Thirteen Ways of Looking at Redistricting
A fractured narrative about the 2022 Redistricting Process of the EBR School Board
I
On Thursday, March 3rd, the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board voted to amend the redistricting timeline. Originally, the board was scheduled to adopt the final map on March 17th. That date was changed to March 30th. I suggest you write that date in pencil for now.
II
At the March 3rd meeting, the board voted to amend the timeline first. Then the board considered which maps to recommend.
Those of us who’d followed the process closely—attending the Public Forums and Board Workshops—had been led to believe that only a few maps at most would be recommended. We were reasonably concerned that only plans with nine single-member districts—or fewer—would be recommended. At the outset of this redistricting process all the board members appeared wary of any increase in the number of districts. Some were categorically opposed. Board member Mike Gaudet personally told me he favored a reduction in the board size, not an increase. Board member David Tatman declared unequivocally he would not support a 15-member plan. During one of the Board Workshops, board member Connie Bernard inquired about at-large seats. Those of us who supported an increase struggled to find a board member to agree to recommend the 11-member and 15-member plans. We learned that Board members Dawn Collins and Evelyn Ware-Jackson fully committed to do so only after so many emailed in support of 11-member plans and the Finney 15-member plan. Both Collins and Ware-Jackson testified during the March 3rd meeting to that effect. (Thank you yet again to those who emailed!)
Board member Mark Bellue did not attend one public forum. From my recollection, he asked no questions during the Board Redistricting Workshops. At the special meeting on March 3rd, he asked no questions about any of the nineteen plans submitted. As soon as the item on the agenda was opened for consideration and before there was any discussion, he made the motion that the board move all nineteen maps forward. Connie Bernard seconded the motion. There was some discussion at that point but only about the merits of forwarding all nineteen maps. Not one of the plans was discussed in detail. The board voted unanimously to recommend all nineteen maps. That move prohibited thoughtful discussion of the various plans by the board. If a member of the public were following the proceedings in an effort to determine the merits of the maps, she would learn nothing about the maps or where most of the board members stood. Since the 11-member and 15-member plans were among the 19 plans moving forward, it would have been perilous for Collins or Ware-Jackson to object.
III
Initially I was irritated by the motion to forward all 19 maps. It was clearly intended to confuse the public and to allow business-backed school board members to avoid sharing their support for specific maps and their reasoning for that support. It’s impossible to refute their arguments in favor of a 9-member map if they don’t have to publicly share those arguments, right?
But the recommendation of all 19 maps was in fact a win. The plans we fought for—both the Ware-Collins 11 member and the Finney 11 as well as the Finney 15—all moved forward. The 12-member, too. (Remember the 12-member!) They all moved forward.
In the days following the meeting I began to think of a quote which I only vaguely remembered from a story I’d read. It took me a while to even remember the title of the story and the author’s name. I had to ferret it out: “The Tumblers” by Nathan Englander. I couldn’t remember the quote exactly, just the sense of it. It stayed with me until finally I tracked a copy of the story down. I found the quote. It was a bit different than I remembered. Pared to the bone it reads: “[O]nly God can turn a selfish act into a miracle.”
I know that to many people “miracle” might seem a bit hyperbolic in this situation. So be it.
IV
The 19 maps recommended by the school board at the special meeting on March 3rd were published in the Advocate on Wednesday, March 9th.
They appear on pages 13D-21D.
Most have titles like “E. Baton Rouge Parish School Board Plan 6” or “E. Baton Rouge Parish School Board Public Plan X-1.” The titles of the maps submitted by Dr. James Finney at least mention the number of districts: Ware-Collins, Plan 1, 11 Members; Finney 11-Member Draft; Finney 12-Member Draft; Finney 13-Member Draft; Finney 14-Member Draft; Finney 15-Member Draft.
Each map is accompanied with demographic data organized beneath headings such as “% NH_DOJ_Blk” or “% RV White.”
There is no other information.
No explanation for why the maps were published.
No legend to decipher the acronyms used in the tables.
No mention of the scheduled vote.
V
Consider the following statute, RS 17:58.2:
§58.2. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board; reapportionment; election districts; terms
C. Prior to final adoption of the apportionment plan required above or any future alteration, change or rearrangement of school board election districts, the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board shall order a public hearing on the proposed plan, alteration, change or rearrangement and shall cause to be published in a newspaper published within the parish at least twenty (20) days prior to the date of such hearing, the time and place thereof, a general summary and map of the proposed plan and the times and places where copies of the proposed plan are available for public inspection.
Notice the disparity between that which is required by statute and that which was published in the Advocate:
the time and place of the public hearing was not published;
the general summary was not published;
“the times and places where copies of the proposed plan [emphasis added]” would be available for public inspection was not published;
Notice the use of the singular: the proposed plan not the proposed plans.
One plan not [nineteen] plans.
I’m not a lawyer, but the language of the statute indicates public review and comment must occur after the board recommends a single map.
One map. The one map approved by a majority vote of the board. The one map which will affect the governance of the board for the next fourteen years. Once the board proposes the one map but before they officially adopt it, the public should have at least twenty days to inspect the proposed map and an opportunity to testify at a public hearing.
