION
09:07 15 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:07 16 Q Will you state your name, please.
09:07 17 A Tom Lee.
09:07 18 Q Morning, Mr. Lee. How are you?
09:07 19 A Morning. Good.
09:07 20 Q And what is your present position, if any, in
09:07 21 the Florida Legislature?
09:07 22 AI represent Senate District 24, and I'm the
09:08 23 appropriations chair.
09:08 24 Q And what part of the state is District 24?
09:08 25 A Eastern half of Hillsborough County.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 370 292
09:08 1 Q And at some point, did you have another
09:08 2 position with the Senate?
09:08 3 A Well, at one time I was --I served a decade
09:08 4 in the Senate from '96 to 2006 and was Senate
09:08 5 president from 2004 to 2006.
09:08 6 Q And are you a member of the Senate Committee
09:08 7 on Reapportionment?
09:08 8 AI am.
09:08 9 Q What was the committee's role in the remedial
09:08 10 map process?
09:08 11 A To try to draw a map in response to the
09:08 12 Supreme Court's direction and a more constitutionally
09:08 13 compliant map.
09:08 14 Q Did the committee have a map to work with, or
09:08 15 did you start from scratch?
09:08 16 A We had a base map that was drawn in
09:08 17 collaboration between the House and the Senate staff.
09:08 18 Q What was the committee's role in reviewing the
09:08 19 base map?
09:08 20 A To go through and understand the methodology
09:08 21 by which it was developed and then to see, as we
09:09 22 understood it, whether or not there was any
09:09 23 opportunity to improve upon the performance of the map
09:09 24 relative to its geometric compaction -- whether it was
09:09 25 complied to Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards, et cetera.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 371 293
09:09 1 Q Was it the committee's understanding that that
09:09 2 base map had to be voted up or down or that it could
09:09 3 be amended?
09:09 4 A No. In fact, it was a great deal of
09:09 5 discussion in the opening session of the special
09:09 6 session in the Senate, inquiries of Senator Galvano,
09:09 7 our appropriation -- our reapportionment subcommittee
09:09 8 chair, as to what the expectations were. And I know I
09:09 9 asked whether or not the base map had any presumption
09:09 10 of superiority, and we were told on the record in
09:09 11 both -- on the floor of the Senate and in committee
09:09 12 that it was for discussion purposes only, essentially,
09:09 13 a starting place.
09:10 14 Q Now, was it the understanding that any
09:10 15 amendments had to -- could not reduce the Tier 1 and
09:10 16 Tier 2 standards?
09:10 17 A Yes. Absolutely.
09:10 18 Q Can we put on 9065? I'm going to put Joint
09:10 19 Exhibit No. 4 on the screen. Hopefully you can see
09:10 20 it. There we go.
09:10 21 Is this the base map? Can you see it okay
09:10 22 from there? If you can't see,I have hard copies.
09:10 23 AI can see it. And it looks like the base map.
09:10 24 Q And was that a map that you believe could be
09:10 25 improved?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 372 294
09:10 1 A Yes, sir.
09:10 2 Q In what ways did you think you could improve
09:10 3 the map?
09:10 4 A Well, when I came -- when I came to
09:11 5 Tallahassee to look at the reapportionment -- to sit
09:11 6 and participate in the reapportionment process,I had
09:11 7 read Amendment 1 and 2, but I didn't really understand
09:11 8 their practical application. So my knowledge of all
09:11 9 of this was evolving as we started on the floor and
09:11 10 then went into committee in a pretty elaborate
09:11 11 explanation from staff and interactions from the
09:11 12 members.
09:11 13 And I-- so I came to Tallahassee with an
09:11 14 understanding that Hillsborough County had been
09:11 15 somewhat of a donor county, a host county, over
09:11 16 generations.
09:11 17 Q What do you mean by a "donor" or "host"
09:11 18 county?
09:11 19 A Well, in that it had been a place in which a
09:11 20 lot of Congressional districts had converged over
09:11 21 time. So I had that as sort of a baseline
09:11 22 understanding of the way people in my community,
09:11 23 Hillsborough County, felt.I've lived there for 45
09:11 24 years.
09:11 25 And as we went through the process, it became
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 373 295
09:12 1 clear to me that there were -- some concerns being
09:12 2 expressed about the Congressional district to the
09:12 3 south, Manatee-Sarasota County, there were some
09:12 4 concerns expressed on the record by Senator Joyner in
09:12 5 terms of trying to get Congressional District 14 to
09:12 6 perform more as a coalition district.
09:12 7 Q I just want to be clear for the judge which
09:12 8 districts we're talking about. When you say the
09:12 9 district to the south, do you mean District 16?
09:12 10 A Yes, sir.
09:12 11 Q And when you say Senator Joyner, are you
09:12 12 talking about District 14?
09:12 13 A Yes, sir. And this was all on the record.
09:12 14 And as someone who has been around the legislative
09:12 15 process for a long time,I began to hear from my
09:12 16 colleagues that they wanted to try to take a run, if
09:12 17 you will, or a shot at seeing if the map could somehow
09:12 18 be improved upon based upon their knowledge of the
09:12 19 communities.
09:12 20 And having heard all of that,I thought, well
09:13 21 I would try to sit down and see if I couldn't combine,
09:13 22 you know, my concerns with those of Senator Joyner's
09:13 23 and the senators to the south of me in
09:13 24 Manatee-Sarasota and come up with a change to
09:13 25 West-Central Florida that might improve upon the map's
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 374 296
09:13 1 constitutional compliance while achieving some
09:13 2 aspirational goals or some conceptual goals that we
09:13 3 all laid out on the record.
09:13 4 Q And so how did you go about developing an
09:13 5 improvement to the map?
09:13 6 A Well, after -- after listening to all of this
09:13 7 dialogue in committee,I set up an appointment to meet
09:13 8 with Jay Ferrin, our staff director. He was meeting
09:13 9 with a lot of other senators who were trying to run
09:13 10 ideas up the flag pole in other parts of the state,I
09:13 11 know. So he had limited time. We met for a brief
09:13 12 period of time --
09:13 13 Q Before you go into that, what direction were
09:13 14 the senators given about meeting and then trying to
09:13 15 amend maps, meeting with Jay Ferrin?
09:14 16 A Well, there was a lot of discussion early on
09:14 17 in a memo that was issued by President Gardiner and
09:14 18 Senator Galvano about the process under which we would
09:14 19 follow. And everyone was under the expectation that
09:14 20 there was, you know, that there will be lessons
09:14 21 learned from some of the missteps of the past, if you
09:14 22 will, and that all of our conversations were going to
09:14 23 be tape recorded, and that there shouldn't be any ex
09:14 24 parte communication, if you will, regarding the
09:14 25 construction of maps.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 375 297
09:14 1 So my -- our instructions were to set up
09:14 2 meetings with the staff, to have those all on the
09:14 3 record, if you will, and to -- and to understand that
09:14 4 if we attempted to try to improve upon the base work
09:14 5 product, that we also, at the same time, had to at
09:14 6 least maintain the status quo as to its constitutional
09:14 7 compliance.
09:14 8 Q And so you were saying that you did meet with
09:15 9 Jay.
09:15 10 AI did.I met with him for a brief period of
09:15 11 time around the lunch hour in the middle of the week
09:15 12 of our first week of that special session and then
09:15 13 returned at about 9:00 or so that evening and spent
09:15 14 several hours with -- with him on the record up in his
09:15 15 office on the 20th floor, kind of working through the
09:15 16 concepts that had been developed in committee by
09:15 17 Senator Bradley, who was expressing concerns about
09:15 18 Manatee-Sarasota County; Senator Joyner was expressing
09:15 19 concerns about the coalition performance of
09:15 20 Congressional District 14, and those that I brought
09:15 21 from my 45 years of experience in eastern Hillsborough
09:15 22 County.
09:15 23 MR. CANTERO: Can you put up 9042?
09:15 24 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:15 25 Q There is a map 9042 on your desk. Do you
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 376 298
09:15 1 recognize that map?
09:16 2 AI don't have 9042, sir.
09:16 3 THE COURT:(Tendering document.)
09:16 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
09:16 5 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:16 6 Q When you're talking about --
09:16 7 MR. CANTERO: We have it up on the screen,
09:16 8 Your Honor.
09:16 9 Can you blow up the West-Central Florida here?
09:16 10 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:16 11 Q When you refer to the -- the concerns that
09:16 12 Senator Bradley expressed, are you talking about
09:16 13 District 16?
09:16 14 A Yes, sir.
09:16 15 Q Okay. And is this the amendment that was
09:16 16 proposed to amend the map as to District 16?
09:16 17 A Yes, sir. This looks like the map. This
09:16 18 looks like the map that Senator Bradley was proposing
09:16 19 as an amendment to the base map.
09:17 20 Q Okay. So when you met with Jay Ferrin, you
09:17 21 said you went to incorporate those concerns into
09:17 22 whatever amendments you came up with?
09:17 23 A Yes, sir. And I think it's essentially where
09:17 24 Senator Bradley was going based upon his testimony in
09:17 25 committee was that there was some conversation about
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 377 299
09:17 1 splitting Manatee -- or Sarasota County, and he was
09:17 2 setting out to, it appeared to me through this
09:17 3 amendment and the dialogue he was having, he was
09:17 4 headed in the direction to try to restore that.
09:17 5 And, in fact, 9042, which I'm looking at now,
09:17 6 I think would have been a big setback from the base
09:17 7 map for Hillsborough County.
09:17 8 Q In what sense?
09:17 9 A Well, in the sense that it would have put
09:17 10 Congressional District 17 back into Hillsborough
09:17 11 County, and the congressman representing District 17
09:18 12 lived 150 miles away.I know that communities of
09:18 13 interest are something that are sort of loosely a
09:18 14 consideration under maybe a third tier consideration,
09:18 15 if you will, under Amendments 1 and 2, but having
09:18 16 lived in the -- eastern Hillsborough County for 45
09:18 17 years and having built hundreds of homes in that
09:18 18 region of the state,I know that the economies of
09:18 19 southeastern Hillsborough County are connected to
09:18 20 Manatee County, not Okeechobee County.
09:18 21 And if there were going to be splintering and
09:18 22 hosting from Hillsborough County to other
09:18 23 Congressional districts it was far more in the
09:18 24 interest of people from Hillsborough County to have
09:18 25 their representative come out of an area that was
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 378 300
09:18 1 connected economically, which is Manatee-Sarasota
09:18 2 County.
09:18 3 Q And was it your understanding that Senator
09:18 4 Bradley's proposed amendment would restore District 16
09:18 5 to the way it had been in -- before the Supreme
09:18 6 Court's decision?
09:19 7 A Yes.I wasn't terribly familiar with the
09:19 8 details of exactly where he was headed. But my
09:19 9 understanding was that that -- that was his concept
09:19 10 was that 16 -- there was no instruction to redraw 16.
09:19 11 And so simply restoring it was a simple fix to the --
09:19 12 address the concerns that had been raised by Senator
09:19 13 Bradley.
09:19 14 Q All right. And in speaking with Jay Ferrin,
09:19 15 what instruction did you give Jay about how to draw an
09:19 16 amendment that would address your concerns?
09:19 17 A Well, what I was trying to do was combine the
09:19 18 concerns that I had with those that --I mean, we're
09:19 19 in a reapportionment committee, and I realize that
09:19 20 we're operating in a remedial process, which, to some
09:19 21 extent, sort of short circuits the way we typically do
09:19 22 business in the Legislature. We all have our methods
09:19 23 for resolving disputes and -- and what have you.
09:19 24 But trying to overlay the remedial process
09:19 25 with our traditional process, I'm a member of the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 379 301
09:19 1 reapportionment committee. Senator Bradley is a
09:20 2 member of the reapportionment committee, and so is
09:20 3 Senator Joyner.I know we have to get a map out of
09:20 4 there.
09:20 5 If I'm going to try to improve upon the
09:20 6 metrics of the map, it's smart for me to do so, as
09:20 7 someone that's been around the process for a long
09:20 8 time, by incorporating the concerns being addressed by
09:20 9 my colleagues. So my instructions to Jay was to
09:20 10 simply, you know, having listened to Senator Bradley's
09:20 11 concerns and having listened to Senator Joyner's
09:20 12 concerns, to try to draw a map that addressed all
09:20 13 three of the members' concerns; Joyner's, Bradley's
09:20 14 and myself, in an amendment that would also improve
09:20 15 the metrics of the map.
09:20 16 Q Okay. And did Jay come up with a map?
09:20 17 A Well, he came up with several maps, yes, sir.
09:20 18 Q Let's go with the first one. Did he show you
09:20 19 a map that he had designed to address your concerns?
09:20 20 A Yes, sir. Working together we -- and I forget
09:20 21 the numbers of the maps in the evolutionary process,
09:20 22 but --
09:20 23 Q Let's put up Senate Exhibit 35. You can look
09:20 24 at map 9046 there when you're done.
09:21 25 A Yes, sir.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 380 302
09:21 1 Q Does that look like the first map that Jay
09:21 2 came up with?
09:21 3 A It does.
09:21 4 Q And did that seem to address your concerns?
09:21 5 A Well, it --
09:21 6 MR. CANTERO: Can we blow up Central Florida?
09:21 7 A Yes, sir. We were running into some real
09:21 8 difficulty dealing with Senator Joyner's concerns
09:21 9 right out of the box, because in order to make
09:21 10 Congressional District 14 perform in a more
09:21 11 coalition-type fashion, we had to do some things that
09:21 12 really adversely impacted its compactness. And since
09:21 13 it was not protected under Tier 1, we knew that would
09:21 14 be a concern.
09:21 15 So we were running into some issues there.
09:21 16 And then, of course, as this map addressed the
09:21 17 concerns as best we could of the three senators in the
09:21 18 committee, you could see that, when you get over to
09:21 19 Congressional District 9, it begins to create some
09:22 20 obvious visual compactness issues that were kind of a
09:22 21 nonstarter, as it hooks around Congressional District
09:22 22 10, that is.
09:22 23 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:22 24 Q And so did you try to come at it another
09:22 25 direction?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 381 303
09:22 1 A Yes, sir. We then continued to work and had a
09:22 2 second iteration of that.
09:22 3 MR. CANTERO: Senate Exhibit 36.
09:22 4 And you have on your table, and it will be up
09:22 5 on the screen also, 9048, which, Your Honor, is
09:22 6 Senate Exhibit 36. And the previous one was Senate
09:22 7 Exhibit 35. And they've all been admitted as
09:22 8 unobjected to by any parties.
09:22 9 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:22 10 Q So is this the second map that Jay came up
09:22 11 with?
09:22 12 A Yes, sir.
09:22 13 Q And what did you think of this map?
09:22 14 A Well, it was certainly an improvement. It
09:22 15 continued to positively address the aspirational goals
09:23 16 that we had set at the conceptual level in committee.
09:23 17 We are not in a position as committee members with the
09:23 18 technology to work through this on our own.
09:23 19 So we're more in a posture of having to set
09:23 20 some aspirational goals and work with our staff who
09:23 21 knows how to work with that mouse and DistrictBuilder,
09:23 22 what have you, and can work the Reock scores and the
09:23 23 Convex Hull scores and do the geometrics and
09:23 24 mathematics.
09:23 25 But the aspirational goals were being met.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 382 304
09:23 1 But, again, over in Congressional District 9, you can
09:23 2 see that it has some compaction issues and -- that
09:23 3 were still less than optimal.
09:23 4 Q So when you say compactness -- compaction
09:23 5 issues, this draft was less than ideal compared to the
09:23 6 base map?
09:23 7 A Yes, sir. And I--I can't remember in terms
09:23 8 of the evolution, as you look at Tier 2, where we were
09:23 9 on the city and county splits as we go through it.
09:23 10 But I do recall that the first two maps we came up
09:24 11 with were problematic with respect to compaction.
09:24 12 They may have had some city-county split issues as
09:24 13 well.
09:24 14 Q And so what happened after that? You felt
09:24 15 this was not adequate, and ...
