Redistricting lawsuit is heading to federal court

The legal battle over the recent redrawing of City Council district lines has moved to federal court. South Boston civic groups, joined by some Dorchester and Mattapan residents, are suing over the new map, which carves up Dorchester’s Neponset neighborhood and shifts large parts of District 3 into District 4, saying it violates the city charter, the US Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act.

Proponents say the map passes legal muster. Seeking a balance in population between the nine districts, Council mapmakers argued that District 2, anchored in South Boston, needed to lose population, while Dorchester-based District 3 needed to gain residents.

Working with the NAACP’s Boston branch and other groups, they said the map also meets the goals of the federal Voting Rights Act because it has districts where there is opportunity for communities of color to elect the representative of their choice.

The plaintiff group had previously argued that councillors violated state Open Meeting Law in their gatherings, a claim that councillors who support the map have dismissed as false.

The lawsuit was first filed in Suffolk Superior Court, but City Hall attorneys requested it be moved to federal jurisdiction. The next court date is Jan. 23, with US District Judge Patti Saris.

Mayor Wu’s administration has tapped two outside law firms, Anderson & Kreiger and Hemenway & Barnes, to defend the map, which Wu signed into law on Nov. 7 after it passed on a 9-4 Council vote.

The lawsuit was filed by Robert O’Shea, chairman of the Ward 6 Democratic Committee in South Boston, former city clerk and District 3 councillor Maureen Feeney, Mattapan resident Rita Dixon, and Caribbean American Political Action Committee vice chair Shirley Shillingford, among others.

“The City Council redistricting process was flawed and unfair to the most vulnerable residents of the City, particularly public housing residents, immigrants and language minorities,” the lawsuit says. The lawsuit also claims the map is “designed to diminish the voting power of white voters” in District 3.

Council President Ed Flynn, who represents District 2 and is among the four councillors who had opposed the map, argued that public housing complexes, made up of communities of color and immigrants, should stay united in District 2. Congressman Stephen Lynch of South Boston also registered his opposition to the map, citing the division of the public housing developments.

The new map moves most of the public housing complexes into District 3, while District 3 sheds most of the Neponset area at Dorchester’s southern border with Milton and Quincy. The moves also drew angry condemnations from District 3 Councillor Frank Baker, who voted against the map.

The lawsuit says the map creates a “complete disruption of District 3, by removing the core of its district from its historical home — something which does not need to happen.” Under the new map, there are “no clear boundaries” for District 3, unlike the last 40 years, when boundaries included Dorchester Avenue and the Neponset River.

“The proposed map not only destroys District 3, but it also causes significant harm to other communities, including South Boston, which will be carved in half, and Mattapan, which will dilute the African-American voting power in District 4,” the lawsuit added.

The filing also contends that the deadline for a new map, Nov. 7, was “artificial” and the only explicit deadline in the city charter is Aug. 1, 2026. Councillors who supported the map argued that the Nov. 7 deadline was indeed real, in order to allow contenders for district council seats to know which district they’re living in a year before the municipal election.

Flynn, Baker, and City Councillor At-Large Erin Murphy filed affidavits in support of the lawsuit.

Universal Hub’s Adam Gaffin contributed to this report.


Subscribe to the Dorchester Reporter