Black Louisianans represent 31.2% of all registered votersSOS 5/1/2026 -- 925,657 people. Under the enacted Act 2 (SB 121) map with parish assignments corrected per enrolled Act 2 geography, SOS data shows 749,661 of those registered voters distributed across five districts outside District 2. District 2 contains 175,996 registered Black voters (51.4% Black registration share). These figures are based on SOS registration data that has not been officially reconciled to Act 2 geographic boundaries. They are provisional and must not be treated as certified Act 2 district totals.
Act 2 (SB 121, Morris) Enrolled Boundary Shapefile — SB_121_Enrolled.shp · Louisiana SOS Active Voter File · 5/1/2026 · District aggregates reflect parish assignments under Act 2. SOS registration data not yet officially reported by Act 2 district geography; figures are provisional.
The REI shown here is computed from Census 2020 PL 94-171 Black Voting Age Population (VAP): District Black VAP % minus the statewide Black VAP baseline of 31.24%. Positive = packed (concentrated above proportional share; votes above the majority threshold are structurally wasted). Negative = cracked (dispersed below a decisive share). Zero would be proportional. Under Act 2 (2026), District 2 is the only majority Black VAP district (58.24%). VAP is the legally authoritative apportionment measure; the statewide Black registration share (31.2%, SOS) is reported separately and is provisional. The two baselines are never mixed.
Black voters represent 64.1% of the Democratic party baseSOS 5/1/2026 statewide per SOS registration data. Under the enacted Act 2 (SB 121) map, SOS data as coded shows approximately 81% of Black registered voters (749,661 of 925,657) assigned to districts outside District 2 per enrolled Act 2 geography. SOS registration data has not been officially reconciled to Act 2 geographic boundaries; district-level registration figures are provisional. This analysis uses registration data only, not Census PL 94-171 VAP. These two datasets are conceptually distinct and are not compared in this dashboard.
Black Voter Registration by District
Black % vs. 31.2% State Baseline
Party Registration — All 6 Districts
Total Registered Voters by District
Racial Composition of Each District — Stacked
Sort by Black % to identify parishes where cracking most acutely disperses Black voting blocs. Sort by District to see which communities of interest were fragmented. Cross-reference with the Data Integrity tab for parishes where the bill's stated VAP cannot be reconciled with active voter registration — these are your 14th Amendment exhibits. Each data point sourced directly from Louisiana SOS active voter file, 5/1/2026.
| Parish ↕ | District ↕ | Total Reg. ↕ | Black Reg. ↕ | Black % ↕ | Dem % ↕ | Rep % ↕ | REI Effect ↕ |
|---|
An earlier version of this tab flagged registration rates of 136–172% as anomalous. Those figures were artifacts of a reversed column read of the SB 121 Reengrossed legislative table (Page 12). The bill's column order is Total Population | VAP Total | Reg Total. When read correctly: Terrebonne 57.9% registration rate; Jefferson 68.2% — both normal. The anomaly analysis was retracted June 1, 2026. Correction identified by Elijah Appelson, ACLU-LA Data Science. This tab now presents verified data from the certified spatial join.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 P.L. 94-171 VTD data joined to SB_121_Enrolled.shp via centroid-in-polygon spatial join (EPSG:3452). 3,536 of 3,539 VTDs matched. Ideal population per district: 776,292. Total deviation range: 0.9123% — within constitutional tolerance under Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983).
