The Boston City Council is making headway on redistricting, but persistent disagreement continues to cast doubt on the body’s ability to reach consensus on a new map, and thus avoid an election delay, by the May 30 deadline.

Four different redistricting maps were brought forward for discussion Friday, but Ruthzee Louijeune, chair of the Council’s civil rights committee, opted to dismiss proposals from Mayor Michelle Wu and two other councilors, in favor of using her own map as a “starting point.”

“My map makes the fewest number of changes when compared to the baseline map and the enacted, now enjoined, map,” Louijeune said.

Louijeune said her map was created with this month’s federal court ruling in mind. It addresses the constitutional violation that occurred on the border of districts 3 and 4, thus also resolving the “domino effect” that took place throughout the rest of the defunct map the City Council approved last fall, via a 9-4 vote, she said.

“You look at that domino effect and you see where the changes were made,” Louijeune said. “This is what guided this map, and why there are so few changes when compared to other maps.”

The decision, however, was met by some grumbling by her colleagues, particularly from Councilor Kendra Lara, who said the map she put forward was less disruptive than Louijeune’s proposal.

Lara said that while fewer residents would be moving to a new district in Louijeune’s map, “you’re making changes to a lot more districts than I am.” Further, Lara said her proposal would unite more neighborhoods than the one put forward by the committee chair.

“The sacred cow is the Constitution,” Lara said. “We have to follow the one person, one vote clause. I think there are significantly more issues with being in alignment with the principles of redistricting with your map than mine. I don’t think this is an appropriate starting off point for this body.”

Louijeune also dismissed maps put forward by the mayor and Councilor Michael Flaherty, saying that there were too many changes that needed to be made in both.

Mayor Wu’s map would move 109,003 people into a different district, Councilor Liz Breadon noted, comparing the changes to the higher “core retention” of 92.7% in the map thrown out by a U.S. District Court judge.

Councilor Frank Baker, however, stated that the enjoined map from last fall would have made significant changes to his district, 3, and resulted in 45% new voters.

“I like the fact that it shares the pain,” Baker said of the mayor’s map changes. “This puts District 3 all in Dorchester.”

Lara disagreed, stating, “The assertion that we all need to feel a little pain is not correct. We need to work toward a balanced population.”

She advocated for essentially no changes to her district, 6, which she said was “basically balanced,” according to data provided at Friday’s Council hearing, which showed that the ideal population for each district was roughly 75,000.

District 2 is overpopulated, while districts 3 and 4 are underpopulated, the data show.

The changes made in Flaherty’s map, she said, would have moved her out of district 6. Flaherty said he was not aware that Lara had moved, and would amend the relevant changes in his proposal.

“It’s not required that everyone have changes in their district,” Lara said. “I think it’s in our best interest to protect ourselves legally, and focus on changes where the judge said we should.”

Notably, the mayor’s map altered many of the contentious changes made by the Council in districts 2, 3, 4 and 5, which the federal judge wrote were “significant to the current dispute,” in her ruling earlier this month.

The court had found the Council likely violated the Constitution by factoring race into the establishment of the prior map, which led to a lawsuit from a group of residents.

Flaherty and Baker both advocated for “the boot,” or the South Dorchester precincts of 16-8, 16-11, 16-12 and 17-13, to stay in District 3. Maps put forward by both Lara and Louijeune kept all of Ward 16 in District 3, but placed 17-13 in District 4.

The Council’s decision to move these four majority white precincts from D3 to D4 last fall factored into the federal judge’s ruling. Plaintiffs had argued the changes would dilute the Black vote in D4, while advocates said the changes were made with the aim of “packing” Black voters in D4.

After input, councilors agreed, for now, to keep 17-13 in District 3.

Louijeune also suggested keeping the Roslindale precincts of 18-7 and 19-12 in District 4, but Councilor Ricardo Arroyo said the federal judge liked the prior changes made in the defunct map, which would have moved them to his district, 5, thus unifying that neighborhood.

Another spat took place over District 2 changes, with Council President Ed Flynn asserting that Breadon’s input led to the South End precincts of 8-1 and 9-1 being placed back into D2. Louijeune’s working map had put them in D3.

“I was not asked for my input,” Flynn said. “I’m disappointed by what took place here, with another district councilor making decisions for what’s happening in my district.”

Breadon, however, said the changes were based on community input from prior redistricting sessions, particularly from Chinatown residents who stressed the importance of keeping their neighborhood together in District 2 with “South End affordable housing precincts” of 6-1, 8-1 and 9-1.

After three hours of debate, Baker said the Council should have opted to use the current 2012 map as a baseline instead, which “has us much closer than this one does.” District 2, he said, would still be overpopulated by roughly 10,000 people.

“I hate to complicate this further,” Baker said. “I just don’t want this getting worse. We’re kind of going down a rabbit hole here.”

The Council must pass a new map by May 30, to avoid a delay to the Sept. 12 preliminary election.