09:24 16 A Yes, sir. And, of course, we have a legal
09:24 17 team, which you are a significant part of. And we're
09:24 18 working in committee with laypeople, senators, working
09:24 19 on maps, who then work with our staff. And our staff
09:24 20 then has to look at these things through the prism of
09:24 21 your legal analyses of these maps so that we can be
09:24 22 able to make an argument on the record that these maps
09:24 23 are, in fact, an improvement.
09:24 24 So as we went through that process, you know,
09:24 25 I knew there was going to be some review going on what
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 383 305
09:24 1 was occurring. And it was clear to me that we were
09:24 2 creating some challenges in other parts of the state
09:24 3 that might have resulted in there being concerns with
09:25 4 the map.
09:25 5 In committee, that last day,I believe it was
09:25 6 a Thursday before we left for the weekend,I said,
09:25 7 look, I'm -- we have done a good job,I think,
09:25 8 adequately laying out what we think conceptually might
09:25 9 result in improvements to the map, but we're working
09:25 10 under a lot of time constraints and a lot of pressure.
09:25 11 Our staff director is working with multiple senators.
09:25 12 We have literally hours in which to do this.
09:25 13 I know we had been up all night. We were
09:25 14 leaving for Thursday. And I simply said, look, I'm
09:25 15 not married to any of this, that, you know, we have
09:25 16 conceptually made our best effort in the short period
09:25 17 of time that we had. But perhaps the best thing to do
09:25 18 was, as we went away for the long weekend, for our
09:25 19 legal team to work with staff on -- in the confines of
09:25 20 these conceptual goals to see if there was a way to
09:25 21 build a better mouse trap, because this was clearly
09:26 22 running into some problems. Despite our efforts to
09:26 23 deal with one area, it was running into some problems
09:26 24 on the compaction and city-county splits.
09:26 25 Q Over the weekend did Jay come up with a
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 384 306
09:26 1 solution?
09:26 2 A Yes.I got a phone call on Saturday afternoon
09:26 3 that,I think -- I'm going to use my own terms, just
09:26 4 to shorten the conversation -- he had just sort of an
09:26 5 epiphany or a breakthrough, and he sent me a concept.
09:26 6 I don't know how much conversation he had with
09:26 7 the legal team at that point to get there. But he and
09:26 8 I-- he shared that information with me and then asked
09:26 9 for my permission to go ahead and continue to work
09:26 10 along those lines.
09:26 11 I got a second phone call Sunday afternoon --
09:26 12 again, I'm 270 miles away from the capitol spending
09:26 13 time with my family that weekend, and he wasn't. And
09:27 14 I got another phone call from him on Sunday afternoon
09:27 15 that they had been able to come up with a map that was
09:27 16 in -- in everyone's sort of professional opinion, was
09:27 17 more constitutionally compliant than the base map, and
09:27 18 yet still it addressed the concerns that had been
09:27 19 addressed by the members of committee.
09:27 20 At that point I said, well, in that case, if
09:27 21 everyone is comfortable with that map, you know, the
09:27 22 compliance of the map, go ahead and, you know,
09:27 23 introduce it as an amendment to the base map.
09:27 24 MR. CANTERO: Can you put up Exhibit 37,
09:27 25 please, Senate Exhibit 37.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 385 307
09:27 1 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:27 2 Q You have on your desk there map 9054. Is this
09:27 3 the map you were referring to?
09:27 4 A Yes, sir.
09:27 5 Q And so this map -- can we -- can we cull out
09:27 6 the Central Florida area? What changes did this map
09:28 7 make that you thought were appropriate and improved
09:28 8 over the map?
09:28 9 A Well, it significantly reduced the city-county
09:28 10 splits from the base map. And it fixed the compaction
09:28 11 issues that were of concern to us visually and
09:28 12 geometrically in Congressional District 9.
09:28 13 It consolidated eastern Hillsborough County,
09:28 14 which had been sort of one of my aspirational goals.
09:28 15 And it restored the county split that had taken place
09:28 16 under the base map of Sarasota County. What we were
09:28 17 unable to do -- we made our best effort, but what we
09:28 18 were unable to do to the satisfaction of Senator
09:28 19 Joyner was improve the performance of Exhibit 14 as a
09:28 20 coalition district.
09:28 21 It was just going to do too much damage to the
09:28 22 compaction of that area as we went through iteration
09:29 23 after iteration with a mouse to try to achieve her
09:29 24 desire or stated objectives, and we're going to cut up
09:29 25 the City of Tampa and Temple Terrace at the same time.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 386 308
09:29 1 So it was -- we did our best, but we had limitations.
09:29 2 Q As to -- so just to draw your attention on --
09:29 3 so this is -- on the left side we have the base map,
09:29 4 9065. And on the right side we have 9054.
09:29 5 What were your concerns about the
09:29 6 configuration of Hillsborough County here and the
09:29 7 number of districts in Hillsborough County?
09:29 8 A Well, Hillsborough County has 1.3 million
09:29 9 people in it. And, again, as a sitting member of the
09:30 10 reapportionment committee and understanding that there
09:30 11 is -- that there are -- and having asked the staff
09:30 12 during their presentation of the base map on the
09:30 13 record, you know, isn't it true that there are
09:30 14 literally, once you lay down Tier 1 districts under
09:30 15 the Voting Rights Act or under Amendment 5 and 6,
09:30 16 isn't there a myriad of ways that, you know, Tier 2
09:30 17 standards can be applied to the map? You have to make
09:30 18 decisions at some point.
09:30 19 And I knew that those decisions had been made
09:30 20 by staff, and they had somehow been made, in my
09:30 21 opinion, again, this reapportionment cycle, to the
09:30 22 detriment of Hillsborough County. As a sitting member
09:30 23 of that committee, being able to put my fingerprints
09:30 24 on the map, with the limitations of having to comply
09:30 25 with Tier 2 standards, of course, and Tier 1
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 387 309
09:30 1 standards, for that matter, in terms of intent --I--
09:30 2 I set out to consolidate as best I could within reason
09:30 3 the eastern Hillsborough County area, which we did.
09:31 4 And since 15 and 16 -- I'm sorry, since 16
09:31 5 wasn't required to be redrawn, and the fix that was
09:31 6 being proposed to -- or an amendment that was being
09:31 7 proposed by Senator Bradley to the base map would have
09:31 8 sent Congressional District 17 back into Hillsborough
09:31 9 County,I felt the simplest fix was to just slide
09:31 10 Congressional District 16 back down to its original
09:31 11 configuration and consolidate eastern Hillsborough
09:31 12 County, and then do the best we could for
09:31 13 Congressional District 14, while making sure that, as
09:31 14 we pushed in on that balloon in west Central Florida,
09:31 15 it didn't pop out some other way that created adverse
09:31 16 effects that overall made the map perform less -- a
09:31 17 less constitutionally compliant map.
09:31 18 Q Did it address your concerns that eastern
09:31 19 Hillsborough County -- and Hillsborough County itself
09:32 20 was not broken up into several districts?
09:32 21 A Yes, sir.
09:32 22 Q And I think you testified that in 9054, the
09:32 23 amendment, District 16 is back to its original
09:32 24 configuration; is that right --
09:32 25 A Yes, sir.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 388 310
09:32 1 Q -- before the base map?
09:32 2 A Yes, sir.
09:32 3 Q And your understanding was that the Supreme
09:32 4 Court did not require District 16 to be changed; is
09:32 5 that right?
09:32 6 A That's correct.
09:32 7 Q Did you introduce this map in committee?
09:32 8 AI did.
09:32 9 Q And what happened there?
09:32 10 A It was adopted by the committee.
09:32 11 Q And then was it introduced in the Senate?
09:32 12 A It became -- it became then the map that was
09:32 13 presented on the Senate floor, yes, sir.
09:32 14 Q And it was passed on the Senate floor?
09:32 15 A Yes, sir.
09:32 16 Q And in the final map, 9062, is it your
09:32 17 understanding that that configuration of Central
09:33 18 Florida remained the same in the final map that the
09:33 19 Senate passed?
09:33 20 A Yes.
09:33 21 Q That's being presented today?
09:33 22 Let me ask you about your conversations with
09:33 23 Jay Ferrin. Did you ever, in your conversations, tell
09:33 24 Jay to draw particular lines or a boundary in one way
09:33 25 or the other?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 389 311
09:33 1 A No, sir.
09:33 2 Q Did you -- did you know, or did you tell Jay
09:33 3 that you wanted to draw a congressman out of a
09:33 4 district?
09:33 5 A No, sir.I had no idea where that particular
09:33 6 congressman lived.I was 270 miles away from the
09:33 7 capitol when that apparently occurred and didn't learn
09:33 8 about it until someone tweeted out after the vote took
09:33 9 place in committee what had just happened.
09:33 10 Q What was tweeted out?
09:33 11 AI don't know.I think it was the staff
09:33 12 director or the chief of staff for Congressman Ross
09:33 13 tweeted that he had just been drawn out of his
09:34 14 district.
09:34 15 Q And did you know -- did you tell Jay to draw
09:34 16 him out of his district?
09:34 17 A No, sir.
09:34 18 Q Did you -- did you know where he lived so you
09:34 19 could tell Jay where the boundary was?
09:34 20 A No, sir.
09:34 21 Q So was it your intent to draw anybody out of a
09:34 22 district?
09:34 23 A No.
09:34 24 MR. CANTERO: Just a second, Your Honor.
09:34 25 THE COURT: Yes.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 390 312
09:34 1 MR. CANTERO: No further questions, Your
09:34 2 Honor.
09:34 3 THE COURT: Just for clarification, did 9054
09:34 4 become 9062?
09:34 5 MR. CANTERO: 9054 was then combined with the
09:34 6 House's amendment in 9071 to become 9062.
09:34 7 THE COURT: Just like the House except for a
09:34 8 slight variation?
09:34 9 MR. CANTERO: Like the House except for that
09:34 10 area of Florida.
09:34 11 THE COURT: Gotcha. Anybody else on this
09:34 12 side, the House, Mr. Meros?
09:34 13 How about the plaintiffs?
09:34 14 Or is Mr. Meros deciding?
09:34 15 MR. MEROS: I'm sorry.I apologize. Yes.
09:35 16 If you give me just one minute, Your Honor.
09:35 17 Your Honor, if I may approach with two
09:35 18 documents for the Court and for President Lee.
09:35 19 CROSS EXAMINATION
09:35 20 BY MR. MEROS:
09:35 21 Q Good morning, Mr. President. Let me start by
09:35 22 asking you --I've given you two documents, and the
09:36 23 Court. And looking at the first document, which the
09:36 24 title on the left is CD-15, and the last four digits
09:36 25 9062.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 391 313
09:36 1 Do you see that?
09:36 2 A Yes, sir.
09:36 3 Q Okay. Can you tell me what the map in blue is
09:36 4 and what the map in yellow is on the right side?
09:36 5 A The map in blue appears to be Congressional
09:36 6 District 15 as imbedded in map 9062. And on the right
09:36 7 side appears to be Senate District 24, my current
09:36 8 Senate district.
09:36 9 Q Okay. And so the blue district, as you
09:36 10 understand it, is the one that ultimately passed the
09:36 11 Senate?
09:36 12 A Yes, sir.
09:36 13 Q Okay. Now, you talked about having an
09:36 14 incumbent out of his district, Dennis Ross. In 9066,
09:37 15 the map that was drawn after the Senate and the House
09:37 16 sine died, was Representative Ross drawn back in his
09:37 17 previous district?
09:37 18 AI honestly don't know.
09:37 19 Q Okay. Okay. Now, you are aware; are you not,
09:37 20 that the Legislature bears the burden of proof to
09:37 21 establish the validity of these legislative maps;
09:37 22 correct?
09:37 23 A Yes, sir.
09:37 24 Q Okay. And if you would, in looking at
09:37 25 Senate -- at Senate District 24 in this first page,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 392 314
09:37 1 you -- you are commonly known as the Senator from
09:37 2 Brandon; is that a fair description?
09:37 3 AI think -- that's not unfair.
09:37 4 Q Okay. And can you tell us, just
09:38 5 approximately, in Senate District 24, you see that
09:38 6 Brandon is -- at least the word is partially there.
09:38 7 Do you live on the eastern side of Brandon?
09:38 8 A Yes, pretty much in central Brandon, but
09:38 9 yes --I live on the eastern side of what is -- well,
09:38 10 I can't really see how this is drawn. But obviously I
09:38 11 live in my Senate district.
09:38 12 Q Okay. And you do --
09:38 13 A I'm in the yellow part.I know that.
09:38 14 Q That's fine. That's fine.
09:38 15 And so if you look at District 15 on 9062 to
09:38 16 the left, can you see there -- it's difficult to
09:38 17 read -- but can you see that Brandon is -- the
09:38 18 entirety of Brandon is included in District 15?
09:38 19 A Yes.
09:38 20 Q Now, with regard to the second map that I
09:38 21 showed you, and on the left it says CD-16, last four
09:38 22 digits, 9066?
09:38 23 Do you see that?
09:39 24 A Yes,I do.
09:39 25 Q Do you -- can you tell whether that is the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 393 315
09:39 1 CD-16 that was created after the Senate sige died and
09:39 2 is commonly called the Galvano Amendment?
09:39 3 A That's my understanding.
09:39 4 Q Okay. And can you see that Brandon is wholly
09:39 5 included within that district?
09:39 6 MR. CANTERO: Your Honor,I tried to let this
09:39 7 go, but this is beyond the scope of direct.I
09:39 8 didn't ask any questions about 9066. There was no
09:39 9 foundation that he was involved in the drawing of
09:39 10 9066.
09:39 11 MR. MEROS:I would be happy to have him as my
09:39 12 witness, Your Honor. But,I mean, I'm just trying
09:39 13 to establish basic location. And Senator Galvano
09:39 14 will be testifying.
09:39 15 THE COURT: Well, he's correct.I will
09:39 16 sustain the objection, and you can call him back
09:39 17 later,I suppose, if we need him.
09:39 18 MR. MEROS: Sure. Okay.
09:39 19 BY MR. MEROS:
09:39 20 Q Now, would you agree with me that if -- if a
09:40 21 legislator, whether a representative, a senator, or a
09:40 22 congressman, drew a district that was favorable to
09:40 23 that legislator, that that would be a violation of the
09:40 24 Florida Constitution?
09:40 25 A No, sir.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 394 316
09:40 1 Q You talked about a map to the detriment of
09:40 2 Hillsborough County and Hillsborough County being a
09:40 3 donor county. Are you aware that Hillsborough County
09:40 4 is one of only two counties in the state, the other
09:40 5 being Miami, that has a -- one Congressional district
09:40 6 wholly within it, and a second district where the
09:40 7 population of that district is over a majority, 53
09:40 8 percent?
09:40 9 A Well,I was --I was generally aware that,
09:41 10 because of the Court's ruling as to the Tier 1
09:41 11 status -- or denying the Tier 1 status to
09:41 12 Congressional District 14, that we were forced to
09:41 13 relocate it into Hillsborough County. We could no
09:41 14 longer go across the bay, that, therefore, as a matter
09:41 15 of court order, essentially, we were now going to have
09:41 16 a Congressional district wholly within Hillsborough
09:41 17 County.
09:41 18 I wasn't terribly familiar with the -- the
09:41 19 metrics of -- the second metric you mentioned.
09:41 20 Q Well, maybe I misstated. Let me see if I can
09:41 21 state it differently.
09:41 22 With regard to the map as existed when -- when
09:41 23 these remedial maps were passed, the existing
09:41 24 Congressional maps, were you aware that Hillsborough
09:41 25 County was one of only two counties in the state that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 395 317
09:41 1 had one Congressional district wholly within it, and a
09:41 2 majority of the population in another district within
09:42 3 Hillsborough County?
09:42 4 A Are you saying when we passed the base map?
09:42 5 Q The existing map, prior to coming in to
09:42 6 special session, prior to drawing a map.
09:42 7 A Yes.
09:42 8 MR. MEROS: No further questions.
09:42 9 THE COURT: Plaintiffs have anything on this
09:42 10 side?
09:42 11 MR. KING: No questions, Your Honor.
09:42 12 THE COURT: All right. Redirect?
