Another big case in court this week.
A lawsuit against Spring Branch ISD got its day in court Monday, after three years floating in the legal ether waiting for rulings from similar cases to play out.
The suit, filed by parent and former two-time school board candidate Virginia Elizondo, alleged that the 33,000-student district is violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with its all at-large system of electing trustees.
Elizondo’s attorney, Barry Abrams, argued that the at-large elections, meaning a voter in the district can vote for all seven trustee positions instead of one trustee who represents their neighborhood, systemically dilute the will of a large group of Spring Branch’s Hispanic residents, most of whom live north of Interstate 10, which acts as a “dividing line” in the district.
Superintendent Jennifer Blaine was seated at the defense table Monday, represented by attorneys Charles Crawford and Lucas Henry. Crawford argued that there were holes in Abrams’ argument, namely that while many of the facts he cited may have been accurate, they were not a result of the at-large trustee system.
Former Spring Branch ISD Superintendent Duncan Klussmann, whose critical editorial in the Houston Chronicle almost got his name removed from a district building earlier this year, testified Monday opposing the district. Looking back on his 19 years there, he said Spring Branch ISD should have eliminated the all at-large system.
“My view has always been that a hybrid system would work best,” Klussmann said on the stand. “Unless you do a single member district, you’re not going to get that level of representation because there are such differences across the district.”
[…]
“Inequality” was the word of the day Monday. Inequality between north and south. Inequality of resources. Inequality of Parent Teacher Association fundraising, of bond fund dispersal, of auditorium construction, of lived experiences at home, access to college and graduation.
The plaintiff painted a picture of the district that on some level can’t be argued. The district looks different on the north side than it does on the south.
But the defense argued that the issues this presents in the school district would not necessarily be solved by changing the election system. As it stands, district leadership does not believe that they have to use a single-member district system if voter suppression is not occurring, and they do not believe that it is.
The plaintiff, however, feels differently. Abrams pointed to the district’s recent budget cuts as an example of why not having a Hispanic-voter preferred candidate on the board could disproportionately affect the Hispanic community. There is currently a Hispanic trustee on the board, John Perez, but he was preferred by white and not Hispanic voters during his election, according to the plaintiff’s analysis.
Abrams said that the district’s decision to close two campuses on the north side and end the SKY program, an in-district charter school partnership also affecting north side campuses that had gotten increasingly costly to maintain, showed a lack of concern for the Hispanic residents there. Abrams also presented evidence detailing that in the more affluent areas north of I-10, where concentrations of white residents live, many students were zoned to schools south of I-10 instead of those above the freeway.
The defense countered that more spending had occurred in recent years per-student at economically disadvantaged campuses than others in the district, and that the economically disadvantaged campuses have been improving, even if they still fall below the performance standard set by other campuses.
There’s more, so read the rest. As of the last update, the lawsuit was on hold pending a couple of conflicting appellate court decisions about the Voting Rights Act. This story doesn’t mention that, and I didn’t find any other coverage of the trial as yet, so I don’t know what the outcomes were.
One thing this story makes clear is that the judge thinks the plaintiffs have a strong case and has been pushing Spring Branch ISD to seek a settlement. They have refused to do so, and so we’ll see how that works for them. It must be noted that even if they get demolished in this ruling, the Fifth Circuit and SCOTUS are lurking out there, and we know how much they love the VRA. This trial is expected to wrap up no later than Friday. I’ll keep an eye on it. Also, the plaintiffs’ attorneys are involved in several others lawsuits over At Large-only representation, so what happens here will likely affect those as well. Lots at stake here.
Pingback: Spring Branch ISD single member district lawsuit trial concludes | Off the Kuff