Lower Merion wins redistricting fight

Lower Merion School District did not break the law when it imposed a redistricting plan taking away the right of nine South Ardmore students to choose a high school, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael M. Baylson issued a 31-page decision just after 2 p.m. from the federal courthouse in Center City. It was sent to reporters via e-mail.

Baylson's opinion said the school district took into account other factors as well as race when it crafted a controversial redistricting plan for its two high schools.

"The Court concludes that the District has satisfied its burden of showing that Plan 3 R was narrowly tailored to meet numerous race-neutral compelling interests.." Baylson wrote.

"The District's mere consideration of the racial demographics of Plaintiffs' neighborhood does not warrant an opposite conclusion" under existing case law.

Though even Baylson himself had predicted an appeal was inevitable in the closely-watched case, the ruling represented a win for the defendants.

During a nine-day trial in April, the students argued that their right to equal treatment under the law was compromised by the district's 2009 decision to assign them to Harriton, the smaller of the district's two new high schools.

Harriton is five miles away from their homes, and the students would be forced to take a schoolbus there. The pupils preferred to walk to Lower Merion, which they consider their neighborhood high school.

The pupils, who remained anonymous in court documents due to their age, complained in federal court in May 2009 that their right to equal treatment under the U.S. Constitution had been violated by the redistricting plan.

All schools which accept federal dollars are bound by federal law.

In numerous e-mails and other evidence introduced during a week-long trial in April, the pupils' attorney, David G.C. Arnold, showed that race was a motivating factor in the district's selection of the pupils' predominantly African American neighborhood for redistricting.

The district had argued that geography and other factors, along with race, were used to craft the redistricting plan that was passed Jan. 12, 2009 and implemented in September.

Its attorney, Judith E. Harris, said in closing arguments June 9 that the district had not singled out any individual children for redistricting, which is illegal, and that even when race was discussed, it was to make sure that minority children weren't isolated from children like themselves in high-school classrooms.