A Good Law is Hard to Find, Part I:
The 2022 Redistricting of the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board— Its implications for our public schools and democratic elections
The East Baton Rouge Parish School Board is currently undergoing redistricting, the mandated process by which political bodies redraw their boundaries to adjust for changes in population size and distribution. Redistricting occurs at least every ten years in conjunction with the decennial census. The final maps adopted have a profound impact on how communities are represented, which in turn affects policy and distribution of resources.
This year’s redistricting of the EBR School Board may be one of the most critical in its history. The total population within the school system boundaries is 387,169.1 The school board is currently composed of 9 single-member districts. In order to ensure that each person’s vote carries about the same weight, the districts must contain approximately the same population. With 9 single-member districts, the ideal district size is 43,019, a size far larger than a typical school board district in Louisiana. Each district must be within 5% of the ideal population, but the 2020 Census data indicate that several of the districts are wildly outside the acceptable range. That malapportionment alone indicates the need for a significant revision of the current map.
In addition, the current districts do not accurately reflect the overall demographics of the school district’s population. According to the census data provided by the school board’s demographer, the total population is 47.5% Black and only 40.9% white. While neither racial group constitutes a majority, those numbers indicate there should be more majority-Black districts than majority-White districts. However, five of the 9 single-member districts are majority-White. Three are majority-Black. One is a “swing district”; its total Black population is only 50.3% and its total Black voting age population is only 47.8%. That is statistically insufficient to qualify it as a majority-Black district. That’s unacceptable. The map will have to be dramatically reconfigured to ensure it will allow for equal representation.
To help ensure a fair map is adopted, community members should learn about the redistricting process. They should also be aware that the political landscape changed profoundly in the last couple decades. In 2010, the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case dramatically altered campaign finance rules, authorizing corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited funds in elections. In 2013, the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder effectively eliminated the Department of Justice’s oversight of new maps in jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression, including East Baton Rouge Parish. Department of Education programs, such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, promoted the proliferation of charter schools, which are publicly funded but governed by undemocratic boards. These factors are having a significant impact on our elections.
Maps of political jurisdictions are expected to abide by certain guidelines in order to ensure the constitutional principle of one person, one vote. Districts must be compact; contiguous; of approximately equal population size; and protect communities of interest. But the recent developments, especially the two Supreme Court decisions, have rendered the standard guidelines inadequate. They alone do not sufficiently ensure that each person’s vote carries about the same weight. Consequently, the integrity of our elections has been eroded.
If we want to restore some integrity to the democratic process by which we elect our representatives, we must also consider the ratio between elected officials and constituents. We must determine what constitutes the healthiest ratio possible and use that to determine the ideal number of single-member districts in any new maps.
Unfortunately, the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board has been going in the wrong direction. Between 1980 and 2010, the school board had 12 single-member districts. But in 2010, the board was reduced to 11 single-member districts, and in 2014, the board was reduced again to 9 single-member districts. Each reduction in board size naturally increased the ratio between constituents and elected officials. This is the underlying cause of many stakeholders’ recent complaints regarding school board members’ disinterest in their concerns. During this 2022 redistricting process, it is critically important that we restore or ideally increase the number of single-member districts in the new EBR School Board map. To fully understand the need for such a reapportionment, public school stakeholders—parents and teachers, especially—should be familiar with the school board’s history, particularly the 2014 reapportionment of the board.
The Significance of the 2014 Reapportionment of the EBR School Board
BRIEF HISTORY: EVOLUTION OF THE EBR SCHOOL BOARD OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS
In order to fully appreciate the implications of the 2014 reapportionment of the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, it helps to know about some more distant history.
Prior to 1980, there were no single-member districts. School board members were elected on an at-large basis from the three parish wards. In the mid-1970s, three African Americans, Press Robinson, Lawrence Moch, and George Eames, as well as the United States Department of Justice, sued.2 They rightfully argued that the at-large districts diluted the voting strength of African Americans, prohibiting African Americans from ever electing their candidate of choice. The cases were resolved in favor of the plaintiffs and the EBR School Board agreed to create single-member districts, one for each member; they had 12 members at the time.3
The first election with single-member districts was held in 1980. Press Robinson was the first African American elected to the EBR school board. Two other majority African American districts were created in the process which created the single-member districts, so ultimately three African Americans were elected to the School Board.
