Complaint Redistricting Lawsuit

Case 3:22-cv-00493-BJD-LLL Document 1 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 66 PageID 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
JACKSONVILLE BRANCH OF THE

NAACP; NORTHSIDE COALITION
OF JACKSONVILLE, INC.; ACLU OF
FLORIDA NORTHEAST CHAPTER;
FLORIDA RISING TOGETHER, INC.;
MARCELLA WASHINGTON;
INGRID MONTGOMERY; AYESHA
FRANKLIN; TIFFANIE ROBERTS;
ROSEMARY McCOY; SHEILA
SINGLETON; EUNICE BARNUM;
JANINE WILLIAMS; HARAKA Case No. 3:22-cv-493
CARSWELL; and DENNIS BARNUM,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE and

MIKE HOGAN, in his official capacity
as Duval County Supervisor of Elections,
Defendants.
/
COMPLAINT
Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief Requested
Declaratory Relief Requested
1. In late March, the Jacksonville City Council passed, and Mayor Lenny
Curry signed, Ordinance 2022-01-E (the “Enacted Plan”), redrawing the City Council
and Duval County School Board districts for the next decade.
2. Shortly before the Enacted Plan cleared a key procedural hurdle, a
prominent councilmember shared her “support [for] the rich history of [civil rights
groups] bringing litigation to ensure the full actualization of citizenship for African
1
Americans.” She continued: “if the factors are present to show that the process
undertaken by this Council was in any way violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, I
would expect those organizations to bring litigation. It’s required of you.”
3. Plaintiffs—who include some of Jacksonville’s most prominent and
active civil rights organizations—bring this suit to fulfill that obligation. They
challenge seven City Council districts (the “Challenged Districts”) as racially
gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
4. While redistricting bodies “will . . . almost always be aware of racial
demographics,” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 916 (1995), and are often required to
look at race in drawing maps, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the unnecessary
centering of race in redistricting decisions. Map-drawing in which race predominates,
subordinating race-neutral, traditional redistricting considerations to racial decision-
making, is presumptively invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. This type of race-
based line drawing is constitutional only where it satisfies strict scrutiny—where it is
narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest. The Constitution sets
a high bar. The Enacted Plan fails to clear it.
5. In passing the Enacted Plan, the Council impermissibly centered race
above other considerations. The Council committees and staff charged with drawing
new lines obsessed over race at every step of the process, setting specific racial targets
and repeatedly rejecting proposals that did not meet those targets. They consistently
foregrounded the racial implications of their decisions in meetings—sometimes
2
explicitly noting the role that race was playing in their decision-making and sometimes
hiding behind proxies for race. The Council’s actions were so blatant that the vice chair
of the Special Committee on Redistricting publicly complained that the committee was
“continually making [race] a predominant[ ] priority.”
6. He was right. Race dictated even the most granular line-drawing
decisions in the Enacted Plan. As the Council sought to maximize the Black
concentrations of several districts, it abandoned its stated race-neutral criteria to reach
that goal. This ensured that Black voters who might otherwise be placed in neighboring
districts instead were relegated across the border into packed districts.
7. The Challenged Districts bear all the typical indicia of racial
predominance. They have tortured shapes and fracture neighborhoods as they traverse
Jacksonville along racial lines. Zooming in reveals that the Enacted Plan operates with
surgical precision in its race-based division of voting precincts.
8. As a result, the Enacted Plan packs Black residents into just four of the
Challenged Districts—Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10 (together, the “Packed Districts”). As a
natural corollary of packing those four districts, the Council also stripped Black voters
from three adjacent districts—Districts 2, 12, and 14 (together, the “Stripped
Districts”)—ensuring that these districts had artificially high white populations.
9. The racial gerrymandering of the Challenged Districts directly affects
Plaintiffs’ “ability to impact city politics,” as one community member put it. The Black
population of the Packed Districts is artificially high because the districts snake
through the City to capture as many Black voters as possible. The Black population of
3
the Stripped Districts is simultaneously depressed because the districts carefully avoid
concentrations of Black voters, who are assigned instead to neighboring Packed
Districts. As a consequence, most of Jacksonville’s Black voters are segregated into
just four of fourteen districts, depressing their influence over City Council elections
elsewhere.
10. There was no legitimate reason for this packing and stripping sufficient
to satisfy strict scrutiny. Compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”)
is one of the few permissible justifications for allowing race to predominate when
drawing district lines. But the City Council was not entitled to set racial targets based
on uninformed guesses of what VRA compliance might look like. It was instead
required to actually assess what VRA compliance involves. There is no evidence that
the Council ever attempted to do that. Nor do any other facts indicate that the Enacted
Plan is necessary to achieve VRA compliance. To the contrary, several Plaintiffs
demonstrated to the Council that the Packed Districts’ Black populations far exceed
what is needed for Black voters to have the opportunity to elect their preferred
candidates.
11. The Council instead set arbitrary racial targets uninformed by any
analysis of what the VRA requires. The VRA does not protect the artificial packing of
Black voters and the Council cannot hide behind the VRA here.
12. Moments before the City Council passed the Enacted Plan, one of its
chief proponents announced that she did not “know what [racial] percentage is needed
to ensure that the voters in [her Packed District] are able to actualize their preference.”
4
She added that she did not want any “dilut[ion] [of] the African American neighbors
in Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10.” Those are the elements of a successful racial
gerrymandering claim—race-based decision-making untethered from any analysis of
what the VRA actually requires.
13. Plaintiffs also challenge Duval County School Board Districts 4, 5, and
6 as racial gerrymanders. School Board Districts 4 and 5 each comprise two Packed
Districts of the City Council map. School Board District 6, meanwhile, comprises two
Stripped Districts. Therefore, because the Enacted Plan impermissibly uses race to
draw their component City Council districts, it necessarily racially gerrymanders
School Board Districts 4, 5, and 6, too.
14. Finally, Plaintiffs ask this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over a municipal law claim. Jacksonville’s City Charter requires the Council to draw
districts that are “compact” and “logical.” There is no evidence that the Council ever
attempted to assess these attributes of districts in the Enacted Plan. Many of the
Challenged Districts are non-compact. Each is illogical—splitting neighborhoods,
voting precincts, and other communities of interest, and instead connecting far-flung
regions of the City that do not share economic or social interests.
PARTIES
15. Plaintiff Jacksonville Branch of the NAACP (“NAACP Branch”) is a
nonpartisan nonprofit membership organization serving the Jacksonville since 1917,
and is an affiliate branch of the Florida State Conference of Branches and Youth Units
of the NAACP, the oldest civil rights organization in Florida, formed in 1909.
5
16. The NAACP Branch’s mission is to ensure the political, educational,
social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based
discrimination. Pursuant to this mission, the NAACP Branch has advocated for the
voting rights of African Americans and other voters of color in Jacksonville, including
its members.
17. The NAACP Branch has active members throughout the City, most of
whom are Black. Its members include residents of City Council Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10,
12, and 14, and School Board Districts 4, 5, and 6. If the Challenged Districts are not
enjoined, these members will be harmed by living and voting in unconstitutionally
racially gerrymandered districts.
18. Plaintiff Northside Coalition of Jacksonville, Inc. (“Northside
Coalition”) is a nonprofit advocacy organization serving Jacksonville since 2016.
Northside Coalition’s mission is to empower, educate, and organize community
members in efforts to stand against racial, economic, and social injustice. To achieve
its goals, the organization works hand-in-hand with elected officials, law enforcement
agencies, business professionals, and faith-based organizations.
19. Since its inception, Northside Coalition has organized hundreds of events
to support gun violence reduction, economic empowerment, and poverty reduction.
Additionally, Northside Coalition is active in campaigns to raise awareness around
community issues and create public forums for debate.
20. Northside Coalition has been heavily involved in Jacksonville’s
redistricting process to ensure fair maps and democratic equality for Black residents.
6
Northside Coalition has organized special events to train members and supporters on
voting rights. Its leaders and members have attended numerous City Council hearings
and meetings with councilmembers to advocate for fair maps and against race-based
packing.
21. Northside Coalition has members and supporters throughout
Jacksonville, including in many of the Challenged Districts. If the Challenged Districts
are not enjoined, these members will be harmed by living and voting in
unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered districts.
22. Plaintiff ACLU of Florida Northeast Chapter (“ACLU Chapter”) is a
membership organization founded in 2019 as a regional chapter of the ACLU of
Florida.
23. The mission of the ACLU Chapter is to defend civil liberties and
freedoms through education, outreach, and advocacy. Pursuant to that mission, the
ACLU Chapter participates in and hosts panel discussions, attends community events,
and promotes local efforts to raise awareness and encourage volunteer participation to
protect members of their community. Many of these activities focus on voting and
voting reform in Jacksonville.
24. The ACLU Chapter has thousands of members, consisting of all
members of the ACLU of Florida residing or employed in Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau,
and St. Johns Counties.
25. Many of the ACLU Chapter’s members reside in Jacksonville, including
in the Challenged Districts. If the Challenged Districts are not enjoined, these
7
members will be harmed by living and voting in unconstitutionally racially
gerrymandered districts.
26. Plaintiff Florida Rising Together, Inc. (“Florida Rising”) is an
organization with a mission to increase the voting and political power of marginalized
communities. Since its founding, Florida Rising has engaged its constituencies to
expand democracy by ensuring that every eligible voter in the state is able to exercise
their fundamental and constitutionally protected right to vote. In furtherance of its
goals, Florida Rising actively engages in voter registration, education, engagement,
and election protection programming.
27. As a part of its Expanding Democracy Program, Florida Rising has been
actively involved in the Jacksonville redistricting process by educating residents about
local redistricting, encouraging and mobilizing its members to speak at public
hearings, and working with partners to raise awareness about the process.
28. Florida Rising’s members include Black residents of Jacksonville who
live and vote in Jacksonville City Council Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14, and School
Board Districts 4, 5, and 6. If the Challenged Districts are not enjoined, these members
will be harmed by living and voting in unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered
districts.
29. Plaintiff Marcella Washington is a Black resident of the newly enacted
and stripped City Council District 2.
30. Plaintiff Ingrid Montgomery is a Black resident of the newly enacted and
packed City Council District 7 and School Board District 4.
8
31. Plaintiff Ayesha Franklin is a Black resident of the newly enacted and
32. Plaintiff Tiffanie Roberts is a Black resident of the newly enacted and
33. Plaintiff Rosemary McCoy is a Black resident of the newly enacted and
34. Plaintiff Sheila Singleton is a Black resident of the newly enacted and
35. Plaintiff Eunice Barnum is a Black resident of the newly enacted and
36. Plaintiff Janine Williams is a Black resident of the newly enacted and
37. Plaintiff Haraka Carswell is a Black resident of the newly enacted and
stripped City Council District 12 and School Board District 6.
38. Plaintiff Dennis Barnum is a Black resident of the newly enacted and
stripped City Council District 14 and School Board District 6.
39. The Plaintiffs identified in Paragraphs 29–38 (together, “Individual
Plaintiffs”), as well as many members of the NAACP Branch, Northside Coalition,
the ACLU Chapter, and Florida Rising (together, “Organizational Plaintiffs”), live in
race-based districts. The City Council used race as the predominant factor in its
decisions to place a significant number of voters, like Individual Plaintiffs and
Organizational Plaintiffs’ members, within or without their respective City Council
9
and School Board districts. None of those districts is narrowly tailored to satisfy the
VRA or any other compelling interest.
40. Defendant City of Jacksonville is the consolidated city-county
government in Duval County, Florida. As a consolidated government exercising the
powers of a chartered county and a municipality, Jacksonville has the authority to
regulate its elections consistent with state law. Fla. Const. art. VIII, §§ 1(g), 2(b), 3;
Fla. Stat. § 100.3605.
41. Defendant Mike Hogan is the Duval County Supervisor of Elections, the
chief elections officer for the City of Jacksonville. In this capacity, he is vested with
broad authority over election administration in Duval County, including the duty to
conduct City Council and School Board elections. Fla. Stat. § 98.015; Jacksonville
City Charter (“Charter”) § 9.01. He is sued in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
42. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201,
and 2202, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, because this action arises under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over Plaintiffs’ municipal law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
43. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b) because all Defendants reside in this District and a substantial part of the
events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
44. This action is properly filed in the Jacksonville Division pursuant to
Local Rule 1.04(b) because the action is most directly connected with this Division
10
and it is most conveniently advanced here.
45. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
FACTS
46. Jacksonville’s City Council consists of nineteen councilmembers. Five
councilmembers are elected at-large. The other fourteen councilmembers are each
elected from one of fourteen City Council districts, also referred to as “neighborhood
seats.” Charter § 5.01.
47. The School Board consists of seven members, each elected from one of
seven School Board districts. Charter §§ 13.01–02. Each School Board district is
coterminous with two combined adjacent City Council districts. Id. § 13.02. Because
of this structure, any decision affecting City Council districts necessarily alters School
Board districts.
48. The Council has discretion in deciding how to pair City Council districts
to form School Board districts. The Enacted Plan pairs City Council districts to form
School Board districts as follows:
Council School Board

