* We talked yesterday about the newly proposed elected Chicago school board district maps. Here’s more from Chalkbeat Chicago…

Under state law, Chicagoans will elect 10 school board members from 10 districts in November 2024. The mayor will appoint 10 members from those same districts, and will also appoint a school board president. A 21-member hybrid board will be sworn in January 2025.

Then in November 2026, the 10 appointed members and school board president will be up for election, while the 10 elected in 2024 will continue serving their four-year terms. Going forward, all members will serve four-year terms and elections will be staggered, with half of the seats up for election every two years.

However, the law does not spell out how the map will move from 10 to 20 districts. Lawmakers continue to draw a map with 20 districts and have not made clear how they plan to divide the city into 10 districts for the 2024 election.

Sen. Robert Martwick, a Democrat representing the North West side of Chicago and west suburbs, said that figuring out how to create 10 districts for the 2024 elections and 20 districts for the 2026 elections has been difficult for legislators.

“The original idea was that we would draw ten districts and then after the election we would split them into 20 districts,” Martwick said. “Another variation on that would be to draw 20 districts and combine them for the purposes of the first election. The idea there was that everyone in the city of Chicago would get to pass a vote on this new elected school board.” […]

Corrina Demma, an organizer with Educators for Excellence Chicago that supports the map Leonard’s group proposed, raised concerns that lawmakers could propose residents in only 10 of the 20 districts would vote in 2024, meaning “only half of Chicago will have the privilege to vote … while the other half will lack a voice.”

More from Ms. Demma in the Tribune…

“At the end of the day, my question is still who gets to decide which 10 get to vote and which 10 don’t?” Demma said. “When we talk about equity and access, we want to hold that process for everyone. To discount half the city right out of the gate, we’re already being inequitable.”

Ms. Demma is right. As I told subscribers months ago, it’s highly doubtful that state legislators can legally deny half of the city’s voters the right to vote for a school board member while granting that right to vote to the other half.

* But the law isn’t written that way…

(b-5) On January 15, 2025, the terms of all members of the Chicago Board of Education appointed under subsection (b) are abolished when the new board, consisting of 21 members, is appointed by the Mayor and elected by the electors of the school district as provided under subsections (b-10) and (b-15) and takes office.

(b-10) By December 16, 2024 for a term of office beginning on January 15, 2025, the Mayor shall appoint 10 Chicago Board of Education members, with the advice and consent of the City Council, to serve terms of 2 years. All appointed members shall serve until a successor is appointed or elected and qualified. … The terms of the 10 appointed members under this subsection shall end on January 14, 2027. […]

(b-15) Beginning with the 2024 general election, 10 members of the Chicago Board of Education shall be elected to serve a term of 4 years in office beginning on January 15, 2025. Beginning with the 2026 general election, 10 members of the Chicago Board of Education shall be elected to serve a term of 4 years in office beginning on January 15, 2027. … From January 15, 2025 to January 14, 2027, each district shall be represented by one elected member and one appointed member. After January 15, 2027, each district shall be represented by one elected member.

You can probably see the problem here. The statute clearly mandates twenty districts (plus one citywide), but then goes on to require that each district shall be represented by both an elected member and an appointed member. If there are twenty districts, then that would imply forty members, which isn’t allowed, so the wording doesn’t make sense.

* They could change the statute and start with ten districts with one appointed and one elected and then split those up into twenty districts with everyone elected two years later, but that could also create problems. If, for example, a White person wins a relatively evenly divided combined district and lives in the Latino half, that person could have a leg up to win the Latino half during the following election.

Not to mention that they haven’t yet even figured out how the twenty districts would be initially nested into ten districts. You’d think that would be the first proposal. Instead, legislators only proposed creating 20 districts. How are people going to start circulating petitions for that?

Again, it’s a real mess and it breaks my brain every time I think about it, but so far, we’ve heard no solutions to any of this. Just a 20-district map.

My own suggestion would be to entirely scrap the phase-in and just elect all twenty next year.