Opponents won’t challenge new redistricting map

A group of residents who sued the Boston City Council over the legality of a prior redistricting map doesn’t plan to challenge the new voting lines, but is asking the city to reimburse it for more than $100,000 in attorneys’ fees.

According to a Friday federal court filing, 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 filing states. “The issues raised in the plaintiffs’ complaint are now moot and the case is appropriate for dismissal.”

In early May, a federal judge threw out the redistricting map the City Council approved last fall, via a 9—4 vote, citing a potential constitutional violation stemming from how race was factored into how city lines were redrawn.

The ruling came after a group of residents, led by Rasheed Walters, sued the City Council, Mayor Michelle Wu and the city, which led to a weeklong court battle that further divided the Council. Two city councilors, Frank Baker and Ed Flynn, helped fund the legal challenge.

Walters is a former Herald columnist.

The judge’s preliminary injunction, barring use of that redistricting map in this year’s municipal election, prompted the City Council to scramble to pass a new map by May 30, to prevent a delay to the Sept. 12 primary.

The map was passed on May 24, and signed into law by the mayor two days later. U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris, who issued the injunction, urged during a June status hearing both sides to quickly reach a resolution, citing the upcoming election.

Glen Hannington, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Herald Friday that while he wouldn’t characterize the court battle as a “success” for his clients, he did say that they were pleased with how the redistricting process worked out.

“In any litigation, nobody gets 100% of what they want,” Hannington said. “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 seek city reimbursement for attorneys’ fees accrued during the legal battle, Hannington said, an amount he put at “six figures.” The final number for what his clients are seeking is still being calculated, he said.

“Don’t forget, we were up against three law firms with unlimited resources,” he said.

The city has until Aug. 11 to file an opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees. A city spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.