09:42 13 MR. CANTERO: Briefly, Your Honor.
09:42 14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
09:42 15 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:42 16 Q President Lee, Mr. Meros, without directly
09:42 17 asking the question, insinuated that you drew this
09:42 18 district, and you offered this amendment to draw
09:42 19 yourself a Congressional district. So let's come
09:42 20 right out in the open. Did you draw --
09:42 21 MR. MEROS: Let me object, Your Honor, to the
09:42 22 characterization of what I insinuated.I think
09:42 23 it's contrary to what the record shows. But ...
09:42 24 THE COURT:I will edit out the insinuation
09:42 25 part, but I will overrule the objection to the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 396 318
09:42 1 question.
09:43 2 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:43 3 Q Mr. Meros implied --
09:43 4 (Laughter.)
09:43 5 MR. MEROS: Same objection.
09:43 6 THE COURT: Well, let's say if there is any
09:43 7 inference to be drawn from your question to that
09:43 8 effect, without saying that he implied it, but I
09:43 9 will let you ask the question.
09:43 10 MR. CANTERO: Thank you, Your Honor.
09:43 11 BY MR. CANTERO:
09:43 12 Q President Lee, was it your intent in offering
09:43 13 amendment 9054 to the base map to draw yourself a
09:43 14 Congressional district?
09:43 15 A No, sir.
09:43 16 Q Do you intend, assuming map 9062 is approved,
09:43 17 to run in that Congressional district?
09:43 18 A No, sir.
09:43 19 Q Was it your intent -- is it your understanding
09:43 20 that you have to live in a Congressional district in
09:43 21 order to run for that Congressional district?
09:43 22 A It's my understanding that you do not.
09:43 23 MR. CANTERO: No further questions, Your
09:43 24 Honor.
09:43 25 THE COURT: Anything else from either side?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 397 319
09:43 1 MR. KING: No, sir.
09:44 2 Call your next witness. Oh, it's going to be
09:44 3 Dr. Liu?
09:44 4 MR. CANTERO: Yes.
09:44 5 THE COURT: Why don't we take a short break,I
09:44 6 will read Dr. Liu's report.I'll come right back.
09:44 7 (In recess from 9:44 a.m. to 10:06 a.m.)
10:06 8 THE BAILIFF: All rise. Come to order. Court
10:06 9 is back in session.
10:06 10 THE COURT: Have a seat.
10:06 11 THE BAILIFF: Be seated, please.
10:06 12 THE COURT: Okay. Well,I took the
10:06 13 opportunity to read Dr. Liu and Dr. Lichtman's
10:06 14 reports, so I'm ready if you're ready to go.
10:06 15 MR. GREEN: Your Honor, Jesse Green of White &
10:06 16 Case, for the Florida Senate. One minor
10:06 17 housekeeping issue. We are also seeking to offer
10:06 18 the exhibits and the tables and CDs attached to the
10:06 19 report. Those are Senate Exhibits 2-2 through 2-5.
10:06 20 MR. KING: No objection.
10:06 21 MR. GREEN: All right. The Senate calls
10:06 22 Dr. Baodong Liu.
10:06 23 (Senate Exhibit Nos. 2-2 through 2-5 were
10:06 24 received.)
10:06 25 Thereupon,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 398 320
10:07 1 BAODONG LIU
10:07 2 was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn,
10:07 3 was examined and testified as follows:
10:07 4 CROSS EXAMINATION
10:07 5 BY MR. KING:
10:07 6 Q Dr. Liu, good morning.
10:07 7 A Good morning.
10:07 8 Q Would you state your name, please, sir.
10:07 9 A My name is Baodong Liu.
10:07 10 Q And what is your occupation, sir?
10:07 11 A I'm a professor of political science at the
10:07 12 University of Utah.
10:07 13 Q All right. And it is my understanding that
10:07 14 you have been engaged to provide testimony in this
10:07 15 case; is that correct, sir?
10:07 16 A Yes.
10:07 17 Q And by whom are you engaged, sir?
10:07 18 AI was asked by the counsel for the state
10:07 19 Legislature.
10:07 20 Q Who would that be?
10:07 21 A Mr. Jesse Green.
10:08 22 Q Okay. So counsel for the Florida Senate?
10:08 23 A(Nodding head up and down.)
10:08 24 Q That's a yes?
10:08 25 A Yes.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 399 321
10:08 1 Q Okay. And what were you specifically asked to
10:08 2 do, sir?
10:08 3 AI was asked to provide answers regarding the
10:08 4 likelihood for Hispanic voters and African-American
10:08 5 voters to get a racial coalition to elect a minority
10:08 6 candidate in South Florida.
10:08 7 Q That was the sum total of what you were asked
10:08 8 to do, sir?
10:08 9 A Yes.
10:08 10 Q And so you rendered some opinions in this case
10:08 11 and a report?
10:08 12 A Yes.
10:08 13 Q Is that right?
10:08 14 A Yes.
10:08 15 Q And in that report you said that
10:08 16 African-American voters were cohesive, or
10:08 17 African-American candidates in South Florida?
10:08 18 A Yes.
10:08 19 Q And you said that Hispanic voters were more
10:08 20 likely to vote Hispanic Republican in South Florida?
10:09 21 A Yes.
10:09 22 Q And that there was a limited chance for black
10:09 23 or Latino candidates to reach racial coalitions
10:09 24 between the African-American voters and Hispanic
10:09 25 voters in South Florida to win a biracial or
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 400 322
10:09 1 multiracial election; is that right?
10:09 2 A It's limited, very limited.
10:09 3 Q Is that the sum total of your opinions in this
10:09 4 case, sir?
10:09 5 A Yes.
10:09 6 Q You weren't engaged to determine whether or
10:09 7 not District 26, under coalition plaintiffs' map,
10:09 8 would retrogress for Hispanic candidates; correct?
10:09 9 A No,I was not asked.
10:09 10 Q You haven't examined carefully District 26 or
10:09 11 27 in either -- in any of the maps?
10:09 12 A No,I was not asked to do that.
10:09 13 Q And certainly you weren't and are not in a
10:09 14 position to testify about whether Hispanics will be
10:10 15 able to elect candidates of their choice under any of
10:10 16 the plans in this case; is that right?
10:10 17 AI was asked to do analysis about the
10:10 18 possibility of racial coalitions. So I do have
10:10 19 opinion about that. But I don't have opinion about
10:10 20 which district will have more chance.
10:10 21 Q And let me make sure I understand how this
10:10 22 works. So when they asked you to look into that, is
10:10 23 it correct that your methodology would then be to
10:10 24 examine, review certain elections?
10:10 25 A Yes.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 401 323
10:10 1 Q And in this case you picked out ten elections
10:10 2 to look at; is that right?
10:10 3 A Yes.
10:10 4 Q Now, you had the opportunity to select any
10:10 5 elections you wanted to look at; is that right?
10:10 6 AI asked them to give me as many elections as
10:10 7 possible, given the time limit.
10:10 8 Q Now, let me -- help me understand that. Do
10:11 9 you mean you asked -- who did you ask to give you
10:11 10 these elections?
10:11 11 AI asked the counsel for the state Legislature.
10:11 12 Q So you mean the counsel for the Legislature
10:11 13 decided which elections you should look at; is that
10:11 14 right?
10:11 15 A No. They didn't decide.I decided the
10:11 16 qualification for what kinds of elections I would
10:11 17 analyze. But they provided the elections.
10:11 18 Q Okay. What qualifications did you give them
10:11 19 when you asked them to provide you with information on
10:11 20 elections?
10:11 21 AI asked them to provide elections that
10:11 22 involved at least two racial groups in terms of
10:11 23 candidacy; sometimes multiple, so we call that
10:11 24 biracial elections or multiracial elections. And I
10:12 25 asked them to give me as recent elections as possible;
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 402 324
10:12 1 if not, go back to the history.
10:12 2 Q Well, couldn't you have picked out your own
10:12 3 elections yourself, sir?
10:12 4 AI--I--I could. But I don't have time --I
10:12 5 didn't have time, and I didn't have knowledge about
10:12 6 the local elections that might involve different
10:12 7 racial candidates.
10:12 8 Q Okay. Well all that stuff is available; you
10:12 9 just didn't have the time to find it; right?
10:12 10 A No.I still need people with local knowledge
10:12 11 to tell me what kinds of candidates that I could
10:12 12 analyze under that circumstance.
10:12 13 Q And so with those directions, counsel for the
10:12 14 Senate provided you with a list of elections; is that
10:12 15 right?
10:12 16 A Correct.
10:12 17 Q And are those the ten elections that are in
10:12 18 your report?
10:12 19 A Yes.
10:13 20 Q So none of the elections that you provided --
10:13 21 they provided you did you decide didn't meet your
10:13 22 qualifications?
10:13 23 A Well,I analyzed actually much more than 10.
10:13 24 And only these ten elections took place in the area
10:13 25 that I was asked to do analysis about. That's South
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 403 325
10:13 1 Florida.
10:13 2 Q Okay. Did they -- so when they said South
10:13 3 Florida, what did you understand the geographical
10:13 4 limitations on that area were, as far as your analysis
10:13 5 was concerned?
10:13 6 A Yeah. I'm not expert of what, you know --
10:13 7 what boundary South Florida would -- would have. But
10:13 8 I understand that South Florida is a place where there
10:13 9 are a lot of Hispanic voters, especially
10:14 10 Cuban-Americans. That's the knowledge I did have.
10:14 11 Q All right. Well, what counties were you told
10:14 12 would sort of include South Florida?
10:14 13 AI asked them to give me all the counties that
10:14 14 were in South Florida. So Broward, Dade County, for
10:14 15 example.
10:14 16 Q Okay. Were those the two counties you
10:14 17 understood were South Florida?
10:14 18 A Well -- I'm not expert of geography. But I
10:14 19 asked them to give me South Florida elections.I was
10:14 20 given those elections. Therefore I analyzed them.
10:14 21 Q And did you, in your analysis, as you got
10:14 22 ready to analyze these elections, did you look to see
10:14 23 if there was any difference, for example, in south --
10:14 24 in Dade County and Broward County?
10:14 25 A Yeah.I try to analyze all the elections that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 404 326
10:14 1 took place in the south -- in the south region of
10:15 2 Florida. What I wanted to do was to find a pattern,
10:15 3 if I can establish a pattern, then I can make
10:15 4 conclusion.
10:15 5 If I fail, then I cannot make conclusion. So
10:15 6 not necessarily inside South Florida, between one
10:15 7 place and another.
10:15 8 MR. KING: All right. Let's put up D-8,
10:15 9 please.
10:15 10 Your Honor,I've got hard copies of mine if
10:15 11 anybody has trouble seeing these demonstratives.
10:15 12 BY MR. KING:
10:15 13 Q The first one there is D-8. And what that is,
10:15 14 we have taken your --I've taken your ten elections,
10:15 15 and I've kind of broken them down.
10:16 16 We're dealing with Congressional Districts 25
10:16 17 and 26 and 27 in South Florida. But you, of course,
10:16 18 your first two elections there on that list is an
10:16 19 election in Broward County for county judge; correct?
10:16 20 A Yes.
10:16 21 Q Did you understand that the demographics
10:16 22 between blacks, Hispanics, and whites are much
10:16 23 different in Broward County than they are in Dade
10:16 24 County? You didn't understand that?
10:16 25 A Well, no two counties are exactly the same.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 405 327
10:16 1 But I do understand that my nature of task was to
10:16 2 analyze voting pattern. So when we are talking about
10:16 3 Hispanic voters in South Florida, we need to see how
10:17 4 voting behavior can be recovered as one way or
10:17 5 another.
10:17 6 So, yes, they -- the counties are different.
10:17 7 But that doesn't mean that we cannot draw conclusion
10:17 8 about voting behavior concerning Hispanic voters.
10:17 9 Q Well, for example, in Dade County, were you
10:17 10 aware that something like 66 percent of the voters are
10:17 11 Hispanic and 19 percent are African-American?
10:17 12 AI understand they are different. They can be
10:17 13 different across counties.
10:17 14 Q Well, did you know that?
10:17 15 A Yes.
10:17 16 Q All right. And so you understood -- you took
10:17 17 that into consideration as you did this analysis?
10:17 18 A Yes.
10:17 19 Q All right. And what did you understand the
10:17 20 percentage of Hispanics to be in Broward County?
10:17 21 A Like I said, I'm not expert of geography, but
10:17 22 I do understand that both counties contain significant
10:18 23 number of Hispanics. That's why I decided to run
10:18 24 analysis about it.
10:18 25 Q Okay. So you said you knew that Dade had
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 406 328
10:18 1 about 66 percent. So how many did Broward have?
10:18 2 AI don't have the knowledge of the exact
10:18 3 percentage.
10:18 4 Q Well, just generally can you tell me?
10:18 5 AI cannot.
10:18 6 Q Okay. So if I told you that Broward had about
10:18 7 28 Hispanic demographics, 29 percent African-American,
10:18 8 and the rest white, you wouldn't have really known
10:18 9 that before; right?
10:18 10 A Well, to answer that question actually has
10:18 11 two-fold answers. First, if we are interested in
10:18 12 voting behavior, say whether we can fill coalition, we
10:18 13 can rely on different counties, and we can draw some
10:19 14 conclusion about the elections in those counties.
10:19 15 But, second, if we are talking about joint
10:19 16 district, obviously the percentage of
10:19 17 African-Americans versus percentage of Hispanics
10:19 18 matter a lot.
10:19 19 They are two different questions, sir.
10:19 20 Q All right. So your first two elections, one
10:19 21 is for county judge; one is for general circuit judge,
10:19 22 both in Broward County, and involved Hispanic
10:19 23 candidates; correct?
10:19 24 A Correct.
10:19 25 Q And in both cases the Hispanic candidate won;
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 407 329
10:19 1 correct?
10:19 2 A Well,I need to see my table more carefully to
10:19 3 answer that.
10:19 4 This is not my table. So I had to check my
10:19 5 own table. It's the first one, Broward County judge.
10:20 6 You're right, Hispanic candidate was not defeated.
10:20 7 Q All right. And in the second one for circuit
10:20 8 judge, isn't it correct that the Hispanic candidate
10:20 9 won?
10:20 10 A You are right.
10:20 11 Q Okay. And, of course, those are -- were both
10:20 12 nonpartisan elections; right?
10:20 13 A Yes.
10:20 14 Q I mean, there is a difference in the -- what
10:20 15 you can learn from a nonpartisan election as opposed
10:20 16 to partisan elections like Congress, races for
10:20 17 Congress; right?
10:20 18 A Yes.
10:20 19 Q Now, the next four that you've listed there
10:20 20 are statewide elections. We pulled them out of your
10:20 21 list, all those four Democratic primary for the state
10:20 22 attorney general in 2014, the 2014 commissioner of
10:21 23 agriculture, 2008 presidential election, 2012
10:21 24 presidential election, those are all statewide
10:21 25 elections; correct?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 408 330
10:21 1 A Yes.
10:21 2 Q And none of them involve a Hispanic candidate;
10:21 3 correct?
10:21 4 A Yes.
10:21 5 Q So let's turn now to D-9.
10:21 6 MR. KING: Let's pull up D-9 if you would,
10:21 7 Angie, if you could blow that up a little bit more
10:21 8 so ...
10:21 9 BY MR. KING:
10:21 10 Q Now these are elections within the proposed
10:21 11 Congressional districts we're talking about in Dade
10:21 12 County; 25, 26, and 27. And would you agree that all
10:21 13 these four elections involve Hispanic candidates; is
10:21 14 that right, sir?
10:22 15 AI need to double-check. Yes.
10:22 16 Q Okay. So let's look at the first one. The
10:22 17 first one, the Hispanic candidate in the 2012 general
10:22 18 state Senate,D-35, was Couriel,C-O-U-R-I-E-L?
10:22 19 A Yes.
10:22 20 Q That was the Hispanic candidate; correct?
10:22 21 A Correct.
10:22 22 Q And the Hispanic candidate lost; right?
10:22 23 A Correct.
10:22 24 Q And you indicated that that was a situation
10:22 25 where the Hispanic candidate lost; right?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 409 331
10:22 1 A Right.