| District | Total Population | Black Pop | Black % | VAP Total | Black VAP | Black VAP % | REI (vs 31.24%) | Pop Deviation | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D2 PACKED | 774,808 | 468,667 | 60.49% | 597,961 | 348,165 | 58.24% | +27.00pp | −0.191% | Only majority-Black district |
| D5 | 777,337 | 275,672 | 35.46% | 598,076 | 198,818 | 33.25% | +2.01pp | +0.135% | Marginal — no electoral control |
| D4 | 778,983 | 249,165 | 31.99% | 592,430 | 179,224 | 30.25% | −0.99pp | +0.347% | Cracked |
| D6 | 778,843 | 204,160 | 26.21% | 597,718 | 146,541 | 24.58% | −6.66pp | +0.329% | Cracked |
| D3 | 771,901 | 230,761 | 29.90% | 583,760 | 162,093 | 27.79% | −3.45pp | −0.566% | Cracked |
| D1 MOST CRACKED | 775,036 | 114,077 | 14.72% | 599,958 | 80,465 | 13.36% | −17.88pp | −0.162% | Extreme cracking |
REI = District Black VAP % minus statewide Black VAP % (31.24%, Census 2020). Positive = packed above proportional share. Negative = cracked below proportional share.
Census 2020 VAP (all residents 18+) and SOS voter registration (enrolled voters only) measure different populations. They cannot be directly compared as percentages of each other. Both are reported here for completeness. VAP is the legally mandated apportionment baseline. Registration reflects electoral participation, not population. A 6-year gap exists between the 2020 Census and the 2026 SOS file.
| District | Black VAP % (Census 2020) | Black Reg % (SOS May 2026 — Provisional) | Statewide Black VAP % | Statewide Black Reg % | VAP Source | Reg Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 13.36% | 20.4% | 31.24% | 31.2% | Census 2020 PL 94-171 (certified) | SOS May 1, 2026 (provisional) |
| D2 | 58.24% | 51.4% | ||||
| D3 | 27.79% | 25.0% | ||||
| D4 | 30.25% | 33.0% | ||||
| D5 | 33.25% | 31.9% | ||||
| D6 | 24.58% | 34.8% |
Provisional = SOS May 2026 parish-level aggregates assigned whole-parish to Act 2 districts. Not officially reconciled to Act 2 precinct boundaries by the Louisiana SOS.
Congressional districts must achieve population equality as nearly as practicable. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983). The following deviations are from the certified spatial join of Census 2020 PL 94-171 data against the enrolled Act 2 geometry.
| District | Population (Census 2020) | Ideal (776,292) | Deviation (persons) | Deviation % | Constitutional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 775,036 | 776,292 | −1,256 | −0.162% | ✓ |
| D2 | 774,808 | 776,292 | −1,484 | −0.191% | ✓ |
| D3 | 771,901 | 776,292 | −4,391 | −0.566% | ✓ |
| D4 | 778,983 | 776,292 | +2,691 | +0.347% | ✓ |
| D5 | 777,337 | 776,292 | +1,045 | +0.135% | ✓ |
| D6 | 778,843 | 776,292 | +2,551 | +0.329% | ✓ |
| Total Range (max − min) / ideal | 7,082 persons | 0.9123% | ✓ Constitutional | ||
The population deviation range of 0.9123% is well within the constitutional threshold. Congressional map challenges based solely on population equality are not viable under this map. Karcher v. Daggett requires that deviations be justified by legitimate state objectives; at 0.9123%, the burden on challengers is high. The more viable legal theories are racial gerrymandering under Shaw v. Reno and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. See the Legal Framework tab.
An earlier version relied on a misread of the SB 121 legislative registration table and was retracted June 1, 2026. This analysis is rebuilt on the correct basis for a one-person-one-vote claim: Census 2020 PL 94-171 population joined to enrolled Act 2 geometry via certified centroid-in-polygon spatial join. It does not depend on registration data.
| District | Population (Census 2020) | Ideal (776,292) | Deviation | Deviation % | Constitutional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 775,036 | 776,292 | −1,256 | −0.162% | ✓ |
| D2 | 774,808 | 776,292 | −1,484 | −0.191% | ✓ |
| D3 | 771,901 | 776,292 | −4,391 | −0.566% | ✓ |
| D4 | 778,983 | 776,292 | +2,691 | +0.347% | ✓ |
| D5 | 777,337 | 776,292 | +1,045 | +0.135% | ✓ |
| D6 | 778,843 | 776,292 | +2,551 | +0.329% | ✓ |
| Total range (max − min) / ideal | 7,082 | 0.9123% | ✓ | ||
Ideal = 4,657,757 / 6 (full Census 2020 count). Spatial join matched 3,536 of 3,539 VTDs; three unmatched VTDs (849 persons) are immaterial to the deviation range.
