Under the new system, the district will be divided into five geographic areas, with one board member elected in each area. Approving the new boundaries was scheduled ahead of the Nov. 3 election when Board President Linda Chavez and Vice President Andres Quintero are up for reelection and a new trustee will be selected to replace Trustee Minh Pham, who has decided to not run for reelection.<\/p>\n
The Fair Maps Act requires population equity, geographic contiguity and minimized divisions of neighborhoods or communities sharing social or economic interests. District officials said Map 111 kept the Mayfair neighborhood intact and didn\u2019t divide San Jose City Council districts except in District 5.<\/p>\n Redistricting came as a result of legal challenges under the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, which increased community representation and influence in elections.<\/p>\n In April and May, the school district held public hearings to allow residents to engage in the map selection process. Community members created Map 104, which they said best maintained geographically contiguous districts and communities. In a May 20 letter to the board, residents expressed their concern with changes Quintero made to Map 104, which were incorporated into Map 111.<\/p>\n At the county board meeting, resident Chrystine Villarreal objected to Quintero enlarging the section he represented. She submitted a petition with 390 signatures from community members in opposition to Map 111. The petition stated that changing a map with broad community support risks creating the appearance of political considerations influencing the process.<\/p>\n Maria Martinez, vice president of the Alum Rock Educators Association, echoed her complaints.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was brought forward at the very last minute by a trustee who has an invested interest in possibly running again for school board, once they found out that they were in the same area as a currently elected trustee,\u201d Martinez said at the meeting. \u201cIt is a big concern for the community. It is a big concern ethically as well.\u201d<\/p>\n Quintero rejected allegations the redistricting process was conducted to benefit his reelection prospects. He said individuals critical of the district\u2019s actions have previously made\u00a0unsubstantiated allegations against him<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe process was led by the National Demographics Corporation (NDC), a nationally recognized and independent redistricting firm,\u201d he told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cNDC and legal counsel were responsible for ensuring that Alum Rock School District complied with all applicable legal requirements and redistricting criteria. The county committee reviewed the proposed maps, the demographic data and the procedures followed by the district before ultimately approving the final map.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Community members raised concerns because the additions to Map 111 \u2014 introduced by Quintero \u2014 affected his own district, Villarreal said.<\/p>\n \u201cIt fell short of the transparency and ethical leadership,\u201d she told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight.<\/p>\n Herrera-Loera said she appreciated the demographer took into account maps submitted by the community, making them feel valued and seen. But the new boundaries in Map 111, which she told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight Quintero directed the demographer to create, don\u2019t make sense for the school district.<\/p>\n Pham said both Map 104 and 111 had merit, but 111 took the best of 104, ensuring Alum Rock maintains its connection to City Council District 8 and has a more equal distribution of the population.<\/p>\n \u201cMy interest in the redistricting process is to keep communities of interest intact, (and) protect the district\u2019s relationship with the city councilmember in both Districts 5 and 8, and ensure the smallest possible population deviance,\u201d he told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight.\u00a0<\/p>\n Contact Lorraine Gabbert at\u00a0lorrainegabbertsjspotlight@gmail.com.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1781002797_462_LNM-20250616-SJSPOTLIGHTLOGO-01.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n