10:22 2 Q But in truth and in fact, Mr. Couriel was not
10:22 3 the Hispanic candidate of choice; was he?
10:22 4 A Could you explain? What do you mean? Could
10:22 5 you raise the question again?
10:22 6 Q Well, you understand the difference between
10:22 7 merely being a Hispanic winner and the Hispanic
10:23 8 candidate of choice; right?
10:23 9 A Well, the Hispanic voters can indeed vote for
10:23 10 a candidate of not the same race.
10:23 11 Q Right.
10:23 12 A In this case it's correct.
10:23 13 Q So in this case, this is a situation where
10:23 14 actually the electorate, the Hispanic electorate, 59
10:23 15 percent of them voted for Senator Margolis and
10:23 16 defeated the Hispanic candidate; right?
10:23 17 A Whites voted more for the Hispanic candidate,
10:23 18 not the Hispanic voters. Correct.
10:23 19 Q And so that's -- that's a situation where the
10:23 20 Hispanic candidate of choice prevailed; right, even
10:24 21 though it wasn't a Hispanic?
10:24 22 A The Hispanic candidate was -- the Hispanic
10:24 23 candidate was defeated, not prevailed.
10:24 24 Q Right. But the Hispanic electorate candidate
10:24 25 of choice prevailed; right?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 410 332
10:24 1 A Yeah.I was asked to do analysis about the
10:24 2 likelihood for the minority candidate to be elected
10:24 3 through biracial coalition between Hispanics and
10:24 4 African-Americans. In this case obviously this does
10:24 5 not apply.
10:24 6 Q All right. So then the next case is 2014,
10:24 7 another nonpartisan election; correct, sir, for a
10:24 8 county judgeship; right?
10:24 9 A Correct.
10:24 10 Q Now, that was a situation where the Hispanic
10:25 11 candidate lost; right?
10:25 12 A Correct.
10:25 13 Q That was a situation where a young lawyer
10:25 14 decided to run against an incumbent judge and lost;
10:25 15 right?
10:25 16 AI do not recall the details regarding the
10:25 17 candidacy.I don't remember.
10:25 18 Q So you don't know -- you don't really know
10:25 19 anything about the facts of these elections that you
10:25 20 looked at; is that right?
10:25 21 AI was mainly asked to do analysis about the
10:25 22 coalition, if there is any, between African-Americans
10:25 23 and Hispanics.
10:25 24 Q But wouldn't you consider a nonpartisan
10:25 25 election where some person is running against an
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 411 333
10:25 1 incumbent sitting judge to be a -- not a very useful
10:25 2 tool in your analysis?
10:25 3 A Given the time has drained,I couldn't do
10:26 4 in-depth analysis of the context in which candidates
10:26 5 won.
10:26 6 Q You would admit that, under those
10:26 7 circumstances, that wouldn't be a very useful result
10:26 8 in your analysis; would it, sir?
10:26 9 AI cannot form opinion right here.I have to
10:26 10 look at the whole context of elections.
10:26 11 Q And -- so the next one you looked at was the
10:26 12 2014 Republican primary for District 26. That's one
10:26 13 of the districts we're talking about in this case;
10:26 14 right?
10:26 15 A Correct.
10:26 16 Q And that was a situation where the Hispanic
10:26 17 Republican defeated the Hispanic Democrat; right, in
10:26 18 District 26?
10:26 19 A In the primary, yeah.
10:26 20 Q In --
10:26 21 A In the primary.I analyzed the primary.
10:26 22 Q Okay. Then I was wrong. In the primary the
10:27 23 Hispanic Republican, Curbelo, prevailed; right?
10:27 24 A Correct.
10:27 25 Q And, of course, incidentally, he went on and
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 412 334
10:27 1 beat the Hispanic Democrat in the general election.
10:27 2 But you didn't consider that one; did you?
10:27 3 A Correct.
10:27 4 Q All right. And then the last one is the 2010
10:27 5 general election for the United States Senate; right?
10:27 6 A Correct.
10:27 7 Q And in that case Senator Rubio, the Hispanic
10:27 8 candidate, crushed the white and the African-American
10:27 9 candidate in that election; isn't that right?
10:27 10 AI wouldn't use the word "crush." He did win.
10:27 11 Q All right. Let's look at how much he
10:27 12 prevailed over his opponents. In District 25 he got
10:28 13 65.9 percent of the vote; Meeks got 12.88; Crist got
10:28 14 21.22. So in District 25 he won by 44.68 percent over
10:28 15 his next -- his nearest competitor.
10:28 16 Isn't that a crushing win?
10:28 17 AI wouldn't use that word.
10:28 18 Q You what?
10:28 19 AI wouldn't use that word.
10:28 20 Q What word would you use?
10:28 21 A He prevailed.
10:28 22 Q Great victory?
10:28 23 A He prevailed by defeating two formidable
10:28 24 opponents.
10:28 25 Q And defeating them very handily; right?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 413 335
10:28 1 AI wouldn't use those terms.
10:28 2 Q Okay.
10:28 3 A Those are not --
10:28 4 Q I will quit trying to put those words in your
10:28 5 mouth, sir.
10:28 6 So then we get to 26, District 26. Rubio got
10:28 7 50.14 percent of the vote; Meeks, 22.85; and Crist,
10:29 8 27.01, so that Mr.-- Senator Rubio won by 23 points
10:29 9 over his next nearest competitor.
10:29 10 That was a very significant victory in 26;
10:29 11 correct?
10:29 12 A That was a success.
10:29 13 Q Yes, and also a success in 27; right, where he
10:29 14 got 52.34 percent of the vote and won by 22 points
10:29 15 over his nearest competitor.
10:29 16 So in those three districts that we're
10:29 17 concerned with in this case, the Hispanic candidate
10:29 18 performed exceptionally well in this election that you
10:29 19 studied; correct?
10:29 20 A But they didn't perform so well through
10:29 21 biracial coalition.
10:29 22 Q Well, isn't it correct that you can't show us
10:30 23 an election where a coalition of whites and blacks
10:30 24 defeated the Hispanic candidate of choice except for
10:30 25 this one nonpartisan race involving a young lawyer
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 414 336
10:30 1 trying to unseat an incumbent county judge? Can you
10:30 2 show us another election, sir, where a coalition of
10:30 3 whites and blacks joined together to defeat the
10:30 4 Hispanic candidate of choice?
10:30 5 AI don't think I analyzed any elections just
10:30 6 based on coalition between whites and blacks.I
10:30 7 was -- like I said,I was asked to do analysis about
10:30 8 coalition between Hispanics and blacks. And I tried
10:31 9 to find answer.
10:31 10 Q In fact, in the ten elections that you
10:31 11 studied, in nine of those elections either the
10:31 12 Hispanic candidate or the Hispanic candidate of choice
10:31 13 prevailed; correct?
10:31 14 AI have to count.I mean we can count.
10:31 15 Q Well, why don't you count for us.
10:31 16 A They can prevail -- Hispanic candidates did
10:31 17 prevail, like I marked on my column 8, but they didn't
10:31 18 prevail through biracial coalition.
10:31 19 That's the key in my report.I have to
10:31 20 emphasize that in order for us to form opinion about
10:31 21 whether or not somebody -- as a minority wins an
10:31 22 election, based on coalition of two minority groups,
10:32 23 one has to analyze whether elections were polarized in
10:32 24 terms of how the two minority groups voted in the
10:32 25 first election.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 415 337
10:32 1 And that's what my three-step analysis did.
10:32 2 So just to say Hispanic candidate wins doesn't mean
10:32 3 that his success is based on the coalition. So, yes,
10:32 4 I can count how many of them did win. Actually just
10:32 5 count my -- the no answers for the defeat in column 8,
10:32 6 we can simply get that answer.
10:32 7 Q Well, tell us.
10:32 8 A Okay. So do you want to know about black
10:32 9 candidates too?
10:32 10 Q I just asked you about Hispanics -- isn't it a
10:32 11 fact that of the ten elections that you cited --
10:32 12 A Yeah.
10:32 13 Q -- the Hispanic candidate won -- or the
10:32 14 Hispanic candidate of choice, Senator Margolis -- in
10:33 15 nine of the ten elections you cited?
10:33 16 A Hispanic candidates,I had --I had --I had
10:33 17 2012, Broward County judge election, which Hispanic
10:33 18 candidate prevailed. And I had 2012 circuit judge
10:33 19 that saw also the Hispanic candidate prevail.
10:33 20 And I also saw -- also listed the U.S.
10:33 21 Congressional District 26 Republican primary, where
10:33 22 the Hispanic candidate prevailed. So that is three
10:33 23 now.
10:33 24 And the Marco Rubio in the statewide election
10:34 25 of 2010. So four. Four of them prevailed.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 416 338
10:34 1 Q Four of the ten?
10:34 2 A Four of the Hispanic candidates, not all ten,
10:34 3 because other elections might or might not involve a
10:34 4 Hispanic candidate, so --
10:34 5 Q Right.
10:34 6 A-- you cannot just say --
10:34 7 Q Four of your elections did not involve
10:34 8 Hispanic candidates?
10:34 9 A Right.
10:34 10 Q Right?
10:34 11 A Correct.
10:34 12 Q So out of the six that did involve Hispanic
10:34 13 candidates, only in one case, that county judge
10:34 14 election in 2014 in Section 19, only in that case did
10:34 15 the Hispanic candidate lose; right?
10:34 16 A More than that, 2012 State Senate District 35,
10:35 17 Hispanic candidate lost as well.
10:35 18 Q All right. Let's look at that one, then. The
10:35 19 Hispanic candidate lost in which election?
10:35 20 A In the 2012 State Senate District 35.
10:35 21 Q Well that's the one where Margolis won that;
10:35 22 she was the Hispanic candidate of choice; isn't that
10:35 23 correct, sir?
10:35 24 A No. Actually I already emphasized that this
10:35 25 Hispanic candidate lost. And even though he won
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 417 339
10:35 1 majority white vote, he lost the majority Hispanic
10:35 2 vote in the first place. So that should not be
10:35 3 counted as a success of biracial coalition, which I
10:35 4 was asked to do analysis about.
10:35 5 Q Well, actually what you've done here sort of
10:35 6 establishes for a Hispanic to win in Dade County, it
10:36 7 doesn't have to be a coalition of blacks and Hispanics
10:36 8 to elect an Hispanic in Dade County; does it, sir?
10:36 9 A They might win. They might win. And actually
10:36 10 these elections show some of them did win through
10:36 11 maybe white support, you know, but not the coalition
10:36 12 between Hispanics and blacks.
10:36 13 Q And you haven't shown an example of an
10:36 14 election where it was necessary for there to be a
10:36 15 coalition of blacks and Hispanics to elect an Hispanic
10:36 16 candidate; correct?
10:36 17 AI haven't found such an election.
10:36 18 MR. KING: Thank you, Your Honor.
10:36 19 THE COURT: Mr. Devaney, no questions?
10:36 20 Redirect?
10:36 21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
10:36 22 BY MR. GREEN:
10:36 23 Q Dr. Liu, can you clarify what the scope of
10:36 24 your opinion was?
10:37 25 A Could you repeat the question?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 418 340
10:37 1 Q What were you asked to do in this case?
10:37 2 A Oh,I was asked to do analysis about the
10:37 3 likelihood of electing a minority candidate in South
10:37 4 Florida through biracial coalition between Hispanics
10:37 5 and African-Americans.
10:37 6 Q And, Dr. Liu, were you provided a list of
10:37 7 elections?
10:37 8 AI asked for list of elections.
10:37 9 Q And did that list only include ten elections?
10:37 10 AI--I asked in the summer of this year to do
10:37 11 as many biracial or multiracial elections as possible.
10:37 12 But only ten of the elections that I analyzed involved
10:37 13 South Florida.
10:37 14 Q So did you pick those ten elections, or did
10:37 15 someone else pick them?
10:37 16 A No,I didn't pick them.
10:37 17 Q Of the elections on the list, you picked which
10:37 18 ones you were going to analyze?
10:38 19 A Yes. Among the elections which involve South
10:38 20 Florida,I picked all of them.
10:38 21 Q Okay. Thank you. And can you tell us why you
10:38 22 decided to analyze elections in Broward County?
10:38 23 A Because for me the answer is very simple. We
10:38 24 are concerned with the voting behavior of Hispanics in
10:38 25 South Florida. And if we have very limited number of
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 419 341
10:38 1 elections, then we have to analyze county beyond Dade
10:38 2 area to see how Hispanics voted in those areas.
10:38 3 And then we can draw reliable conclusion about
10:38 4 the pattern of Hispanic vote.
10:38 5 Q And can you tell us why you analyzed elections
10:38 6 involving black versus white candidates?
10:38 7 A Because in this case, when a black candidate
10:38 8 run facing another racial candidate, we can have a
10:38 9 chance to analyze how minorities react, especially
10:39 10 Hispanics and African-Americans. Do we see coalition?
10:39 11 And if a black candidate runs, we find
10:39 12 something, and then we compare that with the Hispanic
10:39 13 candidate in the similar situation, and then we can
10:39 14 draw valid conclusion.
10:39 15 Q Now, Mr. King talked to you about the
10:39 16 particular context of an election, particular facts
10:39 17 that were at stake in an election. He tells the
10:39 18 benefit, generally, of quantitative analysis of
10:39 19 elections?
10:39 20 A Yes.
10:39 21 Q Go ahead.
10:39 22 A The methodology of using a quantitative
10:39 23 method, especially, the cutting edge ecological
10:39 24 inference method would allow scholars to make valid
10:39 25 inference about how individual voters vote. And this
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 420 342
10:40 1 is very crucial for voting rights indication, because
10:40 2 as we know, all those cast are cast by secrecy.
10:40 3 So we cannot know for sure how different
10:40 4 racial groups voted. And one has to infer one way or
10:40 5 another, and Gary King's methodology has been a very
10:40 6 significant improvement in terms of how we can use
10:40 7 valid assumption about voter behavior and draw a valid
10:40 8 conclusion.
10:40 9 And it has been proved by many, many
10:40 10 scientific reports, including my own study, including
10:40 11 my own published article, and Gary King is a very
10:40 12 well-known scholar. And his work has won American
10:40 13 Political Science Association major award.
10:41 14 MR. GREEN: Mark, could you bring up Coalition
10:41 15 Plaintiffs' Demonstrative 11?
10:41 16 BY MR. GREEN:
10:41 17 Q Dr. Liu, can you see that?
10:41 18 A Yeah.
10:41 19 Q It's a chart involving elections in your
10:41 20 report involving Hispanic candidates?
10:41 21 A Yes.
10:41 22 Q Of those six elections, can you tell me how
10:41 23 many of those elections involved a coalition of
10:41 24 Hispanics and blacks?
10:41 25 A Throughout the process I found only one
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 421 343
10:41 1 successful biracial coalition between Hispanics and
10:41 2 African-Americans. And that was the 2014 state
10:41 3 agricultural commissioner election.
10:41 4 Q Okay. And that was -- that involved a black
10:41 5 candidate; right?
10:41 6 A Yes.
10:41 7 Q If we could return to this chart, this
10:42 8 involves Hispanic candidates.
10:42 9 A Oh, Hispanic candidates? I haven't found any.
10:42 10 Q Okay. Right. And on this chart you see --
10:42 11 can you tell us how many involve a coalition of
10:42 12 Hispanics and blacks?
10:42 13 A This chart is --
10:42 14 Q This chart is -- it's a demonstrative. So you
10:42 15 haven't seen it before.
10:42 16 AI cannot see very clearly from here. But I
10:42 17 haven't found any Hispanic candidates that created a
10:42 18 biracial coalition.
10:42 19 Q Okay. If we could return to how many
10:42 20 elections did you analyze that involved a coalition of
10:42 21 Hispanics and blacks?
10:42 22 A Only one.
10:42 23 Q Could you tell us which one that was?
10:42 24 A The 2014 Florida agricultural commissioner
10:42 25 race.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 422 344
10:42 1 Q And could I also direct your attention to
10:42 2 table 2 of your report?
10:43 3 A Okay. Yes.