March 30th? That is the day that should begin not end this public inspection period.
VI
On Saturday, March 4th Dawn Collins hosted a panel, The Redistricting of EBR School Board 2022, Part 2. (You can find it online on her Facebook page, Dawn Chanet Collins, MPA or at the Restore the EBR School Board Facebook page.) I was honored to be included among the panelists: Dr. Press Robinson, first African American elected to the EBR School Board in 1980; Kaitlyn Joshua, South Louisiana Organizer with Power Coalition for Equity and Justice; EBR School Board member Evelyn Ware-Jackson; and Eugene Collins, President of the local chapter of the NAACP.
During this panel Dr. Robinson shared an interesting detail. He was one of the three plaintiffs who sued the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board in the mid-1970’s, arguing the at-large system by which school board members were elected at the time diluted the voting strength of African-Americans prohibiting them from electing their candidate of choice. The EBR School Board settled, and twelve single-member districts were stipulated as part of the consent decree. Dr. Robinson noted that it was his understanding that the original consent decree was still in place. As one of the original plaintiffs, it would seem that he should have been consulted before any changes were made to the number of single-member districts. He was never consulted.
Does this mean the school board was legally prohibited from reducing the board from twelve to eleven single-member districts in 2010? Does this mean a 12-member plan could be the one with the strongest legal justification?
We’d given up on a 12-member plan. But the Finney 12-member plan is still an option. Thanks to Mark Bellue and his motion to forward all 19 plans—his selfish act—a 12-member plan moved forward.
VII
Since the 19 maps were moved forward, another statute came to my attention: RS 17:57.
§57. Representation of municipalities on parish boards
Whenever a parish contains a municipality, the population of which is more than one-half of that of the entire parish, the municipality shall have representation on the parish school board proportionate to its population.
This statute appears to be designed to essentially protect the voting strength of citizens within some municipalities. Such a stipulation would correspond with the practice followed under the original at-large ward system.
Remember, before the adoption of the single-member district plan, the school board members were elected on an at-large basis by ward. There were (and still are) three wards in East Baton Rouge Parish. Ward 1 follows Baton Rouge city limits. The area outside city limits is divided between Wards 2 & 3.
When school board members were elected on an at-large basis, the number of school board members elected from each ward was determined by the size of the population within each ward.
Seven of the twelve school board members were elected from Ward 1, the City of Baton Rouge; three members from Ward 2; two members from Ward 3.
Such an apportionment would ensure densely populated municipalities would be accorded the appropriate representation on parish boards.
Consider the Census data from 2010:
The population of the City of Baton Rouge was clearly more than half of the entire East Baton Rouge Parish in 2010. I’m not an attorney, but it appears to me this statute would require the boundaries of at least half of the districts of every school board map created since at least 2010 to be contained within the city limits of Baton Rouge.
For the map adopted in 2012, six of the districts should have resided entirely within Baton Rouge city limits.
For the map adopted in 2014—the one currently in place, five of the districts should have resided entirely within Baton Rouge city limits.
Neither of the maps created in the past ten years appear to have abided by this statute.
Consider the Census data from 2020:
The population of the City of Baton Rouge is not quite half of the entire parish. Of course, one might argue that the statute was based on the premise that the public school system would be parish-wide, and its boundaries would be the same as that of the parish.
The East Baton Rouge Parish School System was once parish-wide, but not since Zachary, Baker, and Central school systems were allowed to break away. Consequently, the population of the East Baton Rouge Parish School System is not equal to that of the entire parish. If the spirit of the law is to be followed, then for East Baton Rouge Parish this calculation would have to be adjusted. Rather than ask if the population of the municipality is more than one half of the parish population, ask whether the population of the municipality is at least one half of the school system population.
According to the 2020 Census data, the population within the school system’s boundaries is 387,014. The City of Baton Rouge is still entirely within these boundaries. Its population is 227,470. That is far more than half of the population within the boundaries of EBRPSS. This strongly suggests that more than half of the school board districts should be drawn so their boundaries lie completely within Baton Rouge City limits.
I have been told there may be some “case law” which contradicts this statute. Like I said, I’m not an attorney. Maybe there’s something in case law. Maybe there isn’t. It’s worth finding out.
VIII
By the way, several of the 19 maps recommended by the board and published in the Advocate fail to meet the constitutional requirement in regards to the standard population deviation. In order to satisfy the one person-one vote rule, each district in a map must have approximately the same population size. The population must be within 5% of the ideal, no more than 10% deviation. The districts of several of the 19 maps fall outside of this deviation.
How did this happen? Maybe because few people knew of Mark Bellue’s plan to introduce a motion to forward all 19 maps. I was told even the demographer, Mike Hefner, learned of Bellue’s plan only an hour or two before the March 3rd meeting. There was no time—and before Bellue’s departure from standard protocol, no compelling reason— to come prepared to argue against maps. The meeting invited board members and members of the public to come prepared to argue in favor of selected maps. (And how would a member of the public argue against several maps in less than three minutes—the amount of time allocated to members of the public to speak?)