Districts District
1 and 2 1
3 and 13 2
4 and 5 3
7 and 8 4
9 and 10 5
12 and 14 6
6 and 11 7
11
I. Brief Overview of Jacksonville’s Redistricting Process
49. Following the 2020 decennial Census, the City Council embarked on the
process of redistricting the City Council and the School Board.
50. On July 2, 2021, Council President Samuel Newby initiated the Second
Special Committee on Redistricting (“Redistricting Committee” or “Committee”) to
redraw the City Council and School Board districts.1 Councilman Aaron Bowman
chaired the Committee, Councilman Danny Becton served as vice chair, and
Councilmembers Garrett L. Dennis, Brenda Priestly Jackson, and Randy White
served as members, alongside two School Board members.
51. The Redistricting Committee appointed Bill Killingsworth,
Jacksonville’s Director of Planning and Development, to serve as the Committee’s
redistricting consultant. In this capacity, Killingsworth was a central player in the
redistricting process, presenting the Committee with proposed plans and drawing new
proposals based on member feedback.
52. The Redistricting Committee met five times in 2021: on August 18,
August 24, September 27, October 28, and December 6.
53. During this period, Councilmembers also convened public “member-to-
member” meetings during which councilmembers from specific areas of Jacksonville
could discuss proposed plans.
1
This was the second Special Committee on Redistricting of the post-2020 Census redistricting cycle.
In October 2020, then-Council President Tommy Hazouri initiated the first iteration, whose authority
expired on June 30, 2021.
12
54. The member-to-member meetings relevant to the Challenged Districts
occurred on September 9, September 23, October 4, and October 21. Most of these
meetings were convened by Councilwoman Brenda Priestly Jackson.
55. The Redistricting Committee submitted its proposed map to the Council
on December 21, 2021. The proposal was referred to the Rules Committee on January
11, 2022.
56. In early 2022, the Rules Committee held four public hearings throughout
Jacksonville to hear public comment on the proposed map: on January 27, February
3, February 10, and February 17.
57. The Rules Committee then considered the proposed map during two
regular committee meetings on March 1 and 15, 2022.
58. At its March 15 meeting, the Rules Committee added a minor
amendment to the proposed map2 and approved what would become the Enacted Plan
by a 6 to 1 vote, sending it to the full Council.
59. The full Council approved the Enacted Plan by a 17 to 1 vote on March
22, 2022. Mayor Lenny Curry subsequently signed it into law.
II. Redistricting Criteria
60. The Council routinely failed to follow both statutorily mandated
redistricting criteria and its self-imposed guidelines in favor of racial considerations.
61. In addition to federal statutory and constitutional constraints,
2
This amendment affected only Council Districts 3 and 13, which Plaintiffs do not challenge.
13
Jacksonville’s Charter and municipal ordinances require districts to adhere to certain
criteria. The Charter requires the Council to draw districts that “are as nearly equal in
population and are arranged in a logical and compact geographic pattern to the extent
possible.” Charter § 5.02(a); see also Ordinance Code § 18.101(b). Jacksonville
ordinances also mandate that “the geographical arrangement and territorial
boundaries of the districts must take into consideration other factors, particularly
compactness and contiguity, so that the people of the City, and their varied economic,
social and ethnic interests and objectives, are adequately represented in the Council.”
Ordinance Code § 18.101(c).
62. At the Committee’s earliest meetings, Killingsworth listed several
additional criteria or considerations that the Committee could adopt to guide its
approach to maps.
63. The Committee instructed him to (1) start with existing districts, (2) not
draw incumbent City Council members or School Board members out of their districts,
and (3) minimize river crossings to the extent possible.
64. The Committee did not strictly adhere to these considerations and,
instead, adopted lines based largely on race.
65. The Committee permitted District 2 to cross the St. Johns River,
notwithstanding Killingsworth’s creation of a draft plan without any Council districts
that crossed the river.
66. The Committee also changed existing district lines beyond what was
necessary to equalize population, due to racial considerations.
14
67. Later, when presenting the Redistricting Committee’s final proposal to
the Rules Committee, Killingsworth reported that incumbency considerations did not
affect any decisions regarding the City Council or School Board districts.
68. Neither the Redistricting Committee, nor the Rules Committee, nor the
full Council ever measured or otherwise meaningfully assessed district compactness.
69. The Committee also declined to adopt certain discretionary criteria.
70. In early meetings, Killingsworth advised the Committee that it could
consider political factors such as partisanship.
71. Similarly, guidance from the City’s Office of General Counsel noted the
legal permissibility of partisan choices.
72. The Redistricting Committee did not instruct Killingsworth to take into
account any partisan or political considerations when proposing draft maps.
73. Partisan considerations did not affect the boundaries of the City Council
or School Board districts.
74. Incumbent protection did not affect the boundaries of the City Council
or School Board districts.
III. Racial Predomination During the Line-Drawing Process
75. Race was the predominant factor motivating the City Council’s work. At
seemingly every turn, the Council placed race above race-neutral, traditional
redistricting criteria. Race featured centrally at nearly every meeting, with
councilmembers and staff twisting the term “communities of interest,” typically used
to validly consider social and political communities, into solely a proxy for race. The
15
Council also set racial targets for districts and drew lines with precision to ensure that
Black and white populations were segregated into different districts. The Council’s use
of race was not narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest, including
compliance with VRA Section 2.
76. In a February 23, 2021, memorandum setting out the “core legal
considerations” for redistricting, the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) indicated
that VRA Section 2 requires districts in which a minority group is an outright majority
of voting-aged residents if the three Thornburg v. Gingles preconditions have been
established and the totality of the circumstances indicates that Section 2 applies.
77. In fact, the Council sought to maximize the Black population of the
Packed Districts, functionally setting a target that far exceeded the simple-majority
target suggested by OGC.
78. Where, as here, race is the central consideration in mapmaking and
traditional, race-neutral criteria are ignored, race predominates and, unless the use of
race is necessary to ensure fair and equal opportunity for voters of color to participate
in the electoral process, its use is constitutionally suspect.
79. Race was the predominant factor motivating the City Council’s work.
Race featured centrally at nearly every meeting, with councilmembers and staff
constantly referring to racial data, setting racial targets for districts, and using thinly
veiled euphemisms for race.
80. Killingsworth repeatedly provided racial data to the Redistricting
Committee and full Council when discussing proposed plans.
16
81. At times, councilmembers had Killingsworth read out the racial data of
proposed additions to their districts.
82. Each of Killingsworth’s proposals included a table listing the Black
percentage of each proposed district.
83. Neither the Committee nor the Council engaged in a functional analysis
of the proposed plans and there was no attempt to determine how these percentages
would lead to districts that performed for Black voters. Instead, the Council relied
upon blanket racial targets and rejected any attempt to draw unpacked districts.
84. Each of the early proposals reduced the Black percentage of Districts 7,
8, 9, or 10; each was rejected.
85. Subsequent proposals maintained existing Black concentration of those
districts.
A. The September 9, 2021, Member-to-Member Meeting
86. At the September 9 member-to-member meeting of members from North
and West Jacksonville’s Districts 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14, councilmembers and
Killingsworth repeatedly discussed the racial consequences of their decisions.
87. Councilmembers and Killingsworth were aware that race could not
legitimately predominate in their discussions.
88. Instead, councilmembers and Killingsworth hid behind the term
“communities of interest” as a substitute for race, ignoring the traditional, legitimate,
use of the term.
89. District 10 Councilwoman Brenda Priestly Jackson was one of the key
17
people in the redistricting process. She served on both iterations of the Special
Committee on Redistricting and chaired the Rules Committee. She indicated that she
had sought the Rules Committee post to influence redistricting. She also convened and
chaired the North and West Jacksonville member-to-member meetings.
90. At the top of the September 9 meeting, Priestly Jackson and
Killingsworth set the stage for how the Committee could avoid explicitly mentioning
race by misusing “communities of interest” as a euphemism for race:
Priestly Jackson: And just to be clear, we don’t say minority