10:43 4 Q Do you see the 2012 State Senate District 35
10:43 5 election?
10:43 6 A Oh, 2012 state Senate district? Yes.
10:43 7 Q Right. And you say there was no racial
10:43 8 polarization between blacks and Hispanics?
10:43 9 A Right.
10:43 10 Q And do you recall the race of the candidate
10:43 11 who won that election?
10:43 12 A Yeah.I have this election.I recall this
10:43 13 election, yeah.
10:43 14 Q Do you recall the race of the candidate who
10:43 15 won the election?
10:43 16 A Oh, the race of the candidate?I have to
10:43 17 double-check. It could be a white.
10:43 18 Q White? Okay. And you mentioned the
10:43 19 commissioner of agriculture election?
10:43 20 A Yes.
10:44 21 Q And do you recall if the coalition candidate
10:44 22 won that election?
10:44 23 A In South Florida a candidate named Hamilton
10:44 24 did win, but he lost eventually the general election.
10:44 25 MR. GREEN: No further questions, Your Honor.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 423 345
10:44 1 THE COURT: Okay. Anything else on the House
10:44 2 side?
10:44 3 MR. KING: Just a couple questions, Judge,
10:44 4 just for a second.
10:44 5 RECROSS EXAMINATION
10:44 6 BY MR. KING:
10:44 7 Q Isn't it correct, Dr. Liu, that what your
10:44 8 research has showed is that Hispanics can prevail
10:44 9 without a coalition with blacks in South Florida?
10:44 10 THE COURT:I think you already asked him, and
10:44 11 he answered that yes.
10:44 12 MR. KING: Okay.I was just going to --
10:44 13 THE COURT:I hope you're not going to ask him
10:44 14 again --
10:44 15 BY MR. KING:
10:44 16 Q All right. Isn't it a fact that the way they
10:44 17 get elected is by coalition with whites?
10:44 18 A Marco Rubio, certainly.
10:45 19 THE COURT: Anything else on this side?
10:45 20 Call your next witness.
10:45 21 MR. MEROS: The Legislature will call
10:45 22 Dr. Dario Moreno.
10:45 23 Thereupon,
10:45 24 DARIO MORENO
10:45 25 was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 424 346
10:46 1 was examined and testified as follows:
10:46 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10:46 3 BY MR. MEROS:
10:46 4 Q Good morning, Dr. Moreno; how are you?
10:46 5 A Very fine. Thank you, Mr. Meros.
10:46 6 Q Tell us your full name and business address,
10:46 7 please, sir.
10:46 8 A I'm Dario Moreno. I'm a professor of
10:46 9 political science at Florida International University,
10:46 10 and I live at 822 Venetian Avenue, Coral Gables,
10:46 11 Florida.
10:46 12 Q Dr. Moreno, how long have you studied Hispanic
10:46 13 and Latino political -- participation in the political
10:46 14 process in Miami-Dade County?
10:46 15 A Since 1987.
10:46 16 Q 1987?
10:46 17 A Yeah.
10:46 18 Q And have your studies and research included
10:46 19 the interaction of white, African-American, and
10:46 20 Hispanic participation in the political process?
10:46 21 A Yes, sir.
10:46 22 Q And how long have you done that?
10:46 23 A Since 1987.
10:46 24 Q And have you had occasion to study and assess
10:46 25 the extent to which whites, Hispanics, and blacks vote
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 425 347
10:47 1 cohesively or do not vote cohesively in state and
10:47 2 local elections?
10:47 3 A Yes,I have.
10:47 4 Q Do you do any polling, and have you done any
10:47 5 polling in the past?
10:47 6 A In 1997 I started polling in Miami-Dade
10:47 7 County. And I've been -- and I've had my own polling
10:47 8 company since 2002.
10:47 9 Q As a part of your profession and research, do
10:47 10 you follow local campaigns and the political
10:47 11 contributions that are made in local campaigns?
10:47 12 A Yes,I do.
10:47 13 Q And does someone like you have access over the
10:47 14 Internet to actual political contributions, whether
10:47 15 individual contributions or contributions to PACs?
10:47 16 A Yes, everybody does.
10:47 17 Q And do you have occasion in your research and
10:47 18 experience to access the name ID or the name
10:47 19 identification of certain political people in South
10:47 20 Florida?
10:47 21 A We're doing it all the time.
10:47 22 Q Okay. In Congressional elections in
10:48 23 Miami-Dade County, do Hispanics and African-Americans
10:48 24 vote cohesively?
10:48 25 A No, they do not.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 426 348
10:48 1 Q Do they ever form coalitions?
10:48 2 A Not -- not in -- not until now, no, they have
10:48 3 not.
10:48 4 Q And is there a history of that, in other
10:48 5 words, that they do not vote cohesively?
10:48 6 A Yes, sir. There is a history of even in races
10:48 7 involving blacks on blacks, the Hispanics might, for
10:48 8 example, in the case of Betty Ferguson versus
10:48 9 Artielle, two African-American candidates running
10:48 10 countywide, Hispanics and Anglos favored Artielle.
10:48 11 African-Americans favored Betty Ferguson in that
10:48 12 particular race.
10:48 13 That was one of the races, in fact, that led
10:48 14 Dade County into single-member districts.
10:48 15 Q And as we sit here today, does that same type
10:49 16 of lack of cohesiveness exist?
10:49 17 A It still does, sir.
10:49 18 Q Do Hispanics and blacks in Miami-Dade County
10:49 19 at times vote against each other?
10:49 20 A Yes, sir.
10:49 21 Q Do white Democrats vote cohesively with
10:49 22 Hispanic voters?
10:49 23 A No, they do not. It depends on the race.
10:49 24 Q Now, have you examined the alternative maps
10:49 25 and specifically relating to Districts 25, 26, and
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 427 349
10:49 1 27 --
10:49 2 A Yes, sir.
10:49 3 Q -- of the coalition plaintiffs and the Romo
10:49 4 plaintiffs?
10:49 5 A Yes.
10:49 6 Q And do you have an opinion whether District 26
10:49 7 in those maps diminishes the ability of Hispanics to
10:49 8 elect the candidates of their choice?
10:49 9 A Yes,I do. It does diminish --
10:49 10 Q What is that opinion? I'm sorry.
10:49 11 A It does diminish their ability to elect a
10:49 12 candidate of their choice.
10:49 13 Q Okay.
10:49 14 MR. MEROS: And if I may, Your Honor,I would
10:49 15 like to provide --
10:49 16 THE WITNESS: Oh, also, on alternative 1, it
10:50 17 also diminishes the ability to elect in District
10:50 18 27.
10:50 19 BY MR. MEROS:
10:50 20 Q And that is CP-1 you're talking about?
10:50 21 A That's CP-1.
10:50 22 MR. MEROS: If I may approach with a couple of
10:50 23 handouts?
10:50 24 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
10:50 25 MR. KING: Did you provide this to us before?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 428 350
10:50 1 MR. MEROS: That's just a compilation of all
10:50 2 of the --
10:50 3 MR. KING: So you haven't provided that to us?
10:50 4 MR. MEROS: No.
10:50 5 MR. KING: So you've haven't given us your
10:50 6 demonstratives?
10:50 7 MR. MEROS: This was done this morning.
10:50 8 BY MR. MEROS:
10:50 9 Q Dr. Moreno, does that -- can you tell whether
10:51 10 that reflects the black and Hispanic turnout figures
10:51 11 from the various maps at issue in this case?
10:51 12 A Yes, it does, sir.
10:51 13 Q Okay. Now, with regard to your question --
10:51 14 your opinion about diminishment, is the racial or
10:51 15 ethnic composition of the Democratic primary
10:51 16 electorate relevant, if at all, to your conclusions?
10:51 17 A Of course it is.
10:51 18 Q And tell us why.
10:51 19 A Well, the District 26 in the -- in CP-1, CP-2,
10:51 20 and CP-3, and Romo goes from a toss-up district to a
10:51 21 lean Democratic district. In CP-1, for example,
10:51 22 President Obama carried it by 11 percentage points in
10:51 23 2012.
10:52 24 In the map that was adopted by the Florida
10:52 25 Legislature and thrown out, it was 7 points, the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 429 351
10:52 1 margin. And I believe it was similar -- a little less
10:52 2 in the map that the Florida House adopted.
10:52 3 So in -- in making it a lean Democratic
10:52 4 district, at least a lean Democratic district, the
10:52 5 relevancy of the Democratic primary increases.
10:52 6 Q Explain -- explain why.
10:52 7 A Well, because it means that a Democratic
10:52 8 candidate will have an advantage in the general
10:52 9 election against a Republican candidate. So if you're
10:52 10 going to elect a candidate of your choice, it is
10:52 11 important that in a Democratic primary the Hispanic
10:53 12 Democrat and Hispanic voters have a -- have a chance
10:53 13 to prevail --
10:53 14 Q Okay.
10:53 15 A-- to elect a candidate of their choice.
10:53 16 Q And we will continue on with that.
10:53 17 With regard to this handout, does this show
10:53 18 the black and Hispanic turnout percentages in District
10:53 19 26 based on the 2010 election?
10:53 20 A Well, it shows their percentage of the
10:53 21 electorate.I mean, there is a difference between a
10:53 22 turnout figure, which will be 50 percent Hispanic
10:53 23 turnout or 60 percent African-American turnout and the
10:53 24 percentage that you are of the electorate.
10:53 25 Q Correct. Okay. All right. My mistake.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 430 352
10:53 1 And in CPs 1 through 3 and the Romo map,
10:53 2 looking at the demographic groups, what is the largest
10:54 3 demographic group in the Democratic primary in all of
10:54 4 these elections?
10:54 5 A Non-Latin whites.
10:54 6 Q What is the second largest demographic group
10:54 7 in all of these districts -- in all of these maps for
10:54 8 District 26?
10:54 9 A African-Americans.
10:54 10 Q What is the third --
10:54 11 A Except -- except the House adopted map.
10:54 12 Q Okay. And I'm talking about CP-1 --
10:54 13 A Oh, I'm sorry.
10:54 14 Q -- through Romo.
10:54 15 A My mistake.
10:54 16 Q And what is the third demographic group with
10:54 17 regard to the Romo and coalition plaintiffs' District
10:54 18 26?
10:54 19 A Hispanic.
10:54 20 Q Now, do Hispanics control the Democratic
10:54 21 primary?
10:54 22 A No, they do not.
10:55 23 Q Might Hispanics and African-Americans unite to
10:55 24 vote for the same candidate?
10:55 25 A It has not happened before in --
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 431 353
10:55 1 Q Can you tell us whether or not
10:55 2 African-Americans are more likely to unite with white
10:55 3 voters than with Hispanic voters?
10:55 4 A They're more likely to unite with white
10:55 5 voters. That has been the historical pattern in Dade
10:55 6 County.
10:55 7 Q And with regard to your analysis of
10:55 8 diminishment, you seem to be making a difference
10:55 9 between whether a district is a toss-up district or a
10:55 10 competitive district,I will say, and one that is a
10:55 11 lean Democratic or lean Republican district?
10:55 12 A That's correct.
10:55 13 Q Okay. And can you tell us whether the
10:55 14 districts CP-1, CP-2, CP-3, Romo Expert 26, whether
10:55 15 those are districts that are more likely to lead to
10:55 16 election of a Democrat?
10:56 17 A Yes, they are.
10:56 18 Q And so why -- what is the difference, and what
10:56 19 is the importance between districts that would be more
10:56 20 likely to elect a Democrat than districts that are
10:56 21 competitive?
10:56 22 A Well, if a district is competitive, the
10:56 23 Democratic establishment -- and I mean by that the
10:56 24 Democratic Party of Florida and the Congressional
10:56 25 Democratic Committee -- have an interest in recruiting
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 432 354
10:56 1 and supporting Hispanic Democratic candidates in this
10:56 2 Congressional district.
10:56 3 Q Why would that be?
10:56 4 A Well, because they want to increase their
10:56 5 numbers in Congress. And going against a Republican
10:56 6 incumbent, it makes sense to, in a Hispanic district,
10:56 7 to elect a Hispanic Democrat.
10:56 8 The Democratic party, over the last -- since
10:57 9 2010, has been very active, both the Florida
10:57 10 Democratic party and the Congressional Democratic
10:57 11 party, in getting a candidate -- a Hispanic candidate
10:57 12 to challenge the Hispanic Republican candidate --
10:57 13 Hispanic Democrats to challenge Hispanic Republicans
10:57 14 in the district.
10:57 15 Q Let me stop you there a minute and say, why
10:57 16 would the Democratic party have greater incentive to
10:57 17 support a Hispanic Democrat than they would a
10:57 18 non-Hispanic black or a white Democrat?
10:57 19 A Because if the district is a Hispanic district
10:57 20 in which Hispanics -- and you have Hispanic
10:57 21 Independents -- if you nominate a non-Latin white or
10:57 22 an African-American, the fear will be that Hispanic
10:57 23 Independents will break significantly; right, 70/30,
10:58 24 60/40 towards the Republican candidate.
10:58 25 Q Is that because of party or ethnicity?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 433 355
10:58 1 A That's because of ethnicity.
10:58 2 Q Has that been a part of your research or
10:58 3 experience with regard to what Hispanic independents
10:58 4 do?
10:58 5 A Yes, sir.
10:58 6 Q On both sides do they tend to vote greater
10:58 7 ethnicity than party?
10:58 8 A Well, when there is a difference in ethnicity;
10:58 9 right? When there is a difference in ethnicity
10:58 10 between the Democratic and Republican candidates,
10:58 11 Hispanic independents tend to support their co --
10:58 12 their co-ethnic.
10:58 13 And the Democrats have been very active in
10:58 14 recruiting Hispanic candidates, not only for Congress,
10:58 15 but for the State Legislature.
10:58 16 Q Okay. Before we go further in that, let's
10:58 17 talk a minute about the enacted 2012 District 26,
10:59 18 either 9047 or 9057. And do you see on the bottom of
10:59 19 this the percentages of electorate of black and
10:59 20 Hispanic there? Do you see that?
10:59 21 A Yes, sir.
10:59 22 Q Okay. And do you see that the black-Hispanic
10:59 23 population percentage is 25.5 percent, and Hispanic
10:59 24 22.7 percent?
10:59 25 A Yeah, as percentage of the electorate.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 434 356
10:59 1 Q Percentage of the electorate.
10:59 2 Do those percentages suggest that -- that the
10:59 3 percentages above with CP-1 through CP-3 and the Romo
10:59 4 map, would, in fact, elect an Hispanic candidate of
10:59 5 choice as they are constituted?
10:59 6 A Not necessarily. The issue becomes in -- in
10:59 7 the adopted plan, and in the House adopted plan, the
11:00 8 Hispanics are -- are guaranteed. In fact, in all the
11:00 9 plaintiffs' plan, the Republican primaries is
11:00 10 guaranteed to produce a candidate of choice --
11:00 11 Q And explain that.
11:00 12 A Because over 70 -- over 70 percent of the
11:00 13 voters are going to be Hispanic in an Hispanic primary
11:00 14 in 2010, for example.
11:00 15 The -- the -- the problem becomes, is a
11:00 16 district becomes uncompetitive; right? And if -- the
11:00 17 Republicans are guaranteed to put up an Hispanic
11:00 18 Republican. If a district is competitive, the
11:00 19 Democrats have every incentive in the world to
11:00 20 nominate an Hispanic Democrat, because that will be
11:00 21 the best chance of prevailing against an Hispanic
11:00 22 Republican.
11:00 23 If the district is a lock for the Democrats;
11:01 24 right, if the district is a Democratic district, then
11:01 25 the Democratic party loses its incentive to recruit
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 435 357
11:01 1 and support Hispanic candidates.
11:01 2 Q And tell us why.
11:01 3 A Well, because it means that any candidate --
11:01 4 any Democratic candidate will prevail if the district
11:01 5 is so Democratic or so Republican that you don't have
11:01 6 to worry who you nominate.
11:01 7 Q Okay. And is it accurate to say, based on
11:01 8 what you're telling us, that an Hispanic Democrat
11:01 9 might be blocked in a Democratic primary, while an
11:01 10 Hispanic Republican might be blocked in the general
11:01 11 election?
