Rutgers Law Professor Argues Redistricting Decisions Should Be Overturned

At least one legal scholar supports the from nine Ardmore students claiming their civil rights were violated by Lower Merion School District redistricting decisions.

Professor Earl Maltz of Rutgers School of Law - Camden, filed an amicus curiae brief on Monday, Dec. 13, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District in support of the appellant's position.

Maltz, a Distinguished Professor, graduate of Harvard Law School and Lower Merion resident, wrote in his 16-page brief (attached) that the 2009 redistricting decisions of the local school district should be overturned, restoring the ability of some Ardmore neighborhoods to choose which of the township's two high schools to attend.

"The use of race in the districting process cannot be justified as a means to increase 'diversity' in the high schools," Maltz wrote. "The school district did not make any effort to determine whether the exclusion of the plaintiffs from Lower Merion was neccessary to achieve the benefits normally ascribed to diversity. Instead, the district court found as a matter of fact that the process was driven by a desire to create a 'racial parity'—in essence, that the goal was to achieve and maintain racial balance."

In contract to Maltz's comments, school district officials have contended that race was not a motivating factor in the redistricting decisions. District Judge Michael Baylson ruled in June that the school district did not break any laws because their use of race served a compelling governmental interest, a decision that Maltz protests.

Matlz wrote that the compelling interests cited by Judge Baylson included equalizing school populations and minimizing transportation costs, among others, none of which, in Maltz's view, have to do with race.

"The major difficulty with the district court's reasoning is that none of these goals cited by the court is in any way related to the consideration of race," Maltz wrote. "The consideration of race does nothing to equalize the population at the two high school; to minimize travel, time, and transportation costs; to foster educational continuity; or to foster walkability. ... In short, the pursuit of these goals cannot justify the use of race in this case."

Amicus briefs are filed by someone who is not a party in the suit as an opinion on the case. Maltz writes that he was not prompted to file the appeal by any of the parties involved, and that no money was contributed by either party for the preparation or submission of the brief.

The brief has been filed for the consideration of the court, which may or may not consider the brief in the outcome of their decision.

The school district will file a response in a separate brief to the Court of Appeals as the next step in the legal proceedings.