At a total deviation range of 0.9123%, Act 2 sits comfortably within the constitutional tolerance for congressional maps. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), require population equality as nearly as practicable; a sub-1% range is not a viable standalone basis to overturn this map. The decisive federal pathways are racial gerrymandering (Shaw v. Reno) and discriminatory intent under the 14th Amendment and post-Callais doctrine. See the Legal Framework tab.
This tab maps dashboard data to applicable legal standards for advocacy and policy research purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Organizations and individuals engaged in litigation should consult qualified counsel. Citations are to publicly available opinions; all data claims are sourced as documented in the Data Integrity tab.
Callais v. Landry — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport (300 Fannin Street). Hearing June 17, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., possibly continuing June 18. Three-judge panel: Judge Carl E. Stewart (5th Cir.), Judge David C. Joseph, and Judge Robert R. Summerhays. Briefing deadlines: opening briefs on the validity and effect of Act 2 due June 5; responses due June 12.
What the Challengers Argue
Challengers — including Fifth District candidate Lindsay Garcia, with lead counsel Donald Hodge — question whether Act 2 complies with Louisiana v. Callais. Their central objection: New Orleans-anchored District 2 reaches into north Baton Rouge, which they suggest may itself be an impermissible racial gerrymander. Their theory targets the use of race in the one remaining majority-Black district.
The Representational-Equity Frame
This dashboard documents the converse harm: Act 2 cracks Black voting strength across five districts (D1 at 13.36% Black VAP, REI −17.88pp) while packing D2, leaving 1 majority-Black seat in a 31.24% Black-VAP state that proportionally supports roughly 2. The certified spatial join, the Arlington Heights intent timeline, and the feasibility of a second compact district (Section 4) are the evidentiary spine.
A court could find that race predominated in D2’s Baton Rouge reach and that the surrounding five districts crack Black communities. The remedial question — whether Louisiana can draw two reasonably compact opportunity districts without race predominating — is where this dashboard’s data is most decision-relevant. The figures below inform that question; they do not predict the panel.
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) established three preconditions for a Voting Rights Act Section 2 vote dilution claim. Louisiana v. Callais, No. 24-109, ___ U.S. ___ (Apr. 29, 2026) substantially narrowed the framework — reinstating an intent standard and restricting the Gingles analysis — but did not formally overrule it. The following checklist maps Act 2 data against each precondition as it existed pre-Callais and as it may survive post-Callais.
The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. The data shows this is met: District 2 achieves 58.24% Black VAP under Act 2 — proving the Black population is large enough and concentrated enough to constitute a majority district when drawn to do so.
| Metric | Value | Source | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| D2 Black VAP | 58.24% | Census 2020 PL 94-171, certified spatial join | Proves Black population can constitute a majority in a reasonably drawn district |
| D2 Black Population | 468,667 of 774,808 | Census 2020 PL 94-171, certified spatial join | Absolute size — not just percentage |
| Statewide Black VAP | 31.24% (1,115,306) | Census 2020 PL 94-171 | Baseline for proportionality analysis |
| Districts below statewide baseline | 5 of 6 (D1, D3, D4, D5, D6) | Certified spatial join | Pattern of dispersion across five districts while concentrating in one |
| D1 Black VAP (most cracked) | 13.36% — REI −17.88pp | Census 2020 PL 94-171, certified spatial join | Extreme deviation from proportional share in the coastal/suburban district |
Callais did not eliminate Prong 1 analysis. The compactness requirement remains. The data here — D2 at 58.24% Black VAP from a certified spatial join — directly satisfies the prong. The question post-Callais is whether intent can also be shown. See Section 3.