11:01 12 A Yes, it could be a possibility.
11:01 13 Q Okay. And tell us how that might occur.
11:02 14 A Well, there are a couple --I mean, if -- if
11:02 15 you have a well-funded or a well-known, non-Latin
11:02 16 white candidate or African-American candidate running
11:02 17 in CP-26, he could prevail in a district where only a
11:02 18 quarter -- a fifth of the voters are Hispanics. And
11:02 19 then in a general election, and as the plaintiffs'
11:02 20 attorney demonstrated in -- in Senate District 35, the
11:02 21 reason Gwen Margolis was the candidate of choice of
11:02 22 Hispanics in CD-35, CD-35 is a heavily -- the Hispanic
11:02 23 Democrats in that district vote party over ethnicity.
11:02 24 So the Hispanic Democrats in that district,I
11:03 25 expect, will vote party over ethnicity.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 436 358
11:03 1 The question becomes, then, are there enough
11:03 2 Hispanic independents that will support an Hispanic
11:03 3 Republican in the -- in the general election.
11:03 4 Q Now, can you provide an example of any
11:03 5 legislative race that gave you similar concerns about
11:03 6 a Democratic district that did not elect an Hispanic?
11:03 7 A Well, the -- the best example in Miami-Dade is
11:03 8 State Representative District 113. 113 covers
11:03 9 Allapattah, parts of Little Havana, and Miami Beach.
11:03 10 113 is 60 -- almost 67 percent VAP Hispanic as of
11:03 11 2010, probably more now.
11:04 12 And in 2000 -- the district is a Democratic
11:04 13 district. But the district is so Democratic, and
11:04 14 Hispanics are just 32 percent of the Democratic
11:04 15 primary, that no Hispanic candidate has even -- there
11:04 16 has not even been a serious Hispanic candidate, either
11:04 17 Democrat or Republican, in that district. And that
11:04 18 district is currently held by David Richardson.
11:04 19 Q And what, if anything, does that tell you
11:04 20 about whether or not District 26 and CP-1 through 3
11:04 21 and Romo diminish the ability of an Hispanic to be
11:04 22 elected in those districts?
11:04 23 A Well, you have two things going on. One is
11:04 24 the district is becoming more Democratic, and the
11:05 25 Hispanic share in the Democratic primary not
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 437 359
11:05 1 increasing, and the black share increasing.
11:05 2 It doesn't necessarily mean that an Hispanic
11:05 3 candidate of choice cannot prevail in a Democratic
11:05 4 primary, but it makes it -- it surely does diminish
11:05 5 their ability.
11:05 6 Similar -- another example, by the way, that's
11:05 7 more geographically -- geographically apropos to CP-1,
11:05 8 CP-2, CP-3, and Romo, is County Commission District 9
11:05 9 in Dade County. County Commission 9 in Dade County is
11:05 10 a nonpartisan race.
11:05 11 It is -- right now, it's 47 percent Hispanic
11:05 12 registration, 33 percent African-American
11:06 13 registration, and 12 percent non-Latin white
11:06 14 registration. It's 34 percent black, excuse me.
11:06 15 That district has elected an African-American
11:06 16 commissioner. And -- and it's very difficult in that
11:06 17 commission district for a non -- for a Hispanic to
11:06 18 prevail. The -- the district is over -- is also
11:06 19 overwhelmingly Democratic.
11:06 20 So the point I'm making is that you have a
11:06 21 little bit of diminishing. You have a diminishing,
11:06 22 because it can get to a point where Hispanics are
11:07 23 locked out.
11:07 24 The reason commission District 9 has been so
11:07 25 favorable to an African-American candidate is because
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 438 360
11:07 1 it includes six Richmond Heights precincts that are
11:07 2 very high performing for African-American candidates.
11:07 3 And those -- and by the way, those precincts are now
11:07 4 put in CP-1, CP-2, CP-3, and Romo.
11:07 5 Q And so, if I understand correctly, what you
11:07 6 were saying in CP-1, 2, and 3, Richmond Heights and
11:07 7 other African-American populations in that area have
11:07 8 been placed in District 26. And is that a typically
11:07 9 stronger performing Democratic population than others
11:07 10 in that area?
11:07 11 A Yeah, especially the six African-American
11:08 12 performing precincts in the Richmond Heights area.
11:08 13 Q And does the inclusion of that population in
11:08 14 District 26 make it less likely that an Hispanic
11:08 15 candidate of choice would be elected in that district
11:08 16 than the benchmark?
11:08 17 A In a Democratic primary? Yes.
11:08 18 Q And in a district where the Democrats will
11:08 19 likely win, how important is the Democratic primary?
11:08 20 A Could be all important.
11:08 21 Q Now, with -- let's look at CP-1 a minute, with
11:08 22 the black population of almost 29 percent -- 28.9; an
11:08 23 Hispanic population of 22.8. Might that black
11:08 24 population and Hispanic population coalesce to elect a
11:08 25 Spanish Democrat?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 439 361
11:08 1 A Hasn't happened.
11:08 2 Q And might that population offset itself by
11:08 3 virtue of being polarized?
11:08 4 A It could be.
11:08 5 Q And might there be a reasonable possibility
11:09 6 that, under those circumstances, a white Democrat
11:09 7 could be elected to that office?
11:09 8 A There is a possibility.
11:09 9 Q And considering possibilities, what, if any,
11:09 10 impact does it have to know whether there are
11:09 11 candidates in the area with name recognition or other
11:09 12 supports that might be involved in an election like
11:09 13 this?
11:09 14 A Well,I mean, there are a couple.I mean, one
11:09 15 African-American candidate is Senator Dwight Bullard.
11:09 16 His family has represented the state Senate district
11:09 17 in the area; his mother and father and himself.
11:09 18 And then as non-Latin white candidates you
11:09 19 would have Katy Sorenson, the former county
11:09 20 commission, very popular, especially in the southern
11:09 21 part of Dade County, even though she doesn't live in
11:10 22 the district. As we covered earlier this morning, you
11:10 23 don't have to live in the district to run.
11:10 24 You also have Cindy Lerner, the former state
11:10 25 rep and mayor of Pinecrest who also has expressed
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 440 362
11:10 1 interest in running for Congress some day. And you
11:10 2 have Evelyn Greer, the former school board member,
11:10 3 also lives in the Pinecrest area, doesn't live in the
11:10 4 district, but has expressed, in the past, political
11:10 5 ambition.
11:10 6 So they are non-Hispanic candidates.
11:10 7 The other point is the Democratic Hispanic
11:10 8 bench in Dade County is very weak.
11:10 9 Q Explain that if you would, please.
11:10 10 A There is only one Democratic state rep --
11:10 11 representative from Dade County, and that's Javier
11:11 12 Rodriguez from District 112. There are no Hispanic
11:11 13 Democrats on the county commission. There are no
11:11 14 Hispanic Democrats on the county commission; Xavier
11:11 15 Suarez switched from Republican to Independent.
11:11 16 The -- so the Democratic Hispanic bench has
11:11 17 been Joe Garcia and Annette Taddeo. That's pretty
11:11 18 much it.
11:11 19 Q Now let me go back and make sure I understand
11:11 20 about some of the local characteristics. How many
11:11 21 South Florida Hispanic Democrats serve in the Florida
11:11 22 Legislature?
11:11 23 A South Florida Hispanic Democrats, one.
11:12 24 Q One? Okay. And I believe you said that there
11:12 25 are no Hispanic Democrats on the Miami-Dade County
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 441 363
11:12 1 Commission?
11:12 2 A No, or on the school board.
11:12 3 Q And how many Hispanic Democrats in local
11:12 4 elected municipal offices within District 26? How
11:12 5 many Democrats are there in local elected municipal
11:12 6 offices within District 26?
11:12 7 AI believe one, Elvis --I forgot his last
11:12 8 name, from Homestead.
11:12 9 Q And, again, with regard to CPs 1 through 3 and
11:12 10 the Romo map, are any of them, the municipalities
11:12 11 within that District 26 predominantly Hispanic -- or
11:12 12 majority Hispanic?
11:12 13 A No. There are very few -- the only
11:12 14 municipalities in commission District 26 I believe is
11:12 15 Homestead and Florida City and then the cities in the
11:13 16 Florida Keys, in Monroe County.
11:13 17 Q Does the District 26 proposed by the coalition
11:13 18 plaintiffs, is that trending more Democrat or less
11:13 19 Democrat?
11:13 20 A Like all of Dade County, it's trending more
11:13 21 Democrat.
11:13 22 Q And what, if any, impact does that have with
11:13 23 your analysis as to whether there is a diminishment in
11:13 24 the ability of an Hispanic candidate to be elected in
11:13 25 their proposed District 26?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 442 364
11:13 1 A Well, it means that the Democratic --I would
11:13 2 expect over the next couple of cycles, bearing, you
11:13 3 know, some changes --I mean,I think if Marco Rubio
11:13 4 is elected president, it might stop the trend.
11:13 5 But if not, then I would expect the trend
11:14 6 toward a more Democratic District 26 will continue.
11:14 7 Q And you're not saying,I don't think, that
11:14 8 just because it would be a Democratic district, that's
11:14 9 a bad thing; correct?
11:14 10 AI don't think it's a bad thing.
11:14 11 Q Okay. But does that trend have an impact on
11:14 12 whether an Hispanic candidate will be elected in
11:14 13 District 26?
11:14 14 A It could. If the district becomes so
11:14 15 Democratic that the Democrats feel that they -- that
11:14 16 any Democrat can get elected, that they don't have to
11:14 17 worry about putting up an Hispanic Democrat against a
11:14 18 Hispanic Republican, like they don't have to worry in
11:14 19 113, then -- then it -- it will definitely -- it could
11:14 20 definitely prevent Hispanics -- could lock Hispanics
11:14 21 out.
11:14 22 Q Now let's go --
11:14 23 A Now, it's --
11:14 24 Q I'm sorry.
11:14 25 A-- important enough -- I'm not saying we're
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 443 365
11:15 1 there; all right? I'm saying we could be there. This
11:15 2 map diminishes.I just want --
11:15 3 Q When you say this map diminishes, let me make
11:15 4 sure I understand. Is this map -- do these three --
11:15 5 four maps as presently constituted, sitting here
11:15 6 today, does it diminish the likelihood of the -- of an
11:15 7 Hispanic to be elected in District 26?
11:15 8 A Yes. And CP-1 more than the rest.
11:15 9 Q Okay. And why CP-1?
11:15 10 A Because CP-1, first, you reach almost 29
11:15 11 percent black to 23 percent Hispanic share of the
11:15 12 electorate. But more important, what it does to
11:15 13 District 27.
11:15 14 Q And tell us what it does to District 27.
11:15 15 A Well, what it does to District 27 is it takes
11:15 16 out Hispanic, cohesive neighborhoods in Westchester
11:15 17 and puts them in District 25, packing District 25 from
11:16 18 70 percent Hispanic to 75 percent Hispanic.
11:16 19 Then it puts Miami Beach, which is 50 percent
11:16 20 non-Latin white, 45 percent, 40 percent -- 40 to 45
11:16 21 percent Hispanic area -- into District 26. We do see
11:16 22 the Hispanic VAP from 73 to 68.
11:16 23 And there is no good reason to do that, that
11:16 24 you have the best of all possible natural barriers,
11:16 25 which is Biscayne Bay, between, you know, District 26
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 444 366
11:16 1 now.
11:16 2 So while I'm concerned with 2, 3, and Romo,
11:16 3 I'm extremely worried about CP-1, because it seems to
11:17 4 me it unnecessarily puts too many Hispanics in
11:17 5 District 25 and unnecessarily reduces the number of
11:17 6 Hispanics in District 27.
11:17 7 Moreover, it -- it continues -- it shifts
11:17 8 Hispanic, cohesive neighborhoods without necessary,
11:17 9 just to make the district more Democrat.
11:17 10 MR. MEROS: Thank you very much. Appreciate
11:17 11 it.
11:17 12 Just one second. If I may, just one last --
11:18 13 BY MR. MEROS:
11:18 14 Q The one thing I don't think we had mentioned
11:18 15 is the Miami Beach City Commission.
11:18 16 A Yes, sir.
11:18 17 Q Is there anything about the Miami Beach City
11:18 18 Commission circumstance that has a bearing on your
11:18 19 opinions?
11:18 20 A Well, if -- Miami Beach had a Hispanic
11:18 21 Democratic mayor between -- doing math backwards --
11:18 22 2005 and 2013 and had two Hispanic commissioners. In
11:18 23 the 2013 election, that Hispanic mayor lost an
11:18 24 election to city commission, and the other Hispanic
11:18 25 running, also a Hispanic Democrat, were defeated by
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 445 367
11:18 1 non-Latin white Democrats, which shows you the danger
11:18 2 of politics in Dade County, where ethnic polarized
11:18 3 voting -- you know, Matti Bower won, but was non-Latin
11:19 4 white supported in the past, but faced with an
11:19 5 attractive, non-Latin white candidate, who had lots of
11:19 6 money, it was very easy to galvanize the non-Latin
11:19 7 white vote in Miami Beach against Hispanic Democratic.
11:19 8 MR. MEROS: Thank you very much.
11:19 9 THE COURT: Anybody else on this side?
11:19 10 MR. CANTERO: No.
11:19 11 THE WITNESS: Can I get some water?
11:20 12 THE COURT: Anybody got some water for the
11:20 13 witness?
11:19 14 CROSS EXAMINATION
11:20 15 BY MR. KING:
11:20 16 Q Good morning, Dr. Moreno.
11:20 17 A Good morning.
11:20 18 Q This is not the first time we have seen you in
11:20 19 this case; is it, sir?
11:20 20 A Unfortunately, no.I think we're all -- well,
11:20 21 hopefully, we're not all lifers here.
11:20 22 Q You refer to yourself in the Legislature as
11:20 23 being in a cottage industry of redistricting; right?
11:20 24 A No.I said I'm part of the cottage industry
11:20 25 of redistricting.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 446 368
11:20 1 Q And so you have had the ability in the past to
11:20 2 opine on this very same issue regarding the enacted
11:20 3 map, 9057; correct?
11:20 4 A That is correct.
11:20 5 Q And 9047; they're the same; right?
11:21 6 A Yes.
11:21 7 Q And, of course, you have strongly endorsed,
11:21 8 from this witness stand -- maybe not the same
11:21 9 courtroom -- but from the witness stand in this case
11:21 10 in front of Judge Lewis, you strongly endorsed the
11:21 11 fact that 9057 did not retrogress; correct?
11:21 12 A Correct.
11:21 13 Q That 9057 performed for Hispanic candidates --
11:21 14 A Yeah --
11:21 15 Q -- in --
11:21 16 A-- and --
11:21 17 Q Excuse me, sir. Let me finish the question.
11:21 18 If you will wait until I finish, then I will wait for
11:21 19 you to finish your answer.
11:21 20 So the question is: You testified that 9057
11:21 21 performed for Hispanic candidates in Districts 25, 26,
11:21 22 and 27 under the enacted map; isn't that correct, sir?
11:21 23 A Yes, sir. And the proof in the pudding is in
11:21 24 the eating.
11:21 25 THE COURT: The proof in the pudding is what?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 447 369
11:21 1 THE WITNESS: The proof in the pudding is in
11:22 2 the eating. I'm sorry.
11:22 3 In 2012, the enacted plan elected a Hispanic
11:22 4 Democrat to Congress, Joe Garcia. 2014, they
11:22 5 elected Carlos Curbelo, an Hispanic Republican to
11:22 6 Congress.
11:22 7 So I believe that these are performing
11:22 8 districts.
11:22 9 BY MR. KING:
11:22 10 Q In fact, they've been performing districts
11:22 11 since the benchmark back in 2002; isn't that correct,
11:22 12 sir?
11:22 13 A That is correct.
11:22 14 Q You endorsed the benchmark district and
11:22 15 indicated that it had been performing in these
11:22 16 Hispanic districts in South Florida, in Dade County,
11:22 17 since 2002; right?
11:22 18 A Correct.