access districts anymore. What is our unique
term of art?
Killingsworth: Communities of interest.
Priestly Jackson: Communities of interest! Okay. I just wanted
to start with that.
91. But in many instances, they were even more direct in revealing what they
meant. Shortly after his exchange with Priestly Jackson, for example, Killingsworth
explained the thought process informing one proposed map as follows:
So, one of the reasons that we looked at [District] 7 changing

aside from just the numbers was, there was a discussion that I
heard multiple times about, about the [Black] percentages and
how to either keep them the same or reduce them. And so that
played into it as well—the whole percentages of minority per
district.
92. At that same meeting, District 8 Councilwoman Ju’Coby Pittman
discussed the interplay of her district with neighboring District 7:
If [District 7] Councilman Gaffney wants to stay the same, I

don’t know how that impacts. But I want to make sure that, you
know, the—what was the new word?—“community of interest”
stays and not lose any.
18
93. District 10 Councilwoman Priestly Jackson noted a similar desire to
maintain the Black population of her district during this meeting: “I have zero desire
to change. I am not interested in increasing any specific communities of interest, i.e.,
African Americans or any others in that group. I don’t want them packed into District
10.”
94. Priestly Jackson later told media that she was “very comfortable with the
demographics of District 10.”3
95. These racial targets—maintaining the Black percentage of the Packed
Districts—were central considerations informing the Enacted Plan.
96. The September 9 meeting revolved around the racial makeup of Districts
7, 8, 9, and 10. Killingsworth discussed the racial motivations of parts of his proposal:
This is a discussion point between 7 and 8, is: we gave down

here, where Kings Road and I-95—where the three of your
districts [7, 8, and 9]—come together. There’s a lot of population
there and it’s principally African American.
97. Killingsworth continued: “We moved that population over. That did two
things, it balanced you out and it also lowered the minority for Council District 8, is
64% as opposed to 68%.”
98. Killingsworth noted later that Councilwoman Pittman told him that
“she’s okay with her district staying at 68%.” Priestly Jackson responded: “I think a
68% of minority concentration in a district is challenging and problematic. It’s kind of
3
Andrew Pantazi, Jacksonville City Council’s Redistricting Plan Will Likely Favor Republicans, Tributary
(Sept. 28, 2021), https://jaxtrib.org/2021/09/28/jacksonville-city-councils-redistricting-plan-will-
likely-favor-republicans/.
19
packed, whether intentional or not. . . . We have an obligation to try to look at bringing
that down.”
99. At that same meeting, Councilwoman Priestly Jackson explained: “We
must be cognizant of perceptions of packing African Americans in any districts
because it further dilutes their voice and vote throughout the rest of the City.”
B. The September 23, 2021, Member-to-Member Meeting
100. Councilmembers and staff sometimes also used political party as a proxy
for race—even though the Redistricting Committee had declined to use partisanship
as a criterion for the maps.4
101. At the September 23 North and West Jacksonville member-to-member
meeting, Killingsworth repeatedly linked race with correlated party registration
figures. The following exchange between Councilmembers Priestly Jackson (District
10), Randy White (District 12), and Ju’Coby Pittman (District 8), and Killingsworth
demonstrates how the Council used partisan data as a proxy for racial data:
Priestly Jackson: If Councilwoman Pittman and Councilmember

White, if you all are comfortable with those
concessions with the 2,700—and I don’t expect you to
have a decision today . . . then I would make the
suggestion that we don’t need to mess with any others
because those solve the issues of the [equal
population] imbalance that we were trying to
address. . . .
...
White: The word you use is ‘comfortable,’ I’m not real

comfortable losing anything. . . .
...
4
Plaintiffs allege additional details about the decision to not use partisanship at ¶¶ 69–73, supra.
20
Pittman: I’d still like to have a discussion so if we can go back.

I mean, as of today, because it makes the [equal
population] numbers right, but I want to make sure he
[White] is comfortable and I’m comfortable in terms
of the ethno-racial, Black and white—
Priestly Jackson
(interjecting): We can’t use the ethno-racial identifiers. So we’re
going to talk about some of the party stuff that we
want, but we just have to be very, very clear for our
communities of interest that we’re identifying
that. . . .
Killingsworth: It might be helpful if we revise the map to reflect that

[proposed change] and then maybe Councilmember
White and Councilmember Pittman have a noticed
meeting and we can sit down and answer those
specific questions.
C. The September 27, 2021, Redistricting Committee Meeting
102. The Redistricting Committee meeting on September 27, 2021, again
demonstrated the Committee’s commitment to foregrounding race above other
redistricting criteria.
103. Killingsworth advanced a proposed plan that would have shifted the
shared border of Districts 8 and 12 and the shared border of Districts 7 and 2. Both
proposed border shifts were the most straightforward way to equalize population while
hewing to the Committee’s ostensible goal of maintaining the existing districts as much
as possible.
104. The Committee rejected those proposed changes because they did not hit
the desired racial targets.
105. Killingsworth’s proposal would have moved residents from District 12
(which needed to lose population) to District 8 (which needed to gain population) by
21
adjusting their shared border at its most southwestern point. He explained that
Councilwoman Pittman objected, as she did not believe District 8’s new addition from
District 12 reflected “her community of interest.”
106. Under this initial proposal, District 8 would have been 66% Black. As
enacted, it is 70% Black. This was an instance of the Committee abandoning its criteria
and unnecessarily changing district lines to hit racial targets.5
107. Killingsworth then highlighted another area of the districts’ shared
border, hoping to find a population to shift that “meets a community of interest that
Ms. Pittman believes fits her district.”
108. That second-best option also involved reducing District 8’s Black
percentage. It was not adopted.
109. Ultimately, no population was shifted from District 12 to District 8.
District 8 instead drew its necessary additional residents from District 7—a district that
needed to gain population, not shed it.
110. As part of the same rejected proposal presented at the September 27
meeting, Killingsworth suggested smoothing the shared border of Districts 2 and 7 to
achieve closer population equality, which would have also united split neighborhoods.
111. The discussion about this border used the “communities of interest”
euphemism for race. Killingsworth explained that District 7 Councilman Gaffney
objected to the proposal because the changes were not sufficiently “aligned with his
5
Plaintiffs allege additional details of this proposal, including more detailed racial data, in ¶¶ 182–
193, infra.
22
existing district” and noted he’d try to “find a community of interest that meets the
numbers that we have to have.”
112. Because the initial proposal—which would have more than adequately
provided for Black voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice—did not meet the
Committee’s racial target, it was rejected.
113. The racial data accompanying the proposal indicated that, if it were
adopted, District 7 would be 58% Black. As enacted, it is 62% Black.6
114. At the same meeting, Killingsworth proposed a second option, also race-
motivated, for the border shared by Districts 7 and 2. Indicating a relatively diverse
area, he explained that District 7 Councilman Gaffney “believes this might make a
more closely aligned community of interest with his existing district . . . than the piece
to the south,” which was whiter. Killingsworth continued:
My expectation is if we can find something that works for

Councilmember Gaffney, for the same reasons it works for
Councilmember Gaffney, it would work for [District 2]
Councilmember Ferraro.
115. In both its conception of maps and its approval process, the Committee
chose to foreground race at the September 27 meeting. As a result, illogical lines were
drawn, traditional redistricting criteria were ignored, and race predominated at
seemingly every turn.
6
Plaintiffs allege additional details of this proposal, including more detailed racial data, in ¶¶ 203–
217, infra.
23
D. The October 21, 2021, Member-to-Member Meeting
116. The October 21 member-to-member meeting continued the pattern.
Killingsworth discussed more shifts along District 2 and 7’s shared border: “[District
7] Councilman Gaffney thought this group was more appropriate with his district and
[District 2] Councilman Ferraro agreed.”
117. The area moved into District 7 in that proposal, which was accepted, had
a larger Black population than the earlier rejected proposal.
E. The October 28 and December 6, 2021,

Redistricting Committee Meetings
118. At the October 28 Redistricting Committee meeting, Vice Chair Danny
Becton began raising concerns about the extent to which race was informing the
Committee’s decisions.
119. At the December 6 Redistricting Committee meeting, Becton again
raised these concerns, prompting the following exchange with Assistant General
Counsel Paige Johnston:
Becton: The statutes don’t let us consider minorities per se.
Johnston: It [race] can’t be the primary concern but it can be one of your
concerns.
Becton: But by putting it [a table of race percentages] on this map it kind

of appears to contradict that, that we aren’t.
...
Becton: So is there a point of including that table at all on the maps? I
guess I was just trying to go back into my notes where I’ve done
presentations on redistricting, and it’s not even the fact that we
can’t make it a priority, but according to federal and state law—
like I said, I was trying to pull up the legal comments that—it
seems like we couldn’t even consider it in terms of how we
24
structure the districts.

