A gaggle of residents who sued the Boston City Council over the legality of a previous redistricting map doesn’t plan to problem the brand new voting strains, however is asking town to reimburse it for greater than $100,000 in attorneys’ charges.
According to a Friday federal court docket submitting, the plaintiffs agreed “not to challenge the redistricting map approved by the Boston City Council on May 24, 2023, and signed into law by the mayor on May 26, 2023, either through a motion to amend their complaint in this case or by filing a new lawsuit.”
“The city defendants have fully complied with this court’s preliminary injunction order,” the court docket submitting states. “The issues raised in the plaintiffs’ complaint are now moot and the case is appropriate for dismissal.”
In early May, a federal decide threw out the redistricting map the City Council permitted final fall, through a 9–4 vote, citing a possible constitutional violation stemming from how race was factored into how metropolis strains have been redrawn.
The ruling got here after a gaggle of residents, led by Rasheed Walters, sued the City Council, Mayor Michelle Wu and town, which led to a weeklong court docket battle that additional divided the Council. Two metropolis councilors, Frank Baker and Ed Flynn, helped fund the authorized problem.
The decide’s preliminary injunction, barring use of that redistricting map on this 12 months’s municipal election, prompted the City Council to scramble to move a brand new map by May 30, to forestall a delay to the Sept. 12 main.
The map was handed on May 24, and signed into legislation by the mayor two days later. U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris, who issued the injunction, mentioned at a June standing listening to that there was no want for her to weigh in on the brand new map, however had urged either side to rapidly attain a decision, citing the upcoming election.
Glen Hannington, an legal professional for the plaintiffs, informed the Herald Friday that whereas he wouldn’t characterize the court docket battle as a “success” for his purchasers, he did say that they have been happy with how the redistricting course of labored out.
“In any litigation, nobody gets 100% of what they want,” Hannington mentioned. “We understand the stakes are high here too, as far as impacting the city’s election schedule. The plaintiffs felt that they were satisfied with the new redistricting map approved by the city and the mayor.”
The plaintiffs plan to hunt metropolis reimbursement for attorneys’ charges accrued throughout the authorized battle, Hannington mentioned, an quantity he put at “six figures.” The last quantity for what his purchasers are searching for continues to be being calculated, he mentioned.
“Don’t forget, we were up against three law firms with unlimited resources,” he mentioned.
The metropolis has till Aug. 11 to file an opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ charges. A metropolis spokesperson didn’t reply to a request for remark.
City Councilor Frank Baker, who voted in opposition to the preliminary redistricting map and helped to fund the authorized problem, mentioned he’s in favor of the plaintiffs’ petition for reimbursement.
“Personally, I’m happy with the resolution that the judge ruled on, and quite frankly, I’d be thrilled if they get the city to pay the lawyers’ fees,” Baker mentioned. “I think the city should pay it because people on the city payroll acted inappropriately.”
Source: www.bostonherald.com”