That number of single-member districts—twelve—stayed in place for the next 30 years. In 2010, before the decennial census data was released, the EBR School Board “voluntarily” elected to reapportion itself and downsize from 12 to 11 members.4
In 2012, they had to undergo the regularly scheduled redistricting to adjust the district lines in conjunction with the census data. The 11 single-member districts remained.
In 2014, the board again decided to “voluntarily” undergo the redistricting process, but this time the board was downsized from 11 to 9 districts.5
Why did the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board undergo the redistricting process three times in four years, and two of those times “voluntarily”?
There were three primary reasons for these unprecedented reapportionments:
The Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013) effectively gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and eliminated the preclearance requirement.
Reducing the size of the EBR School Board was part of the Baton Rouge Area Chamber’s ongoing and concerted effort to privatize the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in the same manner the New Orleans Public Schools were privatized following Hurricane Katrina.
The decision in the Citizens United court case dramatically altered campaign finance rules, authorizing corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds in elections.
1. The Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013) effectively gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act & eliminated the preclearance requirement.
TIMELINE OF EBR SCHOOL BOARD REAPPORTIONMENTS:
2010 Reapportionment: 12 Single-Member Districts reduced to 11.
Map subjected to preclearance & approved by the Department of Justice.
2012 Redistricting: Map subjected to preclearance & approved by the DOJ.
2013: Shelby County v. Holder
Section 4b declared unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.
Effectively gutted Section 5 until Congress adopts new formula for preclearance.
Maps in Louisiana no longer subjected to preclearance.
2014 Reapportionment: 11 Single-Member Districts Reduced to 9.
Plan not subjected to preclearance; consequently, not approved by the DOJ
Likely the DOJ would have rejected the plan.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required states with a history of engaging in voter suppression to have any changes to their maps of political bodies approved by the Department of Justice. This was called “preclearance.”
In the 2010 reapportionment which reduced the School Board from 12 to 11 single-member districts, the map was subjected to preclearance and approved by the Department of Justice. But it’s important to note the following. One of the criteria for a fair redistricting process is to ensure that it is not used to disadvantage an incumbent. Typically, reducing the number of single-member districts would automatically create such a disadvantage; it’s impossible to draw a new map which eliminates a district without pitting two incumbents against one another. Therefore, the Department of Justice would not be inclined to approve a map that reduced the number of districts. Why, then, did the Department of Justice approve the new 11-member EBR School Board map in 2010 ahead of the regularly scheduled decennial redistricting process?
Reducing the number of districts was likely made possible due to one school board member’s declaration that he would not run for re-election in the fall of 2010.6 This announcement made it possible for proponents of reducing the size of the school board to claim that there were only 11 incumbents. It also explains why some school board members pushed to redistrict at that time just a few months ahead of the qualifying period for the fall 2010 election and in spite of the fact that they’d have to redistrict yet again once the 2010 Census was completed. If the school board had waited for the constitutionally required redistricting process, someone would have run for the vacated seat in the fall election and the school board would again have 12 incumbents. The board likely feared the Department of Justice would reject a new map with only 11 single-member districts if it had 12 duly elected incumbents at the time.
Of course, this wasn’t the argument expressed by proponents of reducing the EBR School Board, not publicly at least. Proponents for reducing the board argued that since Zachary, Baker, and Central had pulled out of the school system, 12 school board members were no longer needed. (As an aside, this argument is not supported by historical precedent, but that will be addressed later.) But if the primary reason for downsizing from 12 to 11 members were related to the creation of the Zachary, Baker, and Central school systems and there was no concern about the Department of Justice approving a reduction in the number of single-member districts, then the Board could have just waited until the regularly scheduled redistricting process. They didn’t wait. Instead, the school board reapportioned in 2010 just a few months ahead of the qualifying period for the fall election.7
In 2012 maps were still subjected to preclearance. The EBR School Board underwent the regular redistricting process to adjust the boundaries in conjunction with the 2010 Census data. The number of single-member districts stayed at 11.
