Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Racial Covenants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University researchers find 356 historic racial covenants in Sherburne County; data to be posted online
Summary
Mapping Prejudice researchers reported finding 356 Sherburne County properties with racial covenants—many clustered around lakes and disproportionately dated after 1948—and said maps and supporting student research will be published for public use; homeowners can record an affidavit disavowing covenants if they choose.
University of Minnesota Libraries researchers and local partners presented findings from the Mapping Prejudice project to the Sherburne County Board on Nov. 12, 2025, reporting 356 properties in the county that at one time carried racial covenants.
Michael Kory, who presented for the Mapping Prejudice team, said most covenants use language restricting conveyance to the "Caucasian race" and that the county distribution shows a concentration around lakes and certain subdivisions. He noted that more than 90% of the covenants identified in Sherburne County post‑date the 1948 Supreme Court decision that made racial covenants unenforceable by courts, which the researchers interpret as an attempt to send exclusionary social messages even after legal enforceability ended.
Recorder Ash and project staff explained that county records are permanent and cannot be destroyed, but homeowners who live on affected parcels can file a prescribed affidavit in the recorder’s office disavowing the racial restriction; recording that affidavit is free. Staff said the Mapping Prejudice maps and datasets will be posted online and students at local colleges will do further contextual research (developers, advertising, and local histories) and publish narrative materials on a public website.
Kory said the findings in Sherburne County are notable for their late dates relative to many urban studies and for their association with lakefront development patterns; he recommended community engagement about interpretation and next steps. Commissioners asked for copies of the slides and a blank affidavit form; staff agreed to publish both and to provide maps for local interpretation committees and parks staff.
Ending: Staff described next steps—posting the interactive maps, circulating a blank disavowal affidavit for homeowners, and encouraging student research to provide development‑history context for the public record.
