City Councilor Ruthzee Louijeune leads the redistricting debate.
Boston district boundaries remain confusing to many
In a process its Civil Rights Committee Chairwoman Ruthzee Louijeune called contentious, the Boston City Council has passed a second redistricting map with a 10-2 vote, sending the map to Mayor Michelle Wu’s desk for approval.
The latest map of redrawn council districts follows a May 8 federal ruling that the Council likely violated the Constitution by giving too much consideration to race in drawing district lines in the map the body passed last Oct. 26 by a 9-4 vote. The four white councilors who voted against that map joined a lawsuit filed against the Council and the city.
The redistricting process happens every 10 years, following the release of U.S. Census results. As populations in cities shift, political boundaries are redrawn to ensure each electoral district has roughly the same population. In Boston, increased construction in the South Boston-based District 2, represented by Ed Flynn, resulted in a surplus of more than 13,000 voters, while a relative lack of new construction in Dorchester-based District 3 represented by Frank Baker, led to a deficit of more than 6,500 voters there. To comply with state law, each district would need to average about 75,000 voters.
In
drawing the map approved last fall, councilors sought to unpack the
high concentration of voters of color in the Dorchester/ Matttapan-based
District 4 represented by Brian Worrell, increasing the percentage of
whites there from just under 8% to 12% by adding three precincts in the
predominantly-white Neponset and Lower Mills sections of Dorchester.
That move drew criticism from white councilors and contributed to the
judge’s injunction against the first map. In the map approved on May 24,
District 4 remains 8% white.
Prior
to the vote on the second map, Council President Ed Flynn assigned
redistricting to Louijeune, who heads the body’s Civil Rights Committee,
bypassing District 9 Councilor Liz Breadon, who heads the Redistricting
Committee.
Louijeune
kicked off hearings May 22 on the new map by working off a map she
submitted, but she quickly met with stiff headwinds from other
councilors of color, who objected to changes to district lines in
Mattapan, West Roxbury and the Back Bay.
District 5 controversy
While
Baker and Flynn expressed support for Louijeune’s redrawn lines, which
left South Boston intact in District 2, five councilors complained that
the map moved boundaries in the Hyde Park/Mattapan-based District 5,
represented by Ricardo Arroyo. Under Louijeune’s map, District 5 would
shed some majority-Black Mattapan precincts and pick up majority-white
precincts in the West Roxbury-Roslindale area.
“Why
are we leaning into District 5?” questioned at-large Councilor Julia
Mejia. “I’m so confused as to what is at play. If you could just
clearly, for the record, help me understand why we are messing with
District 5.”
Louijeune told Mejia the lines were redrawn to balance the population in districts.
“There’s
a population issue when you address a constitutional violation and so
you go back to the historical nature of where District 4 was,” she said.
“We all know that District 4 and District 5 is where the conversation
is and there’s Mattapan on both sides, so I hope that addresses…”
“No,
it doesn’t, I’m sorry,” Mejia said, cutting Louijeune off. “I need you
to unpack this a little further. If you want me to make an educated vote
and an educated decision, it’s your responsibility as chair to help me
understand the process.”
Mejia, along with Councilor Kendra Lara, voted against the map.
“The
border of District 4 and District 5 was not identified as an issue area
in the ruling from the judge,” Lara said during the Council hearing May
23. “We’ve heard testimony from both sides. So for me, if we’re going
to make changes at the border when it’s not necessary, when we’re
balanced by population, I want to make sure that the reasoning is being
made in alignment with the traditional principles of redistricting.”
Louijeune
said District 5 was the “natural choice” to expand District 4, but
councilors Arroyo, Mejia, Kendra Lara, Tania Fernandes Anderson and
Breadon questioned Louijeune’s motives in making changes to District 5
that they said would dilute voting the power of Black and Latino
residents there.
Additionally, community members testified against Louijeune’s changes to District 5.
MassVOTE
Executive Director Cheryl Clyburn Crawford noted that District 5 was
drawn to its current configuration in 2012 to create what’s commonly
referred to as an opportunity district.
“The
standard definition is a district that gives people of color an
opportunity to elect their candidate of choice,” she noted. “And we did
that 10 years ago with District 5. In a city that is majority people of
color, this should not still be an issue. Instead of destroying what was
created 10 years ago, regressing, we should be building upon it.
Instead, we find ourselves fighting to keep what we have.”
Contention and compromise
In
other changes, Ed Flynn’s South Boston-based District 2 lost three
South End precincts to District 3 but retains those in which the
Cathedral and Villa Victoria housing developments are located, and the
Roxbury-based District 7 picks up a Ward 4 precinct from the Back Bay.
Ward 17, Precinct 13 in the Lower Mills section of Dorchester remains in
District 3, which also picked up a Roxbury precinct formerly in
District 7 and two Dorchester precincts formerly in District 4.
Civil
rights advocates were sharply critical of the above changes, as well as
changes to District 5, which they said in a statement would dilute
voting power of communities of color. While whites constitute 44% of the
city’s population, they are the majority in five of the nine City
Council districts.
In District 7, the inclusion of the Back Bay precinct means whites now outnumber Latinos there.
“In
the view of civil rights and community groups — including the NAACP
Boston Branch, MassVOTE, the Massachusetts Voter Table, the Chinese
Progressive Association, La Colaborativa, and New England United for
Justice (the “Coalition”) — this rushed and flawed process sends an
alarming message to civil rights and voting rights communities,” the
groups’ statement reads in part.
Lara and Mejia also released a statement May 25.
“During
redistricting, we had an opportunity to empower historically
marginalized communities, but, instead of bolstering their power, we
deprioritized them and maintained the status quo,” the statement reads.
Louijeune said the Council ultimately put voters’ needs first.
“This
was, obviously, a very contentious process,” she said. “Whenever
legislators are drawing lines there’s a lot at stake for people
individually, and we always have to center what’s best for the voters.”
Louijeune suggested the process would work better with an independent commission drawing the district lines.
“This
was in the spirit of compromise,” she said. “We have a membership of
12. It is really difficult to get everyone and everything that everyone
wants into a map, especially when we have a judge’s order.”