...
Becton: I was just getting into other attributes. In this case, we were
talking whites, Blacks, and percent, it just seems like we’re
honing in on a certain statistic that—it’s my recollection by law,
we’re really not supposed to be working from that standpoint and
it just seems like—if we’re gonna do tomorrow what we did
yesterday, I just think, does it end here? Or do we just continue
what we’ve always done in that regard.
Johnston: I think perhaps the reason that the Black and white populations
have been displayed on the tables in more recent times is because
those are two of the larger groups of categories, and I think
there’s a distinction in showing if there are significant changes in
those districts with redrawing the lines. For instance, you don’t
want to dilute a particular population and you don’t want to
create a map that would also cause problems by increasing the
numbers and then having an opposite, unintended consequence.
But it’s certainly something the committee [can] discuss.
...
Becton: I mean, I’m sitting here reading, it says “there’s an inherent
tension between the Voting Rights Act and Equal Protection
Clause where race may be considered as one factor in
redistricting but it can’t be predominantly over other required
factors such as geography, compactness,” yada yada yada, and
it just seems like—it just feels like we’re continually making it a
predominantly priority by putting it out there. . . . It just seems
like we’re putting it [the racial statistics chart] on the map. It is a
part, it does seem to have some precedence over a lot of other
statistics, and here I’ve been talking through saying, hey, what I
just read, it’s what the law states, and we’re not supposed to be
considering this over other issues.
120. Priestly Jackson indicated her opposition to eliminating racial data from
draft maps, suggesting instead that adding more racial data would be more appropriate:
What we may need to do—because I’m gonna tell you now, I

would be opposed to excluding the ethno-racial identification of
any groups—it probably needs to be more expansive. That’s our
issue. . . . The legend needs to be changed to reflect the Census
classifications of populations, if that’s not too much trouble for
you, Mr. Killingsworth.
25
121. While racial population data can be a necessary consideration in
redistricting, as these comments make plain, race was the forefront consideration for
the Committee. There was no analysis done to determine the necessary, and proper,
use of race under the Voting Rights Act. Instead, artificial racial targets and bare
demographic data controlled the Committee’s mapmaking.
F. The Rules Committee
122. Race continued to predominate in the Council’s deliberations after the
proposed plan moved from the Redistricting Committee and took final shape in the
Rules Committee.
123. Rules Committee Chair Priestly Jackson, in defense of the Enacted Plan,
read out the historical racial makeup of Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10 at the Rules
Committee’s March 15, 2022, meeting. After noting a “gradual decline” in the Black
share of the districts, Priestly Jackson explained: “I was ever mindful and cognizant of
the ladder that I climbed on that created opportunities for many that sat on the Council
before me,” which she tied to a desire to maintain the racial makeup of these districts.
124. Priestly Jackson later explained her view that maintaining the numbers
“did no harm,” and explained that incumbency did not factor into her decisions.
125. In a series of Tweets days later (after the Rules Committee had approved
the Enacted Plan on March 15 but before passage by the full Council on March 22),
Priestly Jackson further confirmed the Committee’s goal of not reducing the Black
population of the Packed Districts:
26
126. The Committee never engaged in the necessary analysis to determine
whether maintaining the Black population of these districts at such an elevated level
was necessary to allow Black voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
Without doing so, the setting of these racial targets is illegitimate and contravenes
Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
G. Final Passage in the Full Council
127. Councilwoman Priestly Jackson made a similar appeal at the March 22,
2022, Council meeting, just before the Council passed the Enacted Plan. She began by
confirming that the Redistricting Committee had used the terms “communities of
interest” as a proxy for race, noting that the first incarnation of the Redistricting
Committee included the councilmembers from Districts 7, 9, and 10, meaning “there
were three of what we call ‘minority-access Council districts,’ historically, now
27
‘communities of interest,’ members on that committee.”
128. Later, when discussing Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10, she explained “the
current four communities of interest, or historically known as ‘minority-access
districts,’ we now call them ‘communities of interest.’”
129. Priestly Jackson continued, noting “that for the last four decades,
Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10 have had a majority of Black neighbors living in those districts”
but that “those numbers have gone down from the 70s to three of them being in the
upper 50s now to one still in the 60s.”
130. Against this backdrop, she announced:
I share with you that a fundamental principle to me was the

maintenance of minority-access districts. I don’t know what
percentage is needed to ensure that the voters in District 10 are
able to actualize their preference, but I’m going to assume that
since they had not complained to me about it, it was not an issue.
131. The Council approved the Enacted Plan moments later.
IV. The Lack of Narrow Tailoring