11:22 19 Q Also, sir,I forgot to mention. You indicated
11:22 20 that you primarily have represented Republican
11:23 21 candidates in your work outside of the university;
11:23 22 correct, sir?
11:23 23 A Yes, sir. But I've also represented
11:23 24 Democratic candidates.
11:23 25 Q And during the time you've been involved in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 448 370
11:23 1 this redistricting work, at least since 2010, you've
11:23 2 also been paid something like $63,000 by the
11:23 3 Republican Party of Florida; isn't that correct?
11:23 4 A Well,I've been paid by -- not the Republican
11:23 5 Party of Florida, but the Legislature.
11:23 6 Q Well, no, we're not talking about that. We're
11:23 7 talking about separate work you've done, according to
11:23 8 the Florida Department of State, Division of
11:23 9 Elections, work you've done for the Republican Party
11:23 10 of Florida; isn't that correct?
11:23 11 A Oh, yes, sir. That's correct.
11:23 12 Q Okay. So you've done -- you're the fellow
11:23 13 that lives at 822 Venetian Avenue?
11:23 14 A That's correct.
11:23 15 Q Okay. In Coral Gables, and you've done
11:24 16 consulting and polling, contract labor, all for the
11:24 17 Republican Party of Florida; correct?
11:24 18 A Yes, sir.
11:24 19 Q So you filed a report in this case back on
11:24 20 April 8, 2013, regarding the enacted map; right?
11:24 21 A That's correct.
11:24 22 Q And you indicated that you were very concerned
11:24 23 because of the reduction from 67.44 percent Hispanic
11:24 24 VAP in current District 26 to 63.26 in Romo District
11:24 25 26; right?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 449 371
11:24 1 A That's correct.
11:24 2 Q But you, during that time, had the opportunity
11:25 3 to give us some testimony about what you thought were
11:25 4 kind of the benchmarks you looked at to determine
11:25 5 whether a district was performing or not; correct?
11:25 6 A Correct.
11:25 7 Q And at one point, isn't it correct, sir, that
11:25 8 you told us, or you indicated that in determining
11:25 9 whether a district will perform for a candidate of
11:25 10 choice for the Hispanic population, usually we're
11:25 11 looking for a voter -- a VAP of 64 to 66 percent, and
11:25 12 we're looking for voter registration of over 50
11:25 13 percent; does that sound like something you would have
11:25 14 said, sir, in the past?
11:25 15 A Yes, sir.
11:25 16 Q Okay. And you also indicated that we're
11:25 17 looking for past performance in elections for Hispanic
11:25 18 candidates to see which candidates are the candidates
11:25 19 of choice for Hispanics; right?
11:26 20 A Yes, sir.
11:26 21 Q And so you know that the -- actually the
11:26 22 benchmark back in 2002 pegged 18 at somewhere around
11:26 23 63.88 percent HVAP; right?
11:26 24 A Right.
11:26 25 Q And it pegged 25 at 64.29 HVAP; right?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 450 372
11:26 1 A That's correct.
11:26 2 Q And so using your approach, you looked at how
11:26 3 those districts performed over that time, and they
11:26 4 performed very well for Hispanics in Dade County;
11:26 5 isn't that correct, sir?
11:26 6 A Yes, sir.
11:26 7 Q In that they continuously elected the Hispanic
11:26 8 candidate of choice from 2012 --I mean from 2002
11:26 9 right up until now; right?
11:26 10 A Yes, sir.
11:27 11 Q You haven't seen any indication in any
11:27 12 election in District 26 where a coalition of blacks
11:27 13 and whites defeated a Hispanic candidate; have you,
11:27 14 sir?
11:27 15 A No, sir.
11:27 16 Q Now, also you remember testifying in trial
11:27 17 back on -- back in May and June;I can't remember
11:27 18 whether you were in the May session or the June
11:27 19 session -- but May or June of 2014; right?
11:27 20 A Did I testify in trial? Yes, sir.
11:27 21 Q Yes, sir. And then you recall saying that 65
11:28 22 percent VAP and 44 percent Hispanic voter registration
11:28 23 are good rules of thumb; it's a good beginning, and it
11:28 24 means it's a serious effort to draw a Hispanic
11:28 25 district.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 451 373
11:28 1 Do you remember saying that?
11:28 2 A Yes, sir.
11:28 3 Q And, of course, the issue then was the very
11:28 4 same issue that we're dealing with today; isn't that
11:28 5 right, Professor Moreno? The issue was, do the
11:28 6 districts, the South Florida districts, 26, does it
11:28 7 retrogress; right?
11:28 8 A Yes, sir.
11:28 9 Q Did it have an ability to elect Hispanic
11:28 10 candidates? And you testified emphatically in that
11:28 11 trial testimony that 9057 would not retrogress and
11:28 12 would elect Hispanic candidates of choice; right?
11:29 13 A Yes, sir.
11:29 14 Q And 9057 had a Hispanic VAP of 68.9; right?
11:29 15 A Yes, sir.
11:29 16 Q So when you said CP-1, our map, reduces the
11:29 17 VAP from 73 to 68, the VAP in District 26 has never
11:29 18 been 73 for Hispanics; has it, sir?
11:29 19 A The map in the -- map that the House adopted
11:29 20 was 72 percent.
11:29 21 Q Right. But that's their map that's sitting
11:29 22 over here that has never been enacted in the state and
11:29 23 put into application; right?
11:29 24 A That's correct.
11:29 25 Q But the one that was enacted --
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 452 374
11:29 1 A Yeah, for 26, but we're talking about 27.
11:29 2 Q Well, your report primarily talks about 26;
11:30 3 isn't that right, sir?
11:30 4 A But in -- but the drop from 73 to 68 didn't
11:30 5 occur in 26. In your -- it occurs in CP-1 in 27.
11:30 6 Q Okay. What's the VAP in CP-1 in 27?
11:30 7 A Excuse me?
11:30 8 Q Do you know?
11:30 9 A The VAP in CP-1 in 27 is 68.
11:30 10 Q Isn't it 69?
11:30 11 A 69.
11:30 12 Q Well, which is it?
11:30 13 A 69. Sorry.
11:30 14 Q And the VAP in CP-1, District 26, is 68.3;
11:30 15 right?
11:30 16 A Yes. But I'm talking about 27; what's the VAP
11:30 17 for 27.
11:30 18 Q Well --
11:30 19 A You change 27. CP-1 changes 27. And that's
11:30 20 what I-- and -- and that's what I'm talking about.
11:31 21 Q CP-1 changes 26; doesn't it?
11:31 22 A Yes.
11:31 23 Q Okay.
11:31 24 A I'm talking about --
11:31 25 Q Well, is it your position that CP-1 does not
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 453 375
11:31 1 retrogress as far as 26 is concerned?
11:31 2 A No, it is not.
11:31 3 Q Okay. So you're taking the position that it
11:31 4 does retrogress?
11:31 5 A I'm taking the position that it diminishes the
11:31 6 ability of Hispanics to elect a candidate of their
11:31 7 choice.
11:31 8 Q Okay. So when you were here back in May of
11:31 9 2014, you testified that the enacted map would not
11:31 10 retrogress -- and that included 26; isn't that right?
11:31 11 A That's right.
11:31 12 Q And you said that a VAP -- Hispanic VAP in
11:31 13 District 26 of 68.9 was not retrogressive in any way;
11:32 14 correct?
11:32 15 A Taken by itself. But you have to -- when you
11:32 16 do a functional analysis, you have to look at not only
11:32 17 voting age population, registration, you have to look
11:32 18 at primary voting; you have to look at -- at -- at
11:32 19 voter turnout.
11:32 20 You have to look at all the data.
11:32 21 Q Okay.
11:32 22 AI began, and I stick by my testimony, that a
11:32 23 VAP of 65 -- 64, 65, and a Hispanic registration of
11:32 24 over 50 percent is a good starting point.
11:32 25 Q Well, actually you told the Court here last
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 454 376
11:32 1 year that even 44 percent registration is a good
11:32 2 starting point; right?
11:32 3 A Right.
11:32 4 Q And, you know, let's just square away so we
11:32 5 know what we're dealing with here in this case. CP-1,
11:33 6 District 26, has a voting age population for Hispanics
11:33 7 of 68.3; right?
11:33 8 A Correct.
11:33 9 Q It's almost exactly the same as the map that
11:33 10 you said last year was not retrogressive; isn't that
11:33 11 right?
11:33 12 A But you're mixing terms, sir --
11:33 13 Q Well, voting age --
11:33 14 A Hold on a second.
11:33 15 MR. MEROS: Excuse me, Your Honor. He should
11:33 16 be able to finish his answer. He interrupted.
11:33 17 BY MR. KING:
11:33 18 Q Sure. Finish.
11:33 19 A You're changing terminology. You're saying
11:33 20 just because you have a similar VAP doesn't mean you
11:33 21 have a similar map. Yes, the VAPs are similar. But
11:33 22 the maps are different.
11:33 23 Q Okay.
11:33 24 MR. KING: Let's put up D-3.
11:34 25 THE WITNESS:I cannot --
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 455 377
11:34 1 BY MR. KING:
11:34 2 Q Okay. We're going to give you a hard copy --
11:34 3 I tell you what, let's start with these two first.
11:34 4 MR. KING: Let's put up D-12 first.
11:34 5 BY MR. KING:
11:34 6 Q Let me show you D-12.
11:34 7 AI cannot come close to reading that.
11:34 8 THE COURT:I can see it on the screen here.
11:34 9 MR. KING: You can see that?
11:34 10 BY MR. KING:
11:34 11 Q Now,D-12 -- do you have your copy of your
11:35 12 report in front of you up there?
11:35 13 A No,I do not.
11:35 14 Q You remember that you did a chart in your
11:35 15 report of September 18, 2015?
11:35 16 A Yes, sir.
11:35 17 Q And -- let me give you a copy, hard copy of
11:35 18 your report, too, Doctor, if I could.
11:35 19 A Thank you. Yes, sir.
11:35 20 Q All right. And so you're looking at a report
11:35 21 entitled District Ethnic Voters -- or looking at a
11:36 22 table 20 --
11:36 23 A You're looking at mine or yours?
11:36 24 Q I'm looking at the one I gave you. If you
11:36 25 would look at yours.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 456 378
11:36 1 A Okay. Yours says Hispanic Democratic voters.
11:36 2 And I say "ethnic voters."
11:36 3 Q Well, look at your --
11:36 4 A Table 3?
11:36 5 Q -- table 4.
11:36 6 A Okay.
11:36 7 Q Table 4. Do you see that in your report?
11:36 8 A Yes, sir.
11:36 9 Q And what I have done to D-12 --D-13 is I have
11:36 10 added a bottom line, which is 9057.
11:36 11 Do you see it? That's the enacted map?
11:36 12 A Yes, sir.
11:36 13 Q All right. And so we include for District
11:36 14 26 -- now we have already talked about the fact that
11:37 15 for the enacted map the voter age population for
11:37 16 Hispanics was 68.9, and for CP-1 it's 68.3; right?
11:37 17 A That's correct.
11:37 18 Q And so that's well above the benchmark that
11:37 19 you have indicated over and over again as being the
11:37 20 appropriate level that you would think a Hispanic
11:37 21 district would perform for Hispanics; right?
11:37 22 A It would be the starting point of drawing a
11:37 23 Hispanic district, yes, sir.
11:37 24 Q Okay. Well, that and voter registration were
11:37 25 what you have said in the past were the two issues
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 457 379
11:37 1 that were the most important to you; right?
11:37 2 A Were the beginnings. But, yes. Go ahead.
11:37 3 Q And so in this chart we have the first
11:37 4 category is Hispanics as a percentage of registered
11:37 5 Democrats, 2010 general election.
11:38 6 Do you see that?
11:38 7 A Yes, sir.
11:38 8 Q Now in your chart you compared it -- you
11:38 9 compared the four alternative plans to the
11:38 10 Legislature's new proposal; right?
11:38 11 A That's correct.
11:38 12 Q But if you add the enacted map, you see that
11:38 13 basically CP-1 is very close to identical as far as
11:38 14 Hispanics as a percentage of registered Democrats in
11:38 15 the 2010 general election; correct?
11:38 16 A Correct.
11:38 17 Q And, of course --I think you said at some
11:38 18 point --I've read a lot of your testimony -- you said
11:38 19 something about in South Florida you go to sleep at
11:38 20 night, and everything changes by the time you wake up
11:38 21 in the morning or something like that.
11:38 22 Does that sound like something you might have
11:38 23 said?
11:38 24 AI wish I was as eloquent as you were.
11:38 25 Q Well, but the point was yours; right, that
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 458 380
11:39 1 things are moving fast down in South Florida?
11:39 2 A Yes, they move fast, sir.
11:39 3 Q And 2010 is five years past; right? That's
11:39 4 the 2010 numbers you're relying on there; right?
11:39 5 A Yes.
11:39 6 Q Registered Democrats among Hispanics are going
11:39 7 at a much faster pace than registered Republicans;
11:39 8 right?
11:39 9 A Correct.
11:39 10 Q But at any rate --
11:39 11 AI mean they're slowing down now in the last
11:39 12 year --I mean just -- that's a point.
11:39 13 Q So the enacted map, which you said didn't
11:39 14 retrogress, has essentially the same percentage of
11:39 15 registered Democrats or Hispanics in the 2010 election
11:39 16 as our proposed map; correct?
11:39 17 A Yes, sir.
11:39 18 Q And then you indicate -- you have blacks as a
11:39 19 percentage of registered Democrats, 2010 general
11:39 20 election; under our map it's 26.5; under CP-2 it's
11:40 21 22.9; the enacted map is 16 -- is 21.4; correct?
11:40 22 A Could you repeat that? I'm sorry.
11:40 23 Q Yes, sir. The 9057, the enacted map, had 21.4
11:40 24 percent blacks, 26.5 under CP-1 --
11:40 25 AI don't have that in front of me, and I'm
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 459 381
11:40 1 having trouble reading it.
11:40 2 Q I think you do have this in front of you, sir.
11:40 3 A No. You gave me this, and this and my
11:40 4 testimony and my --
11:40 5 Q You are correct. Let's see how we ...
11:41 6 (Discussion off the record.)
11:41 7 BY MR. KING:
11:41 8 Q (Tendering document.)
11:41 9 A Thank you, sir.
11:41 10 Q All right. So we have --
11:42 11 A You gave me black sheet. You gave me the same
11:42 12 one I had.
11:42 13 Q There you go, sir. Now we know you've got
11:42 14 both of those, and we're going to go through both of
11:42 15 them.
11:42 16 A Okay.
11:42 17 Q So on the District 26 ethnic voters --I'll
11:42 18 pull it back up -- you see that it has blacks as a
11:42 19 percentage of registered Democrats 2010, CP-1, 26.5;
11:42 20 the enacted map 9057, 21.4; right?
11:42 21 A Uh-huh.
11:42 22 Q Is that yes?
11:42 23 A Yes, sir.
11:42 24 Q All right. And then blacks as a percentage of
11:42 25 the electorate, the Democratic primary, 28.9 percent
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 460 382
11:42 1 under CP-1, 25.5 percent under the enacted map that
11:43 2 you endorsed here last year; correct?
11:43 3 A Correct.
11:43 4 Q And then Hispanics as a percentage of the
11:43 5 electorate in the 2010 Democratic primary. Do you see
11:43 6 that in CP-1 for District 26 it's 22.8 percent? And
11:43 7 in the enacted map it's 22.7 percent; right?
11:43 8 A Correct.
11:43 9 Q You endorse the enacted map; right?
11:43 10 A Correct.
11:43 11 Q And just to further that, let's look at D-12
11:43 12 now.D-12 is the other one that is entitled, sir,
11:43 13 District 26 Hispanic Democratic Voters.
11:43 14 Now this was a chart, a table, that's in your
11:43 15 report; correct?
11:43 16 A Yes, sir -- well -- yes, sir.
11:43 17 Q It's table 3; right?
11:43 18 A Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
11:44 19 Q And table 3 said that this analysis
11:44 20 demonstrates serious flaws in the ability of Hispanic
11:44 21 voters to elect candidates of their choice in District
11:44 22 26; right?