The minority group must vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually prefer the same candidates. Registration data provides directional evidence; expert election analysis of actual voting patterns is required to establish Prong 2 definitively for litigation.
| Indicator | Value | Source | Inference |
|---|---|---|---|
| D2 Democratic registration | 58.3% of registered voters | SOS May 2026 — Provisional | Strong Democratic lean in the majority-Black district |
| D2 Black registration share | 51.4% of all D2 registrants | SOS May 2026 — Provisional | Black voters constitute registration majority in D2 |
| D2 Republican registration | 13.9% | SOS May 2026 — Provisional | Low Republican registration in majority-Black district |
| Statewide Black registration | 31.2% of all registrants | SOS May 2026 | Black voters are a substantial statewide minority bloc |
Prong 2 requires evidence of actual voting patterns — exit polls, precinct-level election results, ecological regression analysis. Registration data is directional but not sufficient alone. A political scientist expert witness would need to analyze Louisiana election results in D2 and adjacent districts to establish Black political cohesion for litigation.
The white majority must vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. This requires historical election analysis and cannot be established from registration data alone. However, the registration distribution across the five cracked districts provides structural context.
| District | White Reg % | Rep Reg % | Black VAP % | Structural Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 72.6% | 38.7% | 13.36% | White supermajority; Black VAP cannot achieve electoral control |
| D3 | 68.0% | 40.4% | 27.79% | White majority; Black voters below decisive threshold |
| D4 | 60.0% | 38.6% | 30.25% | White majority with Republican lean |
| D5 | 61.1% | 39.9% | 33.25% | White majority; nominally near parity but Republican lean forecloses Black electoral control |
| D6 | 58.2% | 34.4% | 24.58% | White majority; Black VAP significantly below statewide baseline |
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) and its progeny hold that racial gerrymandering — where race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines — violates the Equal Protection Clause regardless of intent to help or harm minority voters. Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024) clarified the disentanglement standard: courts must determine whether race or partisan affiliation was the predominant factor when the two are highly correlated. This is currently the most viable federal challenge pathway post-Callais.
District 1 has the most extreme Black population deviation in the map. At 13.36% Black VAP in a state that is 31.24% Black VAP, it is 17.88 percentage points below the statewide baseline. This does not happen by accident in a state where Black Louisianans are distributed across every region. The district boundaries actively excluded Black precincts.
| Shaw Element | Evidence in Act 2 | Source | Strength |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race was predominant factor | D1 at 13.36% Black VAP against the 31.24% statewide Black VAP baseline (33.12% of total population); D2 packed to 58.24% Black VAP — 1 of 6 seats for a state that is 31.24% Black by VAP and 33.12% Black by population | Census 2020, certified spatial join | Strong |
| Boundaries not explainable by partisan data alone | Five districts cracked below statewide Black VAP baseline while Black registration % is near-statewide in D4/D5/D6 — cracking is racial, not purely partisan | Census 2020 + SOS May 2026 | Moderate-Strong |
| Racial predominance over traditional criteria | Beaullieu Floor Amendment (HFASB121 3645 5695) completely rewrote all six districts on May 21, 2026 — 10 hours after overwhelming public opposition. Speed and totality of rewrite suggests racial rather than community criteria drove the final map. | Legislative record, May 21 hearing | Moderate (legislative intent) |
| Narrow tailoring (if race was used) | Post-Callais, legislature was on notice that VRA Section 2 compliance no longer required a second majority-Black district. Continued racial sorting of Black voters into a single district without a narrowly tailored justification is exposed. | Louisiana v. Callais (Apr. 29, 2026) | Strong post-Callais |
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) established factors for proving discriminatory intent, which Callais has re-elevated as a threshold requirement for VRA Section 2 claims. The legislative sequence surrounding Act 2 is relevant to this analysis.
