|
-- 3-1-5 -- for a map that looks like us --
|
|
|
|
|
Why a Fair Map Must Reflect the "Butterfly" of Baltimore County
|
|
![]()
|
|
This heat map of Baltimore County clearly shows that the spread and concentration of racial and ethnic diversity is not limited to the west side or the so-called “Woodlawn” area.
|
|
|
When people see the “butterfly” pattern of Baltimore County’s racial and ethnic diversity, the need for fair representation becomes undeniable. The Redistricting Commission’s “Iteration 2” map—a 2-2-5 draft introduced by Commissioner Lisa Belcastro—includes a majority-BIPOC district on the east side of the County. (BIPOC = Black, Indigenous, and other People Of Color)
Even supporters of the earlier “Woodlawn Approach” have come to acknowledge a simple truth: any claim to fair representation must include a majority-BIPOC district on the east side: they have updated their proposed 2-0-7 map to the current "Woodlawn C" 2-1-6 version.
Both revised maps mark a positive step toward proportional representation, better reflecting the true demographic profile of Baltimore County today which, as the pie chart below shows, is 30% Black, 18% other minority, and 52% white.
|
|
|
A 3-1-5 Map Reflects the County We Are Today
A “3-1-5” map—comprising three majority-Black districts, one majority-BIPOC district, and five majority-white districts—best reflects the demographic reality of Baltimore County in 2025. For the first time in the county’s history, such a map could produce a council that truly represents its diversity. This configuration would provide a more equitable and meaningful voice to the 48% of County residents who belong to communities of color, aligning the outcome of the redistricting process with the county’s current population makeup.
We commend Commissioner Belcastro’s Iteration 2 map for significantly expanding the opportunity for full and fair representation of the County’s Black and other minority communities. The 2-2-5 draft map she proposed comes closest to achieving the proportional representation envisioned by the Voting Rights Act (VRA)—a foundational principle of American democracy.
|
|
|
Fair Maps advocates remain united in one clear call: that the new map meet the VRA’s most fundamental requirement—compliance through full and fair use of what the population numbers allow. The VRA is not a guideline; it is the law. Ignoring its intent dilutes the voices of underrepresented communities and denies all residents the benefit of broader, more inclusive leadership.
Other redistricting principles—compactness, contiguity, equal population, and respect for natural and community boundaries—are also important. But focusing solely on these technical criteria, as some testimony has done, risks overlooking two essential facts:
1. The new council districts will be smaller—each representing approximately 23% fewer residents than today.
2. The lines on the map may shift—but the identity and integrity of communities will remain.
|
|
![]()
|
|
(The graphic above, with its hand-drawn overlay (not to scale!) to the current Council map, is only meant to illustrate a key point: the community boundaries cannot remain the same. Each new district will contain about 22% fewer people.)
The new council districts will be smaller—each representing approximately 27,000 fewer residents than today. As a result, the new district lines cannot—and should not—simply replicate a map that has remained largely unchanged for nearly 70 years. That outdated map has consistently underrepresented the County’s minority populations while overrepresenting its white population. Redrawing the lines is not just a technical necessity—it’s an opportunity to correct a long-standing imbalance in representation.
************
Communities are not created by lines on a map. Councilmanic boundaries serve a political purpose: electing representatives. But they do not define the true character of communities. Communities are formed through shared identity, culture, experience, and daily life—not by the drawing of district borders.
|
|
|
From a VRA perspective, the Commission’s first draft map falls far short.
The Commission's first draft map (Commission Iteration 1), offered as a 2-1-6 map, designates the new "District 1" as “majority-BIPOC.” District 1/Iteration 1 is, in fact, comprised of 56% white eligible voters and therefore fails to meet any credible threshold for providing minority voters with a genuine opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. In effect, Iteration 1 is a 2-0-7 map: drawing 7 0f 9 districts to be majority-white gives the 52% white majority a disproportionate 78% of the districts. Adding to the concern about the Commission's first draft map - it entirely ignores the East Side’s rightful expectation of an opportunity district and equitable representation.
Baltimore County’s vibrant east side deserves the opportunity to elect a BIPOC Council member, and any final map must reflect that possibility. While district lines do not guarantee election outcomes, they create pathways for representative leadership — and that opportunity must extend beyond the west side.
Commissioner Belcastro's suggested version (Commission Iteration 2) does address this failure, as does the latest version of the "Woodlawn" map ("Woodlawn C"). Both created a new east side district.
Additionally, Iteration 2 more equitably distributes Black voting strength across districts than "Woodlawn C', while further enhancing its west side BIPOC opportunity district.
At the same time, Fair Maps advocates believe the Commission can — and should — go further. A 3-1-5 configuration (three majority-minority districts, one crossover/opportunity BIPOC district, and five majority-white districts) would more fully align with the County’s demographic reality.
Experts from ACLU of Maryland and the NAACP Baltimore County Branch have demonstrated that such a map is not only possible but constitutionally sound and community-responsive.
|
|
|
As the Commission finalizes its recommendation, it is vital to remember: district lines may change, but communities remain. Redistricting is not about preserving artificial lines—it’s about achieving fair and lawful representation for all Baltimore County residents.
|
|
![]()
|
|
Video recording of the May 12th Public Hearing.
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2025 Baltimore County Coalition for Fair maps, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.
Our mailing address is:
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
![Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp]( "Mailchimp Email Marketing")
|
|
|
|
|
cbcdc.org)