to Achieve a Compelling Interest in Racial Predominance
132. Where, as here, race was the predominant factor in the government’s
decision-making, strict scrutiny is triggered and “[t]he burden . . . shifts to the
[government] to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a compelling interest
and is narrowly tailored to that end.” Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1464 (2017)
(internal quotations omitted). Traditionally, compliance with the Voting Rights Act,
namely Section 2, has served as the primary justification for predominant
considerations of race. The Council’s use of race, however, was not narrowly tailored
28
to any compelling government interest, including compliance with VRA Section 2.
133. To ensure that its use of race was narrowly tailored to compliance with
VRA Section 2, the Council was obligated to assess the level of Black voting-age
population (“BVAP”)7 necessary for Black voters to have the opportunity to usually
elect their candidates of choice.
134. The Council took no steps to meaningfully assess VRA compliance.
There is no indication that the Council conducted a racially polarized voting (“RPV”)
analysis8 or any other analysis key to assessing compliance with the VRA.
135. Beginning at the first Rules Committee public hearing on January 27,
2022, speakers at each hearing reminded the Council of its obligations to conduct a
“functional analysis” to achieve VRA Section 2 compliance without racially
gerrymandering.
136. At one hearing, a speaker on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund reminded the Council that it “must conduct a localized analysis of
racial bloc voting and effectiveness thresholds” and “must avoid drawing local City
Council districts in a manner that places voters of color in districts based on their race
in higher thresholds than is necessary for them to elect their candidates of choice.”
7
The Council used total population figures instead of focusing on the voting-aged population that can
affect elections, which is more typical and appropriate for assessing Voting Rights Act compliance.
See, e.g., Wright v. Sumter Cty. Bd. of Elections & Registration, 979 F.3d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir. 2020); see
also Andrew Pantazi, Jacksonville’s Redistricting Plans Ignore Federal Guidelines, Tributary (Dec. 16,
2021), https://jaxtrib.org/2021/12/16/jacksonvilles-redistricting-plans-ignore-federal-guidelines/.
8
An RPV analysis considers whether voting is racially polarized in a jurisdiction’s elections. It is a
key consideration in determining whether a redistricting plan dilutes the vote of racial minorities and
violates VRA Section 2. See, e.g., Wright, 979 F.3d at 1305.
29
137. At the Rules Committee’s February 10 public hearing, Plaintiffs NAACP
Branch, Northside Coalition, and ACLU Chapter (together, “Organizational
Plaintiffs”), along with the Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters (“HTFF”), submitted a
letter reminding councilmembers of their obligations under VRA Section 2 and the
Fourteenth Amendment. The letter—sent to the Council and introduced in public
comment by the President of HTFF, Plaintiff Rosemary McCoy—explained that
without assessing what BVAP levels are necessary for VRA Section 2 compliance, the
Council risked unnecessarily packing Black voters into districts.
138. The letter was accompanied by an RPV analysis commissioned by
Organizational Plaintiffs and HTFF. Dr. Hannah L. Walker, Assistant Professor of
Government at the University of Texas at Austin, conducted the analysis and authored
a report detailing her conclusions.
139. Dr. Walker’s RPV analysis studied fourteen citywide elections held in
Jacksonville between 2014 and 2020.
140. Dr. Walker’s analysis concluded that voting is racially polarized in the
city, with a majority of Black voters supporting one candidate and the majority of
white voters supporting an opposing candidate in each of the elections she studied.
141. Dr. Walker’s report included an estimate of the proportion of Black
citizen voting-age population (“BCVAP”) necessary for the Black-preferred candidate
to achieve electoral success in each of the fourteen citywide elections in her analysis.
142. Dr. Walker concluded that, citywide, a proportion of 41% BCVAP, on
average, was necessary to allow Black voters the opportunity to elect candidates of
30
their choice. She also concluded that 44% BCVAP was necessary, on average, when
considering races in which the Black-preferred candidate was defeated.
143. Dr. Walker’s report studied citywide election results and did not make
district-specific conclusions, but her analysis suggests that Black-preferred candidates
would usually be elected in districts with Black populations much lower than the Black
populations of the Packed Districts.
144. Hoping to stave off the need for litigation, Organizational Plaintiffs and
HTFF explained that Jacksonville could achieve VRA Section 2 compliance if it drew
districts with significantly lower Black populations than Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10 had
in the then-draft plan. They further explained that failure to do so could run afoul of
the constitutional prohibition on racial gerrymandering.
145. The Council failed to correct course. There is no indication that
councilmembers or staff meaningfully considered Organizational Plaintiffs’ statements
or accompanying report at all.9
146. At each of the Rules Committee’s public hearings—including those held
after the Council received Dr. Walker’s RPV analysis—commenters asked whether
the Council had conducted a functional analysis of the BVAP necessary to achieve
VRA Section 2 compliance. There was no public answer, either at those meetings or
elsewhere.
9
Killingsworth and Assistant General Counsel Paige Johnston had actual receipt of Dr. Walker’s
report and Organizational Plaintiffs’ and HTFF’s letter and discussed it among themselves before the
February 10 public hearing began, but they never discussed it publicly. Andrew Pantazi (@apantazi),
Twitter (Feb. 10, 2022, 6:26 PM), https://twitter.com/apantazi/status/1491916479100604416.
31
147. To the contrary, moments before final passage of the Enacted Plan,
Councilwoman Priestly Jackson announced: “I don’t know what percentage is needed
to ensure that the voters in District 10 are able to actualize their preference.” Without
such knowledge, she continued, her goal was to prevent “diluting the African
American neighbors in Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10.” Councilwoman Priestly Jackson had
previously acknowledged that at least some of the Packed Districts had Black
population levels that risked packing Black voters beyond what was necessary. She
had also previously acknowledged being aware of concerns about packing by “late
September or October.”
148. Without conducting a functional analysis of RPV, the Council’s packing
of Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10 was not narrowly tailored to achieve VRA Section 2
compliance.
149. Likewise, the stripping of Black residents from Districts 2, 12, and 14 was
not narrowly tailored to ensure that neighboring districts complied with the VRA.
150. The Council identified no other compelling interest to justify its use of
race when it drew the Challenged Districts.
V. Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 are Racially Gerrymandered
151. Race predominated in the drawing of the Packed Districts (Districts 7, 8,
9, and 10). Race also predominated in the drawing of the Stripped Districts (Districts
2, 12, and 14). The use of race as the predominant factor to draw the Packed and
Stripped Districts was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest,
including compliance with the VRA.
32
152. The City Council ignored its own redistricting criteria—including the
City Charter’s legal mandates—to allow race to predominate. It sacrificed
compactness and changed existing lines more than necessary as it drew illogical
districts to capture Black populations from far-flung areas and combine them into the
Packed Districts.
153. The Packed and Stripped Districts are two sides of the same coin: every
time the Council drew an appendage protruding from a Packed District to add more
Black residents, it removed those residents from a Stripped District. In that way, the
Enacted Plan ensures that a majority of Jacksonville’s Black residents are packed into
just four districts, while neighboring districts are whiter than they otherwise would be.
154. The Challenged Districts share several indicators that race predominated
over traditional redistricting principles.
A. Bizarre Shapes
155. Each of the Packed Districts has a visually bizarre shape and features a
“land bridge”—an isthmus of land no wider than a single precinct that connects two
bigger areas of land. Other than the Packed Districts, the only other district with a land
bridge is Stripped District 14. No district in the southeast portion of Jacksonville
includes a land bridge.
156. The land bridges are indicated in the below “dot density map,” which
visually represents the racial concentration of residents. Each purple dot represents 25
Black residents; each brown dot represents 25 white residents.
33
Figure 1 – Jacksonville Dot Density Map. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents; each
brown dot represents 25 white residents. Dot locations within precincts are approximate.
157. Each Packed District’s land bridge allows it to reach into a cluster of
heavily populated Black precincts in the heart of Jacksonville.
158. Stripped District 14’s land bridge, meanwhile, sneaks below Packed
Districts 9 and 10 to capture a disproportionately white area for the Stripped District
while keeping it out of the Packed Districts.
B. Non-Compactness
159. The Challenged Districts also tend to be less compact than other districts.
The table below indicates the compactness of each district, using the Polsby-Popper
measure of compactness on which courts often rely. Polsby-Popper scores range from
0 to 1, with a higher score indicating a more compact district. The districts are ordered
34
from least to most compact; the Challenged Districts are shaded in grey:
District Polsby-
No. Popper Score
9 0.148
7 0.179
10 0.192
3 0.203
14 0.222
2 0.295
8 0.310
13 0.441
5 0.457
4 0.498
6 0.501
1 0.532
12 0.563
11 0.671
160. All four Packed Districts, and two of the three Stripped Districts, are in
the bottom half for compactness. The three least compact districts are Packed Districts.
161. A district is likely to have a higher Polsby-Popper score (indicating more
compactness) if it has smooth borders. Because Districts 8 and 12 abut Jacksonville’s
smooth western boundary, their Polsby-Popper scores benefit. Those districts’ other
borders feature the type of bizarre shapes and jaggedness typically associated with
lower Polsby-Popper scores.
162. There is an enormous difference between the compactness of the seven
most compact districts and the seven least compact districts, which include six of the
seven Challenged Districts. The Polsby-Popper score of District 13 (the seventh most
compact district) is nearly fifty percent higher than the score of District 8 (the eighth
most compact district).
35
163. The result is non-compact, bizarrely shaped districts:
Figure 2 – Non-compact District Shapes. The silhouettes of Districts 10, 14, and 9 are shown
on the first row. Districts 8, 2, and 7 are shown on the second row.
C. Splintered Neighborhoods
164. The Enacted Plan splits forty-seven City-designated neighborhoods.
Each of the Challenged Districts splits at least as many neighborhoods as any other
district in the Enacted Plan—if not more.
165. District 10 splits nineteen neighborhoods; District 9 splits seventeen
36
neighborhoods; District 8 splits thirteen neighborhoods; Districts 2 splits twelve
neighborhoods; Districts 12 splits eleven neighborhoods; and Districts 7 and 14 each
split nine neighborhoods.
166. No other district in the Enacted Plan splits more than six neighborhoods.
167. Many of the neighborhoods that the Packed Districts split are in
Jacksonville’s heavily Black Urban Core.10 These Districts’ land bridges allow each
Packed District to reach into those neighborhoods to capture Black residents and
artificially inflate its Black population.
168. Jacksonville’s official neighborhood designations provide objective
definitions of local communities of interest. The Council was far more willing to split
communities of interest when it drew the Challenged Districts than when it drew the
districts in other, whiter areas of the City.
169. This pattern further indicates that when councilmembers and staff spoke
of “communities of interest” during the redistricting process, they used the term only
as a euphemism for race. Their use of the term was unmoored from the actual
communities of interest reflected in the City’s neighborhoods.
170. In separating these neighborhoods, the Council again demonstrated its
disregard for traditional redistricting principles and the predominance of racial
considerations in its decision-making.
10
Plaintiffs use the term “Urban Core” to refer generally to the pre-consolidation Old City and
surrounding close-in neighborhoods.
37
VI. Racial Gerrymandering in Specific Districts

and District Boundaries
171. The extent to which race predominated in the drawing of the Challenged
Districts is further evident when examining the details of each district, especially the
borders between neighboring Packed and Stripped Districts.
A. District 8
172. Race was the predominant factor in drawing District 8. Race was not
employed in a narrowly tailored manner to advance any compelling government
interest, including compliance with VRA Section 2.
173. District 8 is the most heavily packed district in the Enacted Plan, with a
70.3% Black population.
Figure 3 – District 8. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents; each brown dot represents
25 white residents. Dot locations within precincts are approximate.
38
174. District 8 has a bizarre, illogical, and non-compact shape, attributable to
racial predominance. The bulk of its area is in the relatively sparsely populated
westernmost part of Jacksonville, but a single precinct-wide land bridge moves it east,
capturing the College Park neighborhood and dropping south—resulting in an
appendage that resembles an arcade claw machine. The claw drops with racial
purpose: to grab the densely packed Black-majority neighborhoods of Riverview and
Moncrief, as well as other surrounding heavily Black areas.
175. District 8 could have been drawn more compactly and logically without
this appendage. The inclusion of the appendage unnecessarily forces District 8 across
the Trout River, a natural geographical boundary line.
176. The geographic core of District 8 in western Jacksonville has a Black
population of 44.3%. The inclusion of the claw-like appendage, with its 80.3% Black
population, brings District 8’s overall Black population to 70.3%.
177. At various points in the redistricting process, councilmembers
acknowledged that a 70.3% Black population was unnecessarily high and likely
constituted race-based packing.
178. At the September 9 Redistricting Committee meeting, for example,
Councilwoman Brenda Priestly Jackson described a 68% minority concentration in
the district as “problematic” and “kind of packed.”11 She continued: “We have an
11
Contrary to federal guidance, the Council used demographic data that counted just those residents
who identified themselves as Black only, rather than also including those who identified as Black and
another race. As a result, the Black percentage figures discussed at Committee meetings were slightly
39
obligation to try to look at bringing that down.”
179. Councilwoman Priestly Jackson made her comment after Bill
Killingsworth presented a districting option that would have reduced District 8’s Black
population from 68% to 64%. Killingsworth noted in introducing the option that he
had “heard from some” that the 68% figure “should come down.”
180. Killingsworth also noted, however, that Councilwoman Ju’Coby
Pittman, the District 8 incumbent, had told him that morning that her district could
remain at its Black population. At that meeting, Councilwoman Pittman announced
she did not want to lose any “what was the new word?—‘community of interest.’”
181. The proposals at issue were abandoned. As enacted, District 8 has a
70.3% Black population.
B. District 8’s Border with District 12
182. Race was the predominant factor in drawing the border shared by
Districts 8 and 12—packing the former and stripping the latter. Race was not employed
in a narrowly tailored manner to advance any compelling government interest,
including compliance with VRA Section 2.
183. The border between Districts 8 and 12 was the subject of intense
discussion at both the September 23 member-to-member meeting and the September
27 Redistricting Committee meeting. Committee Chair Aaron Bowman explained that
lower than the actual figures. See Andrew Pantazi, Jacksonville’s Redistricting Plans Ignore Federal
Guidelines, Tributary (Dec. 16, 2021), https://jaxtrib.org/2021/12/16/jacksonvilles-redistricting-
plans-ignore-federal-guidelines/; see also Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 7470 (U.S. Dep’t of Just. Feb. 9, 2011).
40
to achieve population equality, “District 8 has to grow, and the likely donor is District
12.” Chair Bowman’s comment reflected the simple solution of taking population from
District 12, which had a surplus, and moving it to the neighboring District 8, which
had a deficit.
184. Killingsworth presented a map that did just that. His proposal extended
District 8’s southwestern border further into District 12 to equalize population, by
including the Town of Baldwin and moving the boundary to I-10:
Figure 4 – Killingsworth’s Rejected District 8 Southwestern Border Extension. The proposed

