Motion for Leave to File a Post-Argument Letter; Correspondence from Guste to Judges Higginbotham, Johnson, and Brown

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

thipP57 /1 dig 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

NO. 87-3463 

RONALD CHISOM, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

VERSUS 

EDWIN EDWARDS, et al.,  

Defendants-Appellees. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 
POST-ARGUMENT LETTER  

Appellees hereby move for leave 

post-argument letter. 

On December 10, 1987, appellees 

oral argument to file: a letter brief; at 

minute entry noting that the request, was 

to file a 

requested permission 

however, there was no 

granted. 

WHEREFORE, appellees ask that this Court permit them 

to file a post-argument letter. 

. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. 
I certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been 

served upon counsel for all parties by mailing the SOMA 
to each, properly ressed and postage prald 

Respectfully submitted, 

WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. 
ATTORNEY GENEW-

k,. 

AL 
-A SISTANT_ ORNEY GENERAL 
LO ISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
23 LOYOLA AVENUE, 7TH FLOOR 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70112 
TELEPHONE: (504) 568-5575 



tat e of 71.irmisizuta 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WILLIAM J. GUSTE. IR. 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

December 15, 1987 

Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham 
Honorable Sam D. Johnson 
Honorable John R. Brown 
United States Court of Appeals 
Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: Ronald Chisom, et al 
vs. Edwin Edwards, et al 
No. 87-3463 

Your Honors: 

7TH FLOOR 
2-3-4 LOYOLA BUILDING 
NEW ORLEANS 70112-2096 

We respectfully urge your Honors to consider this 
brief post-argument letter. 

At the argument before your Honors, there was 
insufficient time to stress all of the points made in our 
brief and we wish also to address other issues raised by the 
Court. 

This case does not involve an attempted disenfranchise-
ment of any group of voters. The Constitution of the State 
of Louisiana, has for at least 66 years has provided for the 
election of Supreme Court Justices in the same manner as is 
presently provided and when the new Constitution of 
Louisiana was adopted in 1974, the provisions for the 
election of two Supreme Court Justices from the four Parish 
area remained unchanged from prior Constitutions and was 
precleared by the Department of Justice under Section 5 of 
the Voting Rights Act. 

This Court must recognize that in the United States 
Constitution the duties of the Executive and the Congress 
were fully detailed, but none were expressed for the 
Judicial Branch. This indicates that the status of the 
judiciary throughout the English speaking world was 
incorporated without definition. None was needed, for since 
the days of Magna Carta, courts have held that judges do not 
represent people, they serve people. 



Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham 
Honorable Sam D. Johnson 
Honorable John R. Brown 
December 15, 1987 
Page -2-

There was no argument, nor did the Court raise any 
'question concerning the issue that the appellants, having 
failed to allege that any minorities have unsuccessfully run 
for judicial office, lacked standing to bring this suit. 
Furthermore, the complaint herein alleges that should a 
minority candidate ever choose to run for one of the two 
Supreme Court seats in this district, he could lose because 
the votes of the minority electorate might be diluted, an 
allegation not susceptible to proof. 

Federal Courts, including this Court, have 
consistently held that Congress is presumed to know the 
meaning of words incorporated in its acts. Had Congress 
intended that the term "representatives" include judicial 
officers, Congress would doubtless have used the term 
"elected officials" (or a similar term) rather than the word 
"representatives", which has an ascertainable meaning that 
does not include the judiciary. An elected judge is no more 
beholden to the electorate than an appointed judge is 
beholden to the appointing authority. 

Should this Court decide that Sections 2 and 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act must be considered as inter-related, then 
we adopt the language on page 19 of the Government's amicus 
brief that "The differences in how Section 2 applies to 
judicial elections should be left for the district court to 
consider on remand." 

Finally, if this Court decides, as we believe it 
should, that the word "representatives" does not include 
judicial officers, Congress could immediately amend Section 
2 if it so desired, and no one would be adversely affected. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. 
Attorney General 

Cs, 

ENDALL 
ssistant, ttorney General 

KLV/mph 



Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham 
Honorable Sam D. Johnson 
Honorable John R. Brown 
December 15, 1987 
Page -3-

SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL: 

M. Truman Woodward, Jr., Esq. 
1100 Whitney Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Blake G. Arata, Esq. 
210 St. Charles Avenue 
Suite 4000 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 

A. R. Christovich, Esq. 
1900 American Bank Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Noise W. Dennery, Esq. 
21st Floor, Pan American Life Center 
601 Poydras Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been 
forwarded to all counsel of record by placing same in the U. 
S. Mail postage prepaid, this Za4day of December, 1987. 

- 

V 1"-A-

Assistant Attorney General 
\