| Date | Event | Arlington Heights Factor | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2026 | Louisiana v. Callais decided — SCOTUS 6-3, Alito majority reinstates intent standard, guts Gingles framework | Sequence of events | Legislature immediately aware that VRA Section 2 compliance no longer required a second majority-Black district |
| Apr 30, 2026 | Governor Landry suspends primary. Thousands of absentee ballots voided. | Historical background | Democratic voters — disproportionately Black — disenfranchised in the immediate aftermath of Callais |
| May 13, 2026 | Senate committee drops second majority-Black district. SB 121 passes 27-10. | Sequence of events; legislative history | Explicit decision to eliminate the second majority-Black district within 2 weeks of Callais |
| May 21, 2026 | Beaullieu Floor Amendment (HFASB121 3645 5695) adopted 10-7 after 10-hour hearing with overwhelming public opposition. Complete precinct-level rewrite of all six districts. | Procedural irregularities; departures from normal sequence; legislative history | Wholesale rewrite over public objection — a classic Arlington Heights procedural irregularity indicator |
| May 28, 2026 | House passes SB 121 with Beaullieu Amendment incorporated | Sequence | 29-day legislative sprint from Callais to final passage |
| May 2026 | Governor Landry signs. Enrolled as Act 2, R.S. 18:1276. | — | Map effective for 2026 congressional elections |
A core element of any redistricting challenge is showing that a constitutional remedial map can be drawn. The data establishes this affirmatively.
At 31.24% Black VAP statewide, proportional representation would yield approximately 2 majority-Black districts in a 6-seat delegation. Act 2 provides 1. District 2 proves the population is concentrated enough to draw a majority-Black district. The question for a remedial map is whether a second such district can be drawn without predominant racial motivation — and prior remedial maps (including those ordered by federal courts in prior Louisiana redistricting litigation) demonstrate that it can.
Binding Precedents
- Louisiana v. Callais, No. 24-109, ___ U.S. ___ (Apr. 29, 2026) — Narrows Section 2 VRA; reinstates intent standard
- Alexander v. SC NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024) — Race/partisan disentanglement standard
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) — Racial predominance in redistricting violates Equal Protection
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) — Race as predominant factor test
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) — Three-prong VRA Section 2 test
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) — Congressional one-person, one-vote
- Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) — Population equality standard for Congress
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Housing, 429 U.S. 252 (1977) — Discriminatory intent factors
Louisiana-Specific History
- Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023) — Alabama VRA Section 2 case (persuasive authority, not Louisiana); upheld the Gingles framework and affirmed an order for a remedial majority-Black district
- Robinson v. Ardoin (later Robinson v. Landry), No. 22-30333 (5th Cir. 2023) — the Louisiana VRA Section 2 litigation; a federal court found the 2022 one-district map likely violated Section 2, producing the 2024 two-district map later struck in Callais
- Louisiana Constitution, Art. III — Community-of-interest provisions applicable to state legislative maps
- R.S. 18:1276 — Enacted congressional district statute (Act 2)
- SB 121 Legislative Record — May 2026 Regular Session committee and floor testimony
This is an open-source interactive spatial analysis tool for demographic and representational equity review under the enacted Act 2 congressional map (SB 121, Morris), signed by Governor Landry and enrolled as Act 2 enacting R.S. 18:1276. Effective for 2026 congressional elections upon signature; full statutory effectiveness at noon, January 3, 2027. Built for Democratic Caucus members, NAACP, LDF, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and legal teams engaged in post-Callais equity analysis. Every data point is sourced from official public records and is reproducible via the Python pipeline in this repository.
Data Sources
- Louisiana SOS — Statewide Report of Registered Voters by Party and Race, 5/1/2026 (Active voters only). Parish-to-district assignments corrected per enrolled Act 2 (R.S. 18:1276) precinct geography. 20 parishes were reassigned from pre-Beaullieu-amendment geography to enrolled Act 2 geography in v2 of this dashboard (June 2026). Prior version used pre-enrollment bill geography; this version uses the legally enrolled statute.