District 12 is colored pink; the proposed District 8 is purple. The 2011 plan is outlined in red.
185. Killingsworth reported that Councilwoman Pittman had objected to his
plan because Baldwin did not fit “her community of interest that’s in her district.”
186. Over two-thirds of the Town of Baldwin’s residents are white. It has a
Black population of 24%. The area surrounding Baldwin, which Killingsworth also
proposed placing in District 8, is even whiter than the town proper.
187. When Killingsworth introduced the proposal, he provided racial data for
41
each proposed district, using total population. The data indicated that, if the plan were
adopted, District 8 would be 66% Black. As enacted, it is 70% Black.
188. The Redistricting Committee rejected the proposal, in part “because
there was disagreement on the new boundary between CD 8 and CD 12,” according
to the exhibits accompanying the legislation that became the Enacted Plan.
189. Killingsworth indicated that the next best option to easily equalize
population between Districts 8 and 12 would be to shift precincts along the eastern
portion of their shared border. His stated hope was “to find something in [that area]
that meets the population numbers of 12 giving and 8 getting that also meets a
community of interest that Ms. Pittman believes fits her district.”
190. The area in question, in the Whitehouse neighborhood south of Old
Plank Road, is disproportionately white. It includes Precinct 1203, which has 1,580
white residents and 193 Black residents (80.1% and 9.8%, respectively). At the
September 27 Committee meeting, District 8 Councilwoman Ju’Coby Pittman noted:
I’d still like to have a discussion . . . As of today, because it makes

the [equal population] numbers right, but I want to make sure
[District 12 Councilmember White’s] comfortable and I’m
comfortable in terms of the ethno-racial, Black and white . . .
191. Killingsworth’s proposal did not come to fruition. District 12 shed 3,921
residents in the Enacted Plan. Not a single one was placed in District 8.
192. Instead, they were placed elsewhere along racial lines. As many as 1,129
people—60.1% of whom are Black—were placed in the Packed District 10. 2,834
people—52.2% white and only 25.8% Black—went to Stripped District 14.
42
193. District 8, meanwhile, drew the population it needed from Packed
District 7—a district that also needed to pick up population rather than shed it. It took
in 2,873 residents who had previously been in District 7—64.1% of whom are Black.
C. District 7
195. District 7 is the second-most Packed District, with a 62% Black
population.
196. District 7 has a visually bizarre, illogical, and non-compact shape. It is
largely based in the northern-most region of Jacksonville, but snakes south, crossing
the Broward and Trout Rivers, to capture a dense pocket of Black voters in the Urban
Core. In reaching south, District 7 resembles a bizarrely shaped hourglass—with a
narrow land bridge connecting two bulbous areas of heavily Black population.
197. District 7 could have been drawn compactly and logically but instead
irregularly funnels southward through its land bridge. It unnecessarily crosses the
Trout River, a natural geographical boundary.
43
198. District 7’s land bridge is a single precinct wide, using the bottom portion
of Precinct 703 to connect Black neighborhoods to the north and south. By limiting
the land bridge to Precinct 703, the mapmakers avoided including Precinct 204—
immediately to the east of the land bridge—in District 7 and instead placed it in the
Stripped District 2. Precinct 204 is heavily white: it has a 69.5% white population and
only 17.9% Black population.
199. The land bridge also allows District 7 to avoid the heavily white San
Mateo neighborhood and to split Imeson Park to avoid most of its large white
population. These heavily white areas are placed instead in District 2.
200. The land bridge continues south across the Trout River and remains a
44
single precinct wide, taking in Precinct 701 (61.2% Black population) to reach the
heavily Black areas of Fairfield, Brentwood, and other Urban Core neighborhoods.
201. By reaching south over its land bridge (and over the literal bridge crossing
the Trout River), District 7’s Black population balloons to 62%. The northern portion
of the district has a 56% Black population, while the southern portion has a 69.5%
Black population.
202. District 7’s southward appendage reduces its compactness and ignores a
natural geographic boundary—the Trout River—while fracturing the Hollyford,
Highlands, and Imeson Park neighborhoods.
D. Districts 7’s Border with District 2
203. Race was the predominant factor in drawing the border between Districts
7 and 2—packing the former and stripping the latter. The use of race was not narrowly
tailored to advance a compelling government interest, including compliance with VRA
Section 2.
204. At the same September 27 Redistricting Committee meeting in which he
described the need for population shifts between Districts 8 and 12, Chair Bowman
explained the need for District 7 to absorb parts of District 2 along their shared border.
205. The map that Killingsworth proposed at that meeting included an
adjustment to the border between Districts 2 and 7. As illustrated in the map below,
Killingsworth proposed widening District 7’s land bridge to achieve population
equality and, among other things, unite the Imeson Park neighborhood. This would
have maintained the northernmost part of the border along Main Street, a major road.
45
Figure 6 – Killingsworth’s Rejected Proposal to Widen District 7 Land Bridge. The proposed
District 7 is mint green; the proposed District 2 is orange. The 2011 plan is outlined in red.
206. The Redistricting Committee rejected the proposal, in part “because
there was disagreement on the new boundary between . . . CD 7 and CD 2,” according
to the exhibits accompanying the legislation that became the Enacted Plan.
207. Killingsworth noted that Councilman Reggie Gaffney, the District 7
incumbent, objected to the initial proposal. Killingsworth explained that Councilman
Gaffney asked him to instead look for adjustments closer to the northern end of the
border that were “more closer aligned with his district” and “find a community of
interest that meets the numbers we have to have.”
208. Killingsworth continued:
My expectation is if we can find something that works for
46
Councilmember Gaffney, for the same reasons it works for

Councilmember Gaffney, it would work for [District 2]
Councilmember Ferraro.
209. Killingsworth’s statement indicated the Councilmembers’ mutual
interest in keeping Black voters out of District 2 and in District 7.
210. In rejecting this map, the Committee kept the area—with its thousands
of people and 70.5% white population—in District 2 and out of District 7.
211. The racial data accompanying the proposal indicated that
Killingsworth’s proposed District 7 would have been 58% Black.
212. As enacted, District 7 is 62% Black.
213. Killingsworth acted on Gaffney’s request to look further north, adding
population to District 7 in an area east of Main Street near Yellow Bluff Road.
Figure 7 – Racial Demographics of Killingsworth’s Rejected Proposal. The map at left

displays the proposed change to Districts 7 and 2 in mint green, as in Figure 6. The map at right
shows racial demographics, with the Enacted Plan (solid black line) and rejected proposal (dashed
red line) overlaid. Darker purples indicate precincts that are more Black; darker browns indicate
precincts that are whiter.
214. Unlike Killingsworth’s rejected proposal, the Enacted Plan does not
47
feature a smooth line along Districts 2 and 7 in this area. Instead, the enacted border
zigs and zags. The map above on the left is Killingsworth’s proposal (the same map as
in Figure 6); the map on the right shows the Enacted Plan (solid black line) and the
rejected proposal (dashed red line).
215. The border zig-zags with racial precision. The map of the Enacted Plan
(on the right) is shaded based on the Black percentage of each precinct (or, where the
map splits precincts, each portion of a split precinct). A darker brown indicates a lower
Black population; a lighter brown indicates a Black population approaching 50%; a
darker purple indicates a higher Black population. As the map illustrates, the border’s
northernmost portion cuts along racial lines, with the whitest areas placed in District
2 and the more racially mixed areas placed in District 7. (The land bridge itself, while
heavily white, is sparsely populated with just 221 residents.)
216. The smooth line between Districts 2 and 7 in Killingsworth’s rejected
proposal (and in the 2011 Plan) follows a precinct border, along a major roadway:
Main Street. Instead of maintaining that border, the mapmakers deviated from Main
Street and split Precinct 205. In so doing, they moved a relatively diverse segment out
of District 2 and into District 7, as depicted below:
48
Figure 8 – Race-Based Splitting of Precinct 205. Proposed changes to the border between
Districts 7 and 2 overlayed on racial makeup of Census blocks within Precinct 205. Lighter
browns indicate blocks that are more diverse, while darker browns indicate blocks that are whiter.
217. At the February 10, 2022, Rules Committee public hearing, a local
resident noted that the splitting of the area (the Yellow Bluff Landing neighborhood)
in this way constituted packing and did nothing to advance local interests. The resident
explained: “the interests and concerns of the Yellow Bluff community are tied with
that Yellow Bluff corridor. It should be left intact where its interests lie.”
E. District 10
49
219. District 10 is the third most packed district in the Enacted Plan. It is
61.3% Black.
220. During the redistricting process, District 10’s incumbent Councilwoman
Brenda Priestly Jackson (who does not plan to seek re-election in District 10)
announced that she was “very comfortable with the demographics of District 10” that
elected her.
221. District 10 has a visually bizarre, illogical, and non-compact shape. This
shape is attributable to racial predominance.
222. At its northernmost portion, District 10 widens to capture heavily Black
neighborhoods including Sherwood Forest, Harborview, and Carver Manor.
223. As it snakes south, District 10 extends over a vast, empty region, then
narrows to a precinct-wide land bridge, and expands again, capturing Black voters by
splitting neighborhoods with District 12 along racial lines.
224. District 10’s land bridge avoids predominantly white neighborhoods
while connecting the District’s heavily Black northern neighborhoods to
predominantly Black neighborhoods further south, including Jacksonville Heights,
Sweetwater, and Cedar Hills.
50
F. Districts 10’s Border with District 12
10 and 12—packing the former and stripping the latter—and it was not employed in a
narrowly tailored manner to advance any compelling government interest, including
226. As the map below illustrates, the shared border divides the Packed
District 10 from the Stripped District 12 with racial precision.
51
Figure 10 – Race-Based District 10/12 Border. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents;
each brown dot represents 25 white residents. Dot locations within precincts are approximate.
227. South of the I-10/I-295 interchange, District 12 protrudes eastward into
District 10 to capture Precinct 1201 (69.8% white population).
228. Further south, District 10’s western boundary protrudes irregularly into
District 12 to split Precinct 1208.
229. In splitting the precinct, the Council changed boundaries from the 2011
Plan to capture Black voters. The area added to District 10 is 59.7% Black, while the
portion left in District 12 is only 36.7% Black.
230. This was another instance of the Council prioritizing race over its other
stated criteria.
231. Continuing south, District 12 retracts, ensuring that the plurality-Black
Precinct 1014 is in District 10, divided from the plurality-white Precinct 1213 just
across the border in District 12.
52
232. The table below indicates the Black population of the precincts along the
border between Districts 10 and 12, moving from north to south. In the case of split
precincts (denoted with an asterisk), the Black population figure reflects the Black
population of only the portion of the precinct in the relevant district:
Precinct in 12 Black % in 12 Black % in 10 Precinct in 10