On June 25, 2013 the Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder declaring Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. Section 4b was the formula that determined which states were subjected to preclearance. In its 5-4 decision, the Court declared the formula outdated and required Congress to update it. Congress has yet to act, so until it does Section 5 which requires preclearance is effectively gutted. As of June 2013 the maps in Louisiana were no longer subject to Department of Justice approval.
In 2014 there was suddenly an alleged need for the EBR School Board to reapportion yet again. This time its 11 single-member districts were reduced to 9. The map was not subjected to preclearance. It was not approved by the Department of Justice. And it’s unlikely that it would have been approved by the Department of Justice.
It reduced the number of single-member districts.
It pitted at least two incumbents against one another.
And most significantly, it didn’t reflect the overall demographics of the school district boundaries. Again, the total population within the school district boundaries contained a higher percentage of Black people, but the final map had more majority-White districts. It packed African American voters into too few districts.
Why else did the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board redistrict itself three times in four years?
2. Reducing the size of the EBR School Board was part of the Baton Rouge Area Chamber’s ongoing and concerted effort to privatize the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in the same manner the New Orleans Public Schools were privatized following Hurricane Katrina.
Embedded in the previous statement are two debatable or controversial claims:
The first controversial claim is related to the issue of charter schools, which are privately-operated, publicly-funded schools. Some might think what’s wrong with privatizing the public school system? It’s been struggling for years.
The second debatable claim is whether the Baton Rouge Area Chamber played a role in these reapportionments.
It’s most useful to address these claims one at a time beginning with the charter school issue.
THE CHARTER SCHOOL ISSUE
Acknowledgement: Many charter school supporters have good intentions.
Personal Story: What I learned with One Community One School District (OCOSD)
Five Things You Should Know About Charter Schools
The Trouble with Good Intentions
Most people who support charter schools do so with the best of intentions. However, it’s important to remember that good intentions alone do not ensure that good will be done. Typically the well-intentioned charter school supporters base their estimation of charter schools on the marketing campaign that is carefully crafted by the business interests which will profit from the privatization of our school system. Well-intentioned people who support charter schools should make a concerted effort to research the issue and read from a variety of sources. They should not rely on our local media or business groups or on non-profits funded by business groups for information. They should read and analyze all of the information critically.
Personal Story: OCOSD’s Epiphany
My own position on charter schools evolved as I did research. I was never a charter school proponent, but initially I wasn’t adamantly opposed to them either. I regarded them as one of those nuisance policies, like excessive standardized testing, which diverted resources from the actions which were really needed to improve the quality of public education—more funding, lower student to teacher ratio, better pay for teachers. Then in 2012 Senator Bodi White filed legislation to create a breakaway school district in the southeast portion of East Baton Rouge Parish. I joined with other parents to oppose the creation of this new school system. Together we formed One Community One School District. It wasn’t until I and other OCOSD members began to research public education policy related to the proposed breakaway school district that we realized charter schools are essentially little breakaway school systems—each one, but the harm they cause is even worse.
The proposed breakaway school system would have burdened the EBRPSS with an unfair share of legacy costs and bonded indebtedness as well as further resegregated our schools.8 Charter schools do this also, but they cause additional harm as well. Understanding the negative effects of charter schools is essential to understanding the history of the EBR School Board and the importance of redistricting. There’s a great deal of information carefully documenting the harm charter schools cause, but in the interest of time, I’m going to summarize the issues into five key points.
FIVE THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS
The original charter school model was an ideal vision, which many people supported with the best of intentions. But the charter school concept has been hijacked by financial interests to generate profits for private companies rather than provide a quality education to all students.
Charter schools are undermining the teaching profession. Charter schools are not required to hire certified teachers, adhere to salary schedules, or participate in the Teachers' Retirement System. The absence of professional credentials, good pay, and a secure retirement undermines teaching as a profession and our students will suffer as a result.