- Act 2 (SB 121, Morris) — Enrolled District Boundary Shapefile — Legal boundary definition for R.S. 18:1276, enacted 2026 Regular Session. Shapefile:
SB_121_Enrolled.shp. The enrolled map reflects the district composition as written in House Floor Amendment HFASB121 3645 5695 (authored by Rep. Beaullieu), which deleted prior House Committee amendments (#5999) and substituted a complete precinct-level rewrite of all six districts. That amendment was adopted on the House floor May 21, 2026 and is fully incorporated into enrolled Act 2 — it is not a separate source. All boundary analysis in this dashboard uses the enrolled Act 2 shapefile only. - SB 121 Reengrossed (Morris) -- Parish summary tables, VAP anomalies (Page 12). Pre-enrollment text; superseded by enrolled Act 2.
- U.S. Census 2020 P.L. 94-171 -- Block-level population and Voting Age Population (VAP). Legally and conceptually distinct from SOS registration data. VAP measures all residents aged 18 and older regardless of registration status. District 2 is the only majority Black VAP district (58.24% Black VAP per SB121_district_demographics.csv). District 6 Black VAP is 24.58% -- not majority Black. VAP and registration data are not compared in this dashboard.
- House Committee Testimony — May 21, 2026 hearing record
Legal Framework
- Louisiana v. Callais, No. 24-109, ___ U.S. ___ (Apr. 29, 2026) — Section 2 VRA gutted
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) — Partisan gerrymandering nonjusticiable
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) — Narrowed by Callais
- Alexander v. SC NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024) — Disentanglement standard
- 14th Amendment — One-person, one-vote (primary remaining federal challenge)
- Louisiana Constitution — Community-of-interest and parish integrity provisions
REI Methodology
The Representational Equity Index measures deviation from proportional Black representation:
Analyst
Open source. Data from Louisiana SOS and Louisiana Legislature (public record). Analysis and visualization by Tia Fields. Attribution required for redistribution.
The following hierarchy governs how conflicting data should be resolved. Sources higher on the list carry greater legal weight.
- Act 2 Block Equivalency and Geometry (Enrolled SB 121) -- The official legal definition of the six congressional districts enacted under R.S. 18:1276. This is the authoritative source for district boundaries. All geographic analysis in this dashboard uses the Act 2 shapefile derived from the enrolled boundary definition.
- U.S. Census Bureau 2020 P.L. 94-171 Population and VAP Data -- Block-level population counts and Voting Age Population figures derived from the decennial Census. This is an official population source and is legally and conceptually distinct from voter registration data. VAP measures all residents aged 18 and older regardless of citizenship or registration status. The district demographics file confirms District 2 as the only majority Black VAP district (58.24% Black VAP). District 6 Black VAP is 24.58% -- not majority Black.
- VTD Assignment Outputs -- Precinct-to-district assignment tables produced during the mapping process. These link Census blocks and precincts to Act 2 districts and are used to roll up block-level population data to district geography.
- Louisiana Secretary of State Active Voter Registration File (5/1/2026) -- Statewide registration counts by party and race as of May 1, 2026. This file reflects voter registration at the time of data extraction. It was not reported by the SOS using Act 2 district geography. District-level registration figures in this dashboard are derived by applying the Act 2 parish assignment to whole-parish SOS data. This is an analytical approximation, not an official SOS Act 2 district report. All district-level registration statistics in this dashboard are provisional.
- Derived Analysis -- All computed ratios, REI deviations, PACKED/CRACKED classifications, partisan lean indicators, and narrative interpretations are analytical constructs produced by this dashboard. They are not official government determinations. The REI baseline used throughout is the statewide Black VAP share (31.24%, Census 2020 PL 94-171). The statewide Black registration share (31.2%, SOS) is reported only as provisional context and is never substituted into the REI.
Census PL 94-171 VAP and SOS voter registration data measure different things. VAP counts all residents 18 and older. Registration counts only those who have completed the voter registration process. These datasets produce different racial composition percentages for the same district. This dashboard does not equate registered voters with VAP and does not claim that registration counts match PL 94-171 VAP counts. Charts and narrative labeled "SOS" reflect registration data only.