1203 9.8
25.1 1011
1201 15.9
44.7 1007
1205 34.3
41.9 1013
57.9 1008
1208* 36.7 53.4 1009
59.7 1208*
53.4 1009
1213 38.1 61.2 1012
51.2 1014
39.1 1016
233. Along the entire border, the precincts (or split precincts) on the District
10 side have a larger Black population than the adjacent precincts in District 12.
53
Figure 11 – Precincts Along District 10/12 Border. Darker purples indicate precincts that are
more Black; darker browns indicate precincts that are whiter.
G. District 10’s Border with District 14
10 and 14—packing the former and stripping the latter—and race was not employed
in a narrowly tailored manner to advance any compelling government interest,
including compliance with VRA Section 2.12
235. District 14’s land bridge—no wider than a single precinct—reaches under
Districts 9 and 10 to capture Precinct 1406 (54.6% white population) and the plurality-
white Precincts 1403 and 1402. The land bridge also permits District 14 to jut up to
split Precinct 1210, capturing a 52.2% white population portion of the precinct.
12
Plaintiffs allege additional facts about this part of District 14 and its interaction with District 9 in
¶¶ 257–258, infra.
54
236. Along the entire border, the precincts on the District 10 side have a larger
Black population than the adjacent precincts (or split precinct) in District 14.
H. District 9
238. District 9 has a visually bizarre, illogical, and non-compact shape that is
attributable to racial predominance.
239. District 9 is packed, with a 60.6% Black population.
240. At its northern bulb, the District encompasses heavily Black
55
neighborhoods including Grand Park, New Town, and Woodstock.
241. District 9’s land bridge is the most aggressive of them all. At its narrowest
point, the land bridge is an isthmus the width of just two city blocks.
242. The land bridge captures parts of more heavily Black neighborhoods—
including Hillcrest and Oak Hill—while avoiding whiter neighborhoods such as
Avondale, Riverside, Lakeshore, and Fairfax.
243. As District 9 continues south, a “hitchhiker’s thumb” protrudes to hook
Black voters from the Stripped District 14 into the Packed District 9. The map below
shows the surgical-like precision with which the mapmakers deployed race to place
residents into or out of the district.
56
I. District 9’s Border with District 14
9 and 14—packing the former and stripping the latter—and it was not employed in a
narrowly tailored manner to advance any compelling government interest, including
Figure 14 – Districts 9 and 14. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents; each brown dot
represents 25 white residents. Dot locations within precincts are approximate.
245. At the northernmost portion of the border between Districts 9 and 14,
District 9 juts irregularly southward to split the Murray Hill neighborhood, capturing
its more heavily Black parts while leaving its whiter portion to District 14.
246. While Murray Hill overall has a Black population of 23.9%, the portion
placed in District 9 has a higher Black population of 33.9%. Meanwhile, the portion
57
across the border in District 14 has a Black population of just 10.5%.
247. The irregular protrusion splitting Murray Hill also ensures that whiter
areas in Riverside (11.2% Black) and Avondale (3.5% Black) are placed in District 14.
The map below illustrates the race-based border:
248. At its easternmost point, the border runs south of Precinct 909 (83.9%
Black population) to ensure its inclusion in District 9. Adjacent Precinct 1407 (63.9%
white population) is on the other side of the border in District 14.
249. Moving westward, the border divides Precinct 901 (41.8% Black and in
District 9) from Precinct 1405 (76% white and in District 14).
250. Slightly further south, District 9’s land bridge begins as a single precinct
58
wide, comprising Precinct 908, which is 46.8% Black.
251. The land bridge continues south with the majority-Black Precinct 903.
Immediately to its east is Precinct 1412 (56.5% white), which is located in District 14.
252. Next, the land bridge moves south through the plurality-Black Precinct
906. By keeping District 9 one precinct wide at this point, the mapmakers ensured that
District 14 could keep the adjacent Precinct 1408, with its 77.9% white population.
253. District 9 then widens slightly, jutting into District 14 to capture the
plurality-Black Precinct 907.
254. District 9 then narrows again to avoid the 42.9% white Precinct 1409.
Figure 16 – Hitchhiker’s Thumb. Darker purples indicate precincts that are more Black, while
darker browns indicate precincts that are whiter.
255. District 9 reaches into Precinct 1409 with a protrusion resembling a
59
“hitchhiker’s thumb” to hook in Black voters, as depicted above. This appendage also
splits the Ortega Farms neighborhood, which would not otherwise be divided.
256. The northward-pointing thumb is majority Black. The adjacent areas in
District 14 are majority white.
257. Further south, District 14’s land bridge interrupts District 9’s march
southward just a precinct shy of the city limit. As alleged in Paragraphs 234–236,
District 14’s land bridge squeezes between the city limit and Districts 9 and 10 to
capture disproportionately white areas.
258. The precincts that comprise the land bridge are whiter than the precincts
in District 9 immediately to their north; the district borders in this area ensure that
District 14 minimizes and District 9 maximizes their respective Black populations.
Figure 17 – Race-Based District 9/14 border. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents;
259. The table below indicates the Black population of the precincts along the
60
border between Districts 9 and 14, moving from north to south. In the case of split
precincts (denoted with an asterisk), the Black population figure reflects the Black
population of only the portion of the precinct in the relevant district:
Precinct in 9 Black % in 9 Black % in 14 Precinct in 14

909 83.9
18.8 1407
901 41.8 8.3 1413
10.8 1405
908 46.8
28.8 1412*
903 54.5
906 28.1
8.7 1408
907 49.5
913 53.8
30.6 1409*
1409* 17.0
914 44.2 36.9 1410

36.9 1401
260. Along the entire border,13 the precincts on the District 9 side have a larger
Black population than the adjacent precincts in District 14.
13
With the sole exception of the majority-white portion of split Precinct 1409, which was moved into
District 9 due to changing Census block boundaries and has a population of about 200.
61
Figure 18 – Precincts Along District 9/14 Border. Darker purples indicate precincts that are
more Black; darker browns indicate precincts that are whiter.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT ONE
Racial Gerrymandering
in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
261. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of
this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein.
262. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in
relevant part: “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”
263. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, a racial
62
classification is prohibited unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state
interest.
264. As alleged in detail above, race was the predominant factor in the design
of City Council Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 in Ordinance 2022-01-E. Race
predominated over all other redistricting criteria when each of these districts was
drawn.
265. The use of race as the predominant factor in creating City Council
Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 was not narrowly tailored to advance any compelling
state interests, including compliance with Section 2 of the VRA.
266. Consequently, these districts do not survive strict scrutiny.
267. Council Districts 7 and 8 together compose School Board District 4.
Council Districts 9 and 10 together compose School Board District 5. Council Districts
12 and 14 together compose School Board District 6. As a result, race was necessarily
the predominant factor in the design of School Board Districts 4, 5, and 6 in Ordinance
2022-01-E.
268. Race predominated over all other redistricting criteria in creating School
Board Districts 4, 5, and 6, and its use was not narrowly tailored to advance any
compelling state interest, including compliance with Section 2 of the VRA.
269. Therefore, City Council Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14, and School
Board Districts 4, 5, and 6 violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
63
COUNT TWO
Illogical and/or Non-Compact Districts

in Violation of the Jacksonville City Charter, Sec. 5.02(a)
270. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of
this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein.
271. Section 5.02(a) of the Jacksonville City Charter mandates: “the [city]
council shall redistrict the 14 council districts . . . so that all districts . . . are arranged
in a logical and compact geographic pattern to the extent possible.”
272. The Florida Supreme Court has concluded that compactness is a
standard that “refers to the shape of [a] district,” and “seeks to ‘ensure that districts
are logically drawn and that bizarrely shaped districts are avoided.’” In re Senate Joint
Resol. of Legis. Apportionment 100, No. SC22-131, __ So. 3d __, 2022 WL 619841, at *3
(Fla. Mar. 3, 2022) (quoting In re Senate Joint Resol. of Legis. Apportionment 1176, 83 So.
3d 597, 636 (Fla. 2012)).
273. To be considered compact under Florida law, a district “should not have
an unusual shape, a bizarre design, or an unnecessary appendage.” In re SJR 1176, 83
So. 3d at 634.
274. City Council Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 have unusual shapes,
bizarre designs, and unnecessary appendages.
275. City Council Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 are non-compact.
276. City Council Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 do not preserve traditional
communities of interest. Instead, they split precincts and neighborhoods and connect
64
far-flung regions of the City that lack common economic or social interests.
277. City Council Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 are not arranged in a
logical geographic pattern. The decisions that informed their borders involved illogical
choices, including but not limited to the use of race in a manner prohibited by the
federal Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in
their favor and:
A. Declare the City Council Districts 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 adopted in
Ordinance 2022-01-E to be unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as racially gerrymandered; and non-compact
and/or illogical in violation of the Jacksonville City Charter;
B. Declare the School Board Districts 4, 5, and 6 adopted in Ordinance
2022-01-E to be unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution as racially gerrymandered;
C. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants and their agents from
calling, holding, supervising, or certifying any elections in the Challenged Districts as
defined in Ordinance 2022-01-E;
D. Order Defendants to hold special elections in the Challenged Districts as
defined in Ordinance 2022-01-E to limit the harm to Plaintiffs should adequate relief
be unavailable prior to the next regularly scheduled elections;
65
E. Retain jurisdiction to render any and all further orders that this Court
may deem necessary;
F. Award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees in this action;
G. Award Plaintiffs their costs of suit; and
H. Grant any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of May, 2022,
/s/ Nicholas Warren