Charter schools are effectively eliminating public oversight of public tax dollars. Charter management organizations, both non-profit and for-profit, are allowed to enter into confidential business agreements with for-profit companies without approval from elected officials.
Many charter school facilities are paid for with public tax dollars but the taxpayers ultimately don’t own the facilities. Instead, they are owned by for-profit real estate companies affiliated with the charter management organization.
Charter schools are eroding our voting rights. They eliminate the power of school boards whose members are elected and empower school boards whose members are appointed. Voters effectively lose their ability to elect representatives to oversee their schools.
I intentionally ended with the point about charter schools’ effect on our voting rights. Everyone should be aware that privatization is a form of voter suppression.
EVIDENCE OF BRAC’S ROLE
2014 Legislative Session, Senate Bills 636 & 672
Senate Bill 636: Provides Relative to the organization and management of large school systems.
Senate Bill 672: Provides relative to the membership & election of members of the EBRP School Board.
SB 636 defeated; SB 672 died in the state Senate
BRAC was undeterred.
It’s unnecessary to provide evidence to demonstrate BRAC supports the proliferation of charter schools. BRAC has been very public about its support for charter schools and for its efforts to elect people who would also support charters. However, I do want to establish that BRAC was the driving force behind the 2014 reapportionment. It’s important to be aware of what was going on in 2014.
It was the third year that Senator Bodi White filed legislation to create the breakaway school district in the southeast portion of East Baton Rouge Parish.
At the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014 the proponents of the proposed City of St. George kicked off their first campaign to create the breakaway city. (In addition to working with One Community One School District, I was one of the first spokespersons for the Better Together effort which opposed the creation of the City of St. George. The breakaway school district was the catalyst for the breakaway city.)
And as if to demonstrate the truth in the age-old maxim that things are never so bad they couldn’t get worse, in 2014 the Baton Rouge Area Chamber drafted legislation targeting the East Baton Rouge Parish School System. This legislation, Senate Bill 636, was sponsored by state Senator Bodi White, the same legislator spearheading the breakaway school district and St. George efforts. If Senate Bill 636 had been enacted, it would have effectively chartered the entire East Baton Rouge Parish School System. One Community One School District and many other groups fought against it.
The Baton Rouge Area Chamber was also behind another bill targeting the East Baton Rouge Parish School System: Senate Bill 672. This bill would have required the EBR School Board to reapportion itself and reduce the number of single-member districts from 11 to six with one at-large seat for a total number of seven school board members. Please recall the exorbitant ratio of school board members to constituents under the nine-member plan (1: 41,876 in 2014; 1:43,019 in 2020) and imagine the effect of reducing the size of the board to 6 single-member districts. Please recall the fact that at-large seats historically were used as a means of vote dilution.
Miraculously, Senate Bill 636 was defeated. Thankfully, Senate Bill 672 died in the Senate.
BRAC was undeterred. As soon as the session was over—probably before the session was over, BRAC officials were pressuring members of the EBR School Board to reapportion yet again.
The 2014 reapportionment of the EBR School Board was opposed by many local groups, including:
One Community One School District
Local chapter of the NAACP
Local Democratic Party
Local Republican Party
One Community One School District was vehemently opposed. We held a public meeting at the Main Library debunking the arguments in favor of the proposed reapportionment.9 The presentation we made at that meeting is still relevant, especially because the same or similar arguments will likely be repeated by BRAC or BRAC-supported school board members during the redistricting process.
Excerpt from OCOSD 2014 Presentation:
BRAC’s (Flawed) Argument for Smaller Board: Fewer Members = More Effective Decision-Making
Please know that BRAC probably didn’t state publicly that it wanted to down-size the board so that it could more easily elect pro-charter candidates. Lane Grigsby, the Baton Rouge area businessman, may have made such a statement, but BRAC is typically savvier than that. No BRAC official ever said, “We want to engage in voter suppression.” Instead what they claimed was fewer members would allow for more effective decision-making and that would translate into a better performing school district.
In the OCOSD presentation, we compared the East Baton Rouge Parish School district to the other school districts in East Baton Rouge Parish to determine if there was any merit to BRAC’s argument. We concluded there wasn’t. (Please note that the school district letter grades and population numbers in the following charts are from 2014, but the data and conclusions are still relevant.)
