East Side Union High reviews draft trustee-area maps; demographer says citizen voting‑age population must guide lines

The East Side Union High School District on June 26 reviewed draft trustee-area maps created from public submissions as part of its conversion to districted trustee elections, and heard public comment urging attention to socioeconomic factors and school attendance zones.

Contracting demographer Paul Mitchell of Redistricting Partners presented three draft plans derived from public-submitted maps, explained the federal and state legal framework that governs the process, and told the board the maps must be drawn using citizen voting‑age population (CVAP) to measure voting strength.

Mitchell, who identified himself as “the owner of Redistricting Partners,” said the district’s process must satisfy both the California Voting Rights Act and the Fair Maps Act and described technical criteria the board must follow: population equality (he described a 10% maximum plan deviation standard), contiguity, preserving communities of interest, and compactness. “You have to look at the eligible voter population when you try to elevate the Latino community up to be a majority‑minority district,” Mitchell said, explaining why CVAP — not total population or voter registration — is the legally required metric.

Why this matters: the chosen lines will determine which voters select each trustee going forward and how protected‑class voting power is assessed under federal and state law. Board members, the demographer and dozens of public commenters repeatedly framed the discussion as balancing legal requirements (protected classes and CVAP) with local concerns (school attendance zones, neighborhoods and socioeconomic conditions).

Most important facts - Legal framework: Mitchell said the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) and the Fair Maps Act set the requirements and the district must use CVAP for race/ethnicity analysis. - Draft plans: Redistricting Partners produced draft Plans A, B and C from public submissions. Mitchell said all three meet the districting criteria he reviewed and that the public submissions generally fell into two families: attendance‑zone‑based maps and “equity” maps intended to create majority‑minority opportunity districts for Latino or Asian voters. - CVAP versus total population: Mitchell gave district‑level examples for the East Side Union area: the overall Asian share is roughly 46% of total population and 47% of CVAP; Latinos are about 35% of total population but drop to roughly 29% of CVAP. He said those differences mean a 50% Latino share by total population may not be 50% by CVAP and therefore might not create an effective Latino opportunity district. - Map metrics (examples cited by the demographer): Draft Plan A had a total plan deviation of about 6.3% and produced one district with roughly 50.5% Latino CVAP and three districts with Asian CVAP over 50% (Mitchell gave figures such as ~50.1%, 63.1% and ~50–51% for those Asian CVAP figures). Draft Plan B had a deviation around 3% with Latino CVAP about 53.4% in the central district and Asian CVAPs at about 51.5%, 64.6% and 53.8%. Draft Plan C carried a deviation Mitchell said was about 8.7% and showed a central district with about 52.5% Latino CVAP and three Asian‑majority CVAP districts (about 53.4%, ~60% and 54.4%). (Mitchell described these numbers as outputs of the public submissions and the draft maps derived from them.)

Public comment and board discussion Public commenters and trustees repeatedly asked the district to consider socioeconomic measures and attendance boundaries in addition to CVAP. Antonio Mendoza, speaking as a community member, said: “I would like to make sure that we consider as much as possible creating districts where we can see the students that I have supported throughout my career… have the opportunity to one day serve on this board.” Several speakers urged the board to prioritize outreach to underrepresented and low‑income communities and to overlay precinct and income data on the draft maps.

Former trustee Eddie Garcia asked the demographer for a precinct overlay, noting precincts and voter locations make it easier for community members to test proposed plans. The demographer agreed he could provide precinct overlays and additional socioeconomic maps for the board and public to review.

Next steps and schedule Mitchell told the board there are additional public hearings and workshops: a community workshop on June 30, a hearing on revised draft maps on July 15, and a later public hearing in the fall for final adoption (date to be decided). He said the district will not assign final numbering/election sequencing for districts until after lines are adopted; as a placeholder he described one option where districts 1, 3 and 5 would be on the 2026 ballot and 2 and 4 on the 2028 ballot, a convention used by some five‑member bodies.

What the board directed/committed The demographer agreed to post (and bring to the next hearing) supplemental analyses requested by the board and public: precinct overlays, income/socioeconomic maps and CVAP tables linked to each draft plan so the public can test and refine maps before the next hearing. Trustees and public speakers also urged expanded outreach to ethnic media and community groups ahead of the next hearings.

No formal vote or adoption occurred at this meeting. The session was a public review and discussion of draft maps and process requirements.