Nicholas Warren† (FBN 1019018) Krista Dolan (FBN 1012147)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
336 East College Avenue, Ste. 203 P.O. Box 10788
Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tallahassee, FL 32303-2788
(786) 363-1769 (850) 521-3000
[email protected] [email protected]
Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882) Bradley E. Heard*

ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC. Jack Genberg*
4343 West Flagler Street, Ste. 400 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
Miami, FL 33134 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste. 340
(786) 363-2714 Decatur, GA 30030
[email protected] (404) 521-6700
[email protected]
Daniel Hessel* ‡ [email protected]
Theresa J. Lee*
Nicholas Stephanopoulos*
ELECTION LAW CLINIC
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
6 Everett Street, Ste. 4105
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 495-5202
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

†
Designated lead counsel * Special admission motions forthcoming ‡
Federal practice only
66
Case 3:22-cv-00493-BJD-LLL Document 1-1 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID 67
APPENDIX – FULL-PAGE MAPS

Figure 1 – Jacksonville Dot Density Map. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents; each brown dot represents 25 white
residents. Dot locations within precincts are approximate.
Figure 2 – Noncompact District Shapes. The silhouettes of Districts 10, 14, and 9 are shown on the first row. Districts 8, 2, and 7
are shown on the second row.
Figure 3 – District 8. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents; each brown dot represents 25 white residents. Dot locations
within precincts are approximate.
Figure 4 – Killingsworth’s Rejected District 8 Southwestern Border Extension. The proposed District 12 is colored pink; the
proposed District 8 is purple. The 2011 plan is outlined in red.
Figure 6 – Killingsworth’s Rejected Proposal to Widen District 7 Land Bridge. The proposed District 7 is mint green; the proposed
District 2 is orange. The 2011 plan is outlined in red.
Figure 7 – Racial Demographics for Killingsworth’s Rejected Proposal. The map at left displays the proposed change to Districts
7 and 2 in mint green, as in Figure 6. The map at right shows racial demographics, with the Enacted Plan (solid black line) and
rejected proposal (dashed red line) overlaid. Darker purples indicate precincts that are more Black; darker browns indicate precincts
that are whiter.
Figure 8 – Race-Based Splitting of Precinct 205. Proposed changes to the border between Districts 7 and 2 overlayed on racial
makeup of Census blocks within Precinct 205. Lighter browns indicate blocks that are more diverse, while darker browns indicate
blocks that are whiter.
Figure 10 – Race-Based District 10/12 Border. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents; each brown dot represents 25 white
Figure 11 – Precincts Along District 10/12 Border. Darker purples indicate precincts that are more Black; darker browns indicate
Figure 14 – District 9 and 14. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents; each brown dot represents 25 white residents. Dot
locations within precincts are approximate.
Figure 16 – Hitchhiker’s Thumb. Darker purples indicate precincts that are more Black, while darker browns indicate precincts that
are whiter.
Figure 17 – Race-Based District 9/14 border. Each purple dot represents 25 Black residents; each brown dot represents 25 white
Figure 18 – Precincts Along District 9/14 Border. Darker purples indicate precincts that are more Black; darker browns indicate
JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) CIVIL
Case 3:22-cv-00493-BJD-LLL COVER
Document 1-2 SHEET
Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 86
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Jacksonville Branch of the NAACP; (see attachment) City of Jacksonville; Duval County Supervisor of Elections
Hogan, Mike
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Duval County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Duval
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
(see attachment)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ INTELLECTUAL 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation ✖ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC 1983, 1988
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Challenging Jacksonville City Council and Duval County School Board districts and unconstitutional racial gerrymanders
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes ✖ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
5/3/2022 /s/ Nicholas Warren
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet
I. (a) Plaintiffs:
1. Jacksonville Branch of the NAACP 8. Roberts, Tiffanie

2. Northside Coalition of Jacksonville, Inc. 9. McCoy, Rosemary
3. ACLU of Florida Northeast Chapter 10. Singleton, Sheila
4. Florida Rising Together, Inc. 11. Barnum, Eunice
5. Washington, Marcella 12. Williams, Janine
6. Montgomery, Ingrid 13. Carswell, Haraka
7. Franklin, Ayesha 14. Barnum, Dennis
I. (c) Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Nicholas Warren† (FBN 1019018) Krista Dolan (FBN 1012147)

ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
336 East College Avenue, Ste. 203 P.O. Box 10788
Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tallahassee, FL 32303-2788
(786) 363-1769 (850) 521-3000
[email protected] [email protected]
Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882) Bradley E. Heard*

ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC. Jack Genberg*
4343 West Flagler Street, Ste. 400 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
Miami, FL 33134 150 E Ponce de Leon Av, Suite 340
(786) 363-2714 Decatur, GA 30030
[email protected] (404) 521-6700
[email protected]
Daniel Hessel* ‡ [email protected]
Theresa J. Lee*
Nicholas Stephanopoulos*
ELECTION LAW CLINIC
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
6 Everett Street, Ste. 4105
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 495-5202
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
†
Designated lead counsel * Special admission motions forthcoming ‡
Federal practice only
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Middle District
__________ District of
of Florida
__________
Jacksonville Branch of the NAACP, et al., )

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-493
)
City of Jacksonville, et al., )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) City of Jacksonville

Office of General Counsel
117 West Duval Street, Suite 480
Jacksonville, FL 32202
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Nicholas Warren
ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.
336 East College Ave, Suite 203
Tallahassee, FL 32301
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-493
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Middle District
__________ District of
of Florida
__________
Jacksonville Branch of the NAACP, et al., )

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-493
)
City of Jacksonville, et al., )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Mike Hogan

Duval County Supervisor of Elections
105 East Monroe Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Nicholas Warren
ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.
336 East College Ave, Suite 203
Tallahassee, FL 32301
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-493
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Complaint Redistricting Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Complaint Redistricting Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Redistricting Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:22-cv-00493-BJD-LLL Document 1 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 66 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JACKSONVILLE BRANCH OF THE

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE and

2. Shortly before the Enacted Plan cleared a key procedural hurdle, a

would expect those organizations to bring litigation. It’s required of you.”

3. Plaintiffs—who include some of Jacksonville’s most prominent and

challenge seven City Council districts (the “Challenged Districts”) as racially

gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

4. While redistricting bodies “will . . . almost always be aware of racial

centering of race in redistricting decisions. Map-drawing in which race predominates,

subordinating race-neutral, traditional redistricting considerations to racial decision-

based line drawing is constitutional only where it satisfies strict scrutiny—where it is

narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest. The Constitution sets

a high bar. The Enacted Plan fails to clear it.

5. In passing the Enacted Plan, the Council impermissibly centered race

foregrounded the racial implications of their decisions in meetings—sometimes

“continually making [race] a predominant[ ] priority.”

6. He was right. Race dictated even the most granular line-drawing

concentrations of several districts, it abandoned its stated race-neutral criteria to reach

7. The Challenged Districts bear all the typical indicia of racial

surgical precision in its race-based division of voting precincts.

Challenged Districts—Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10 (together, the “Packed Districts”). As a

from three adjacent districts—Districts 2, 12, and 14 (together, the “Stripped

Districts”)—ensuring that these districts had artificially high white populations.

9. The racial gerrymandering of the Challenged Districts directly affects

concentrations of Black voters, who are assigned instead to neighboring Packed

Districts. As a consequence, most of Jacksonville’s Black voters are segregated into

Plan is necessary to achieve VRA compliance. To the contrary, several Plaintiffs

in Districts 7, 8, 9, and 10.” Those are the elements of a successful racial

gerrymandering claim—race-based decision-making untethered from any analysis of

what the VRA actually requires.

draw their component City Council districts, it necessarily racially gerrymanders

School Board Districts 4, 5, and 6, too.

14. Finally, Plaintiffs ask this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

Challenged Districts are non-compact. Each is illogical—splitting neighborhoods,

regions of the City that do not share economic or social interests.

15. Plaintiff Jacksonville Branch of the NAACP (“NAACP Branch”) is a

nonpartisan nonprofit membership organization serving the Jacksonville since 1917,

16. The NAACP Branch’s mission is to ensure the political, educational,

enjoined, these members will be harmed by living and voting in unconstitutionally

racially gerrymandered districts.

18. Plaintiff Northside Coalition of Jacksonville, Inc. (“Northside

Coalition”) is a nonprofit advocacy organization serving Jacksonville since 2016.

Northside Coalition’s mission is to empower, educate, and organize community

agencies, business professionals, and faith-based organizations.

to support gun violence reduction, economic empowerment, and poverty reduction.

Additionally, Northside Coalition is active in campaigns to raise awareness around

community issues and create public forums for debate.

20. Northside Coalition has been heavily involved in Jacksonville’s

21. Northside Coalition has members and supporters throughout

Jacksonville, including in many of the Challenged Districts. If the Challenged Districts

unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered districts.

22. Plaintiff ACLU of Florida Northeast Chapter (“ACLU Chapter”) is a

membership organization founded in 2019 as a regional chapter of the ACLU of

voting reform in Jacksonville.

24. The ACLU Chapter has thousands of members, consisting of all

and St. Johns Counties.

25. Many of the ACLU Chapter’s members reside in Jacksonville, including