BRAC’S claim that smaller boards translated into better performing school districts completely ignored the ratio of elected official to constituents. Zachary and Central school systems were A-rated districts with smaller school boards, but the number of constituents for each elected official in Zachary and Central is miniscule in comparison to the EBR school system. And if you considered Baker, it seems to prove the converse is true—that smaller boards would equate to poorer performing school districts. Obviously, there are other factors affecting District Performance Scores.
A comparison of EBRPSS to other districts around the state supported a similar conclusion.
Again, there is no merit to BRAC’s claim that smaller boards necessarily translate into better performing districts. In fact, the comparison to other districts around the state suggests that increasing the number of single-member districts correlates to higher District Performance Scores.
To be clear our state school accountability system is fundamentally flawed so no one should put much stock into these District Performance Scores. There is more going on than just the number of members on the school board. However, St. Tammany, Calcasieu, and Ascension, all have a high number of board members and low ratio between constituents and elected officials, and they are all high-performing districts according to BRAC’s own metric. So One Community One School District determined that an examination of districts of similar size within Louisiana suggests higher-performing school systems have a higher number of districts and a lower ratio of constituents to board members.
We investigated other aspects of BRAC’s argument and determined their claim that a reduction in board size would equate to more effective decision-making:
Is based on a misapplication of one suggested principle for for-profit companies;
Is not supported by actual practices of for-profit or non-profit companies;
Average board size of S&P 500: 11
Average board size of non-profit companies: 16
Is not supported by a more comprehensive reading of studies and suggested principles for both for-profit & non-profit companies;
Assumes without basis that a democratically-elected board should be modeled after boards of for-profit companies.
As an aside, in 2014 the Baton Rouge Area Chamber’s own board had 40 members.
Other points OCOSD made in 2014:
Proposed maps for EBRSB created districts comparable in size to a state House district.
2020 ideal population for state House district: 44,359
2020 ideal population for 9-member EBR School Board district: 43,019
Too large to allow for effective local control of our schools
Larger districts in general discourage grassroots candidates.
Elections are more likely to be decided by the personal wealth of the candidate or their ability to garner support from wealthy donors.
When the reasons against the 2014 reapportionment are considered together, the magnitude of the injustice that was committed can be better appreciated:
The reduction in board size was not supported by practices of other school districts in Louisiana;
Not one of the proposed maps reapportioned the districts in line with the racial make-up of our school district;
The map was not pre-screened by the Justice Department and would leave the school district vulnerable to legal challenges;
NAACP released a statement of opposition
The existing map was altered less than one month before candidates qualified for the fall election;
Enlarged districts privileged candidates with more personal wealth or ability to garner support from wealthy contributors;
And finally, the 2014 reapportionment pitted two incumbents against one another.
A map from the 2014 reapportionment appears below. This map shows the boundaries of the new 9 single-member districts and the places of residence of the 11 incumbents. The residence of one member, Craig Freeman, was on the boundary of Districts 5 (blue) and 7 (pink). Freeman, an African American Democrat, would have been required to run against Evelyn Ware-Jackson, an African American Democrat, had he run for re-election. However, as was the case in 2010 when an incumbent declared he wouldn’t seek re-election, so it was with Craig Freeman. He had not only declared that he would not seek re-election in the Fall of 2014. He’d already accepted a teaching position out of state. Some argued that he should not have been allowed to remain in his seat during the redistricting process. But the more troubling feature of this map concerns District 9, colored pale yellow at the center of the map.
