East Side Union High holds first public hearing on move to by‑district trustee elections

The East Side Union High School District Board of Trustees held a public hearing May 12 on transitioning from at‑large to by‑district trustee elections, with demographer Liz Stitt of Redistricting Partners explaining state and federal legal standards and the board outlining a series of public meetings and draft‑map dates.

Stitt told the board and public the California Voting Rights Act bars at‑large election systems where there is evidence of racially polarized voting and that the Fair Maps Act requires ranked districting criteria, including relatively equal population, contiguity and respect for communities of interest. "So my name is Liz Stitt. I'm a demographer, with Redistricting Partner," Stitt said, introducing the firm and the scope of the process.

The presentation emphasized that the transition affects who can run and who votes in each trustee race but does not change school attendance boundaries or district services. Stitt said school districts may use a 10 percent total deviation standard for population balance and that mapping will rely on U.S. Census population data processed through the statewide database; she also described the Gingles (federal Voting Rights Act) framework used to assess Section 2 claims.

The board opened a five‑meeting public schedule: this May 12 session is the first of five pre‑map and map hearings. Stitt and district staff said May 20 will focus on using the public mapping tool and on public engagement; draft maps will be posted June 12, with introduced maps discussed June 26, revised maps on July 15 and a final hearing to be scheduled later. The consultant said the district must retain process materials for 10 years and that public map submissions will be posted and reproduced by the consultant.

Public speakers raised concerns about outreach and timeline. Ashley Ward, a parent at San Antonio High School, asked the board to extend the outreach and meeting schedule: "I would personally like to see more meetings, more public hearings such as this one before we even get to the review of the maps," she said. Jack Hamner, president of East Side Teachers Association, asked how the process prevents incumbency influence; Stitt said incumbency cannot be used as a criterion while drawing maps, but sequencing (which seats appear on which election cycle) is handled post‑map and can lead to incumbents competing against one another.

Several speakers and trustees pressed the district to expand publicity beyond the district's email list and community partners. Trustee Lay asked whether local media and additional organizations were being engaged. District staff and the consultant said they had emailed parents and roughly 40 partner organizations and planned more outreach and possible workshops by request or as demand emerges.

Stitt explained how members of the public can submit maps and accompanying testimony; the consultant said submitted public maps will be reproduced verbatim and also assessed for compliance with the Fair Maps Act, and the district can ask the consultant to adjust a public map to ensure legal compliance while preserving community intent. The consultant also noted the state default timeline is 90 days and that the district had requested a 180‑day extension to allow additional outreach.

No formal board action or vote on maps occurred at the May 12 hearing; the meeting functioned as the statutory public‑input session and education piece in the redistricting schedule. The board indicated it will consider maps and sequencing at later public meetings when draft maps are available.