11:44 23 A Correct.
11:44 24 Q All right. But if we look at this table 3,
11:44 25 you say in your report, table 3 shows all four of the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 461 383
11:44 1 plans have significantly fewer Hispanic Democrats in
11:44 2 District 26 than the Legislature's plan; right?
11:44 3 A Yes.
11:44 4 Q Again, you're just comparing our map to a plan
11:44 5 proposed by the Legislature. But you weren't
11:44 6 comparing it to the enacted map; right?
11:44 7 A No, sir.
11:44 8 Q But now I added that bottom line there, which
11:44 9 is the enacted map; right?
11:44 10 A Right, sir.
11:44 11 Q And so if we compare CP-1, District 26,
11:44 12 Hispanics as a percentage of registered voters, 54.7
11:45 13 percent under that 2010 election; 55.3 under 9057 you
11:45 14 said was okay; right?
11:45 15 A Yeah.
11:45 16 Q And Hispanics as a percentage of registered
11:45 17 Democrats, 2010 general election, 42.5 in CP-1; 42.6
11:45 18 in 9057; right?
11:45 19 A Correct.
11:45 20 Q I mean, that's not enough difference to make
11:45 21 any difference; is it, sir?
11:45 22 A Yes, it is.
11:45 23 Q Between 42.5 and 42.6 as for Hispanics as a
11:45 24 percentage of registered Democrats, how did you figure
11:45 25 that out, sir?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 462 384
11:45 1 A Well, a couple of things. First of all,
11:45 2 again, you're not taking into account partisanship,
11:45 3 moving from a toss-up district to a lean Democratic
11:45 4 district. You're not taking into account the -- that
11:46 5 if the district becomes so Democratic that the
11:46 6 Democrats don't have to worry about losing to an
11:46 7 Hispanic Republican, there would be no incentive to
11:46 8 recruit and support Democratic Hispanics for those --
11:46 9 for that race.
11:46 10 You're also not taking into account that
11:46 11 Hispanic Democrats, especially in CD-26, tend to turn
11:46 12 out far less than blacks or non-Latin whites.
11:46 13 If you look at your own charts, compare the
11:47 14 Democratic percentage of registration to who actually
11:47 15 turned up. So with -- in all of them, including the
11:47 16 legislative adopted plan and the legislative proposed
11:47 17 plan, Democratic percentage of the electorate is much
11:47 18 lower than Democratic registered voters, meaning the
11:47 19 Democratic voters aren't -- the Democratic Hispanics
11:47 20 aren't turning out to vote in primaries.
11:47 21 Similarly, look at blacks as a percentage of
11:47 22 the electorate compared to blacks as -- compared to
11:47 23 registration. And in all -- and in all the cases
11:47 24 black registration is lower than black participation,
11:47 25 meaning that blacks do come out and vote in primaries.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 463 385
11:48 1 So that fact, that indication, is what
11:48 2 concerns me that, as you increase black vote, and
11:48 3 Hispanic vote remains the same, that the district can
11:48 4 become so Democratic that the Democrats can nominate
11:48 5 anybody, and that person will get elected.
11:48 6 Q Well, there has certainly never been an
11:48 7 example of that; has there, sir?
11:48 8 A In Dade County?
11:48 9 Q In --
11:48 10 A Dade County?
11:48 11 Q -- District 26.
11:48 12 A Well, District 26, we've had two elections.
11:48 13 Q Right, so under the enacted map -- under the
11:48 14 enacted map, Hispanics won every time; right?
11:48 15 A But we have examples in other parts of Dade
11:48 16 County.
11:48 17 And by the way, sir, Hispanics are not 66
11:48 18 percent of the voters in Dade County; they're 60
11:48 19 percent.
11:48 20 Q How many?
11:48 21 A 60 percent.
11:48 22 Q Have you checked your facts on that?
11:48 23 A Yes.
11:48 24 Q Okay.
11:48 25 A Yeah, because it goes from 55 to 66 percent,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 464 386
11:48 1 depending on which election you pick.
11:49 2 Q So there are elections that they're 66?
11:49 3 A Yes. And there are elections that are 55.
11:49 4 Q But what about registered voters?
11:49 5 A Registered voters is just an indication. You
11:49 6 have to look at registered voters; you have to look at
11:49 7 turnout, because turnout are actually -- there are
11:49 8 groups who traditionally underperform. Non-Cuban
11:49 9 Hispanics are one of those groups.
11:49 10 Q All right. Let's look at turnout. In fact,
11:49 11 that's on your chart. You were talking about turnout
11:49 12 under our map at 22.8 percent. And you thought that
11:49 13 was significantly less than the arrangement that it
11:49 14 would be under the Legislature's proposed plan of
11:49 15 25.5; right?
11:49 16 A Right.
11:49 17 Q But, of course, under the enacted plan that
11:49 18 you previously endorsed it's 22.7. It's actually less
11:49 19 than the plan proposed by the -- by the plaintiffs;
11:49 20 isn't that correct?
11:49 21 A It is correct. But you're not looking at the
11:50 22 partisanship aspect of the district.
11:50 23 Q Well, I'm just looking at what you said
11:50 24 before. Before you said this was -- this was okay.
11:50 25 Today you say this is not okay. It's just a
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 465 387
11:50 1 year's passed since you said the other. What's
11:50 2 changed?
11:50 3 A But they're not the same districts, sir.
11:50 4 They're different districts; they're different maps.
11:50 5 Q But you look at the metrics --
11:50 6 A No.
11:50 7 Q -- of the district. That's all you talk about
11:50 8 in your report; isn't it, Dr. Moreno? You don't talk
11:50 9 about all these little anecdotes that you tell us as
11:50 10 you testify; you talk about the percentages in these
11:50 11 tables in your report; isn't that correct, sir?
11:50 12 That's how you made your case; right?
11:50 13 A Sir, what I'm telling you is that I look at,
11:50 14 you know, there are no fast rules -- you know,
11:50 15 ironclad rules of a district performing. But we can
11:51 16 perform by looking at past elections, by looking at
11:51 17 areas, by looking at possibilities of -- of
11:51 18 electing -- of coalition building between different
11:51 19 ethnic groups. You cannot take an election in a
11:51 20 vacuum. Every election is different.
11:51 21 Q All right.
11:51 22 A Your district may well perform, but it may not
11:51 23 perform.I think the chances of it not performing is
11:51 24 higher under -- under the -- under CP-1, CP-2, CP-3,
11:51 25 and Romo than the legislative adopted plan or the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 466 388
11:51 1 enacted plan.
11:51 2 Q Well, do you think --I guess you would also
11:51 3 say, then, that under 9057, the chances of 9057, the
11:51 4 current enacted map that's electing people today, the
11:51 5 chances are it wouldn't perform; is that right?
11:51 6 A No, sir, that's not what I've testified. But
11:52 7 they're not the same district.
11:52 8 Q Okay. Well, let's talk about the tools of
11:52 9 your trade, sir. Would it be fair to say that among
11:52 10 the tools of your trade would be the HVAP? You always
11:52 11 refer to that; don't you?
11:52 12 A Yes.
11:52 13 Q Would the tools of your trade include the
11:52 14 percentage Hispanic of registered voters?
11:52 15 A Yes, sir.
11:52 16 Q The percentage black of registered voters?
11:52 17 A Yes, sir.
11:52 18 Q The percentage Hispanic of Democratic
11:52 19 registered voters?
11:52 20 A Yes, sir.
11:52 21 Q Percentage black of Democratic registered
11:52 22 voters?
11:52 23 A Yes.
11:52 24 Q Percentage Hispanic of Republican voters?
11:52 25 A Right.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 467 389
11:52 1 Q Percentage black of the Democratic primary?
11:52 2 A Yes.
11:52 3 Q And you would look at both 2010 and 2012;
11:52 4 correct?
11:52 5 A Yes, sir.
11:52 6 Q And you would also look and consider how the
11:52 7 district was performing; right?
11:52 8 A Yes.
11:52 9 Q You would look at all those things?
11:52 10 A And you will look at partisan breakdown.
11:52 11 Q All right.
11:52 12 MR. KING: Bring up D-3, please.
11:53 13 BY MR. KING:
11:53 14 Q Dr. Moreno, you can't possibly see that from
11:53 15 here. I'm going to give you a copy right there that
11:53 16 hopefully you can see.
11:53 17 Now, you will see, Dr. Moreno, that --
11:53 18 THE COURT:I can see it on the screen.
11:53 19 MR. KING: You've got it on the screen there?
11:53 20 BY MR. KING:
11:53 21 Q So you see, Dr. Moreno, that we reported all
11:53 22 these figures here for the tools of your trade that we
11:53 23 just discussed --
11:53 24 A Can I make a comment?
11:53 25 Q Well, maybe if I could just --
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 468 390
11:53 1 A Well, it's just that you have 2010 Obama, 2012
11:54 2 Sink.
11:54 3 Q Average.
11:54 4 A Yeah, but Obama ran in 2012.
11:54 5 Q We made a mistake. Can you reverse those?
11:54 6 Can you mentally reverse Sink to 2010 and Obama to
11:54 7 2012?
11:54 8 A Yes.
11:54 9 Q Thank you. But I appreciate you pointing that
11:54 10 out.
11:54 11 So, now, looking at this document, we see, as
11:54 12 we start down the page comparing -- and what I've got
11:54 13 in there is the enacted map. The second plan is the
11:54 14 enacted map; right? The second line, column, you see
11:54 15 it says 9047, 9057 --
11:54 16 A Yes, sir.
11:54 17 Q -- CD-26?
11:54 18 A Yes, sir.
11:54 19 Q You see the HVAP in 2010, 68.91?
11:54 20 A Yes, sir.
11:55 21 Q You know that's correct; right?
11:55 22 A Yes, sir.
11:55 23 Q And you see under CP-1 it's 68.3?
11:55 24 A Correct, sir.
11:55 25 Q Essentially the same; right?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 469 391
11:55 1 A Yes, sir. The numbers are the same.
11:55 2 Q And then percentage Hispanic of registered
11:55 3 voters, 55.5 under the enacted map; 54.7 under CP-1;
11:55 4 right?
11:55 5 A Right.
11:55 6 Q And that's essentially the same; right?
11:55 7 A The numbers are the same.
11:55 8 Q Yeah. And then percentage Hispanic of
11:55 9 Democratic voters, 42.6 under the enacted map; 42.5
11:55 10 under CP-20 -- CP-1, District 26; right?
11:55 11 AI corrected Mr. Meros;I will correct you.
11:55 12 Percentage of Hispanic registered voters.
11:55 13 Q Okay.
11:55 14 A Not voters. There is a difference.
11:55 15 Q I thought I said that, but --
11:55 16 A No.
11:55 17 Q Percentage Hispanic of Democratic registered
11:55 18 voters; right?
11:56 19 A Yes. Right. Correct.
11:56 20 Q That's what the chart says; right?
11:56 21 A Right.
11:56 22 Q And that's the same; right? 42.6; 42.5?
11:56 23 A The numbers are the same.
11:56 24 Q All right. And then as far as percentage
11:56 25 black of Democratic registered voters, 21.4 under the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 470 392
11:56 1 enacted map; 25.1 under CP-1. So that's like about
11:56 2 three and a half points difference; right?
11:56 3 A 3.7.
11:56 4 Q 3.7. Good. And then percentage Hispanic of
11:56 5 Republican registered voters, 65.6; under our plan,
11:56 6 64.7. Very close; right?
11:56 7 A Yes, sir.
11:56 8 Q Percentage of Hispanic -- of Democratic
11:56 9 primary -- now that's what you say is very important.
11:56 10 The Democratic -- what's the turnout at the Democratic
11:56 11 primary? It's greater under CP-1 than under the
11:57 12 enacted map, although it's essentially the same;
11:57 13 right?
11:57 14 A The numbers, yes.
11:57 15 Q And then percentage black of the Democratic
11:57 16 primary, CP-1, 28.9; district -- the enacted, 25.5;
11:57 17 right? 2.8 difference; correct?
11:57 18 A 3.4.
11:57 19 Q 3.4 difference. Okay.
11:57 20 And then -- then we go to 2012, because you
11:57 21 don't stop at 2010 in your analysis; do you, sir? In
11:57 22 your report you only refer to the 2010 numbers?
11:57 23 A Yeah, because those are where we had primary
11:57 24 numbers.
11:57 25 Q But we have some numbers that are helpful to
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 471 393
11:57 1 us in 2012; isn't that right?
11:57 2 A That could be helpful, yes, sir.
11:57 3 Q All right. And so we see the percentage of
11:57 4 Hispanic registered voters in 2012, it's 57.3; in the
11:58 5 enacted map it's 56.5 in CP-1; correct?
11:58 6 A Yes, sir.
11:58 7 Q And then we see the percentage Hispanic of
11:58 8 Democratic registered voters, 45.3 in the enacted map;
11:58 9 45 in CP-1; right?
11:58 10 A Right.
11:58 11 Q That's -- there is no difference there,
11:58 12 significant -- any significant difference there;
11:58 13 right?
11:58 14 A In the numbers, no.
11:58 15 Q In the numbers. And then we see percentage
11:58 16 Hispanic of Republican registered voters, 66.2; in the
11:58 17 enacted map, 65.5 in CP-1, District 26; right?
11:58 18 A Yes, right.
11:58 19 Q And you endorsed this enacted map over and
11:58 20 over as not being retrogressive; isn't that correct,
11:58 21 sir?
11:58 22 A Yes, sir.
11:59 23 Q Okay.
11:59 24 MR. KING: Your Honor,I've got a little while
11:59 25 longer, not too much longer, if you want to take a
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 472 394
11:59 1 lunch break,I could probably organize myself --
11:59 2 THE COURT: We have been going a while. It's
11:59 3 probably a pretty good time to take a break, so we
11:59 4 might as well make it a lunch break.
11:59 5 How are you doing generally on time?
11:59 6 MR. KING:I don't think I'm going to take
11:59 7 much longer, very much redirect, and we've got two
11:59 8 witnesses that we've got to get done this
11:59 9 afternoon.
11:59 10 THE COURT: You're okay, then, on your time?
11:59 11 MR. KING: And one of those we're not going to
11:59 12 have direct on, so -- that's Dr. Lichtman,I think
11:59 13 hopefully we can finish by your 4:30.
11:59 14 THE COURT: Okay. Do we need to take a
11:59 15 shorter lunch, or are we okay --
11:59 16 MR. MEROS: Your Honor, if we could have at
11:59 17 least an hour and 15 minutes.
11:59 18 THE COURT:I was going to say an hour and a
11:59 19 half if you thought you're okay. If not,I'll cut
11:59 20 it.
11:59 21 MR. DEVANEY: Your Honor,I have about 10 or
11:59 22 15 minutes for Dr. Moreno, and then
11:59 23 Dr. Ansolabehere is on next. His direct will
12:00 24 probably take 20, 25 minutes. And I don't know how
12:00 25 much cross they have.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 473 395
12:00 1 MR. MEROS: Sounds like we're in pretty
12:00 2 good -- the next witness has only
12:00 3 cross-examination, if I understand correctly, after
12:00 4 Dr. Ansolabehere.
12:00 5 MR. KING: That's correct. Maybe an hour and
12:00 6 a half.
12:00 7 THE COURT: See you about 1:30, see you back
12:00 8 then.
12:00 9 (Lunch recess.)
12:00 10 (Proceedings continue in Volume 4.)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 474 396
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF LEON ) 3
4 I, SARAH B. GILROY, Registered Professional Reporter,
5 and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing
6 proceedings were taken before me at the time and place
7 therein designated; and that the foregoing pages
8 numbered 285 through 395 are a true and correct record
9 of the aforesaid proceedings.
10
11 I further certify that I am not a relative, employee,
12 attorney or counsel of any parties, nor am I a relative
13 or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel
14 connected with the action, nor am I financially
15 interested in the action.
16 DATED this day of September, 2015.
17
18
19
20 /s/ Sarah B. Gilroy SARAH B. GILROY 21 [email protected] 850.878.2221 22
23
24
25
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC. J.A. 475