In the 2014 map, the new District 9 clearly pitted two incumbents against one another: Jerry Arbour, a white Republican, and David Tatman, a white Republican. The question is why those two incumbents since it appears David Tatman’s residence in Ward 3- Precinct 18 could have more easily been included in District 8 or District 6. The boundary of the new District 9 had to dip below a natural boundary (I-10) and curiously south in order to pit David Tatman against Jerry Arbour rather than against Connie Bernard in District 8 or Jill Dyason in District 6. Race and party affiliation cannot be factors—both Connie Bernard and Jill Dyason are also white Republicans. The likely factor was the incumbents’ positions on charter schools. Jerry Arbour had been on the school board for many years and did not support the Baton Rouge Area Chamber’s efforts to privatize the school system. BRAC made its opposition to Arbour known in the 2010 election when it publicly and financially supported a challenger to Arbour.10 That effort to unseat Jerry Arbour in 2010 was unsuccessful, but BRAC’s public statements and campaign contributions have serious implications regarding the curious lines of District 9 in 2014.
SMALLER BOARD CONTRARY TO HISTORICAL PRECEDENT
In addition to all of the compelling reasons against the 2014 reduction of our school board, a smaller board is contrary to historical precedent. According to a 1971 Advocate article, “C-P Council Mulls Board Remap Plan,” there were once provisions in the Plan of Government for adding elected officials to reflect population growth.11
Such a provision makes sense. State statute allows local boards to have up to 15 members. It was assumed that as the population increased, the number of members would increase in order to maintain a reasonable ratio between elected officials and constituents. That is the exact opposite of what has been happening.
Another article from 1971 provides additional evidence in support of increasing the number of members on our school board as well as an ideal ratio between elected official and constituents. According to a 1971 State Times Advocate article, the East Baton Rouge School Board increased from 11 to 12 members following the 1970 Census in order to adjust for an increase in population. The “perfect representation figure” they were striving to achieve: 23,763 constituents per member.12 That’s 20,000 less than our current district ideal population size.
A third reason why the EBR school board underwent the redistricting process three times within four years:
3. The decision in the Citizens United court case dramatically altered campaign finance rules, authorizing corporations and other groups to spend unlimited funds in elections.
Continue reading in A Good Law is Hard to Find, Part II.
This is the population count used by Mike Hefner, the demographer hired by the EBR School Board. There is some discrepancy in the population total used by various demographers. This is caused primarily by uncertainty surrounding the school system’s boundaries. The boundary of EBRPSS is not contiguous with that of East Baton Rouge Parish since the parish contains not one but four school systems. The discrepancy is minor. The previous demographer estimated the total population to be 387,019, resulting in an ideal district size of 43,002.
McClain, Randy. “Blacks eye roles on School Board.” Sunday Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA), 14 Sept 1980, p.14-A.
Ibid.
Lussier, Charles. "Board to cut 1 member." Advocate, The (Baton Rouge, LA), Main ed., sec. South LA. & Business, 19 Mar. 2010, p. 01B.
Lussier, Charles. “EBR School Board cuts members to 9.” Advocate, The (Baton Rouge, LA), Advocate, The (Baton Rouge, LA), Main ed., 25 July 2014, p. 1 & 4.
Lussier, Charles. “EBR School Board looks at district changes Board considers reducing its size.” Advocate, The (Baton Rouge, LA), Main ed. Sec. News, 8 Mar. 2010, p.01A.
Lussier, Charles. “Board to cut 1 member.” Advocate, The (Baton Rouge, LA), Main ed., sec. South LA & Business, 19 Mar. 2010, p.01B.
Richardson, James & Roy Heidelberg, “School District Restructuring and Reform: East Baton Rouge Parish.” Report commissioned by the Baton Rouge Area Foundation and Baton Rouge Area Chamber, August 2012.
Lussier, Charles. “Group decries plans to cut the size of the EBR School Board.” Advocate, The (Baton Rouge, LA), 17 July 2014. https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/article_b1eaf1bc-8f34-5c53-a659-8e5055dcc2da.html
Lussier, Charles. “EBR voters give makeover to School Board.” Advocate, The (Baton Rouge, LA.) sec. South Louisiana, 4 Oct 2010.
“C-P Council Mulls Board Remap Plan.” Advocate, Morning ed., 19 Oct 1971, p. 11. Quote: “Under the Plan of Government, councilmen run on a ward basis, and there are provisions for adding other councilmen to reflect population growth in the wards.”
“Remap Step: EBR School Board to Add Member.” State Times Advocate, One Star ed., 14 Oct. 1971, p. 74.