Take heart. There are good maps among the 19 that abide by this constitutional requirement, including all of the Finney maps—11- , 12- , 13-, 14-, and 15-Member Plans—as well as the Ware-Collins 11-member Plan.
IX
Speaking of the Finney maps and the Ware-Collins 11-member plan, all six are currently on display in the vestibule at the Main Library on Goodwood Ave. At the moment, just the maps hang in the windows like curious works of art.
There is no other information.
No explanation for why the maps are being shown.
No legend to decipher the acronyms used in the tables.
No mention of the scheduled vote.
There is a plan to remedy this in the days ahead.
X
The day after the publication of the maps in the Advocate, an article by Charles Lussier appeared in the paper. “School Board schedules viewing for new maps.” It includes the information required by statute and a QR code. “View the map proposals by scanning here,” it reads.
The article also contains all the information that should have accompanied the publication of the maps. But it does not appear the School Board ran an announcement of their own with that information in the paper. There is a difference. Lussier’s article does not satisfy the statute.
XI
The updated redistricting information now appears on the EBR Schools website. You can follow this link to see for yourself: https://ebrschools.org/redistrict/
Here’s some important information:
The Updated Timeline:
Saturday, March 26th, 9am: Public Forum at the Professional Development Center (3000 N Sherwood Forest Dr, Baton Rouge, LA 70814).
Wednesday, March 30th, 5pm: EBR School Board Special Meeting—Approval/Adoption of the Plan
The Public Viewings Required by Statute:
Six public viewings of all 19 maps will be held at the School Board office (1050 S. Foster Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70806):
Monday, March 14, 2022 9:00a-4:00p
Wednesday, March 16, 2022 9:00a-4:00p
Friday, March 18, 2022 9:00a-4:00p
Wednesday, March 23, 2022 9:00a-4:00p
Thursday, March 24, 2022 9:00a-4:00p
Monday, March 28, 2022 9:00a-4:00p
The webpage also contains links to view the maps, videos of previous public forums, a portal for public comments, background information on the redistricting process. Here’s that web address again: https://ebrschools.org/redistrict/
XII
Meanwhile news coverage of education issues remains focused on recent outrageous proposals. Maybe you’ve heard about a few. Mandatory dual enrollment? Mega-Magnet? The surreptitious introduction of a common enrollment system?
I started to expound on each, but changed my mind. It’s not that I don’t recognize the troubling implications of these proposals. If implemented, they will cause our public schools—and more significantly, the students—irreparable harm, so I do not want to diminish the threat they pose. They are serious problems. They are also serious distractions from the first step to a real solution: the adoption of a fair map.
I’ve been quoting Audre Lorde frequently these days, and I’m going to repeat that quote again:
This is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master's concerns.
The tidal wave of proposals for bad policies can be wearisome and disheartening. That’s part of its purpose. Please recognize that this tidal wave is actually a testament to the importance of the work we are doing—the oppressors’ desperate attempt to distract us from implementing a governance structure that will at least make it difficult for them to control our school board.
I think the tidal wave also suggests that those with the wealth and power in this state who have maintained their wealth and power by manipulating the structure of our governing bodies realize they are in trouble. They know that the only path forward for them is privatization—an undemocratic system that essentially resembles the separate and unequal system that existed during Jim Crow. They would prefer to transition to this governance structure slowly over time so they can maintain an air of respectability.
We cannot allow that to happen.
XIII
To recap:
The 19 proposed plans were published in the Advocate without the information required by statute RS 17:58.2, and it appears the school board does not intend to correct its mistake.
The language of RS 17:58.2 also indicates the public inspection period and public hearing should follow the board’s proposal of a singular plan. One plan. Not nineteen.
It’s possible that the reduction of the board from 12 to 11 members in 2010 was in violation of the consent decree that has been in place since 1980. If so, there is a case to be made that the school board should be required to automatically return to a 12-member plan.
If revised statute 17:57 still applies, the current map violates the stipulation governing the number of single-member districts that should be contained within Baton Rouge city limits. This is yet another reason to conclude there is no acceptable 9-member plan.
Several of the 19 maps recommended by the board fail to meet the constitutional requirements for fair maps.
Proposed maps created by Dr. James Finney are on display in the vestibule at the Main Library.
These maps will also be on display along with the other proposed maps at the School Board office for six public viewings.
On Saturday, March 26th at 9am, there will be a Public Forum held at the Professional Development Center at 3000 N Sherwood Forest Dr., Baton Rouge, LA 70814. (This is not an official meeting of the Board.)
On Thursday, March 30th at 5pm, the school board is currently scheduled to consider all 19 maps and to vote to approve one map at a special meeting which will be held at the School Board office at 1050 S. Foster Drive. Revised statute 17:58.2 suggests this should be the beginning not the end of this process.
Members of the public are limited to three minutes of public testimony.
How many 3-minute increments will it take to register all that is wrong with this process and to advocate for a truly fair map?
The number of 3-minute increments required is the number of people needed at the March 30th meeting prepared to testify.
Remember the words of Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”