Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment hearing; Plaintiffs Statement of Uncontested Material Facts and Motion for Summary Judgment

Working File
April 30, 1982

Cite this item
Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment hearing; Plaintiffs Statement of Uncontested Material Facts and Motion for Summary Judgment preview

5 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Major v. Treen Hardbacks. Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment hearing; Plaintiffs Statement of Uncontested Material Facts and Motion for Summary Judgment, 1982. 9687d83a-c803-ef11-a1fd-6045bddc4804. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/155bcea4-cd2e-4127-8dfa-d52dbfaa432e/notice-of-motion-for-summary-judgment-hearing-plaintiffs-statement-of-uncontested-material-facts-and-motion-for-summary-judgment. Accessed November 05, 2025.

    Copied!

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA   
CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 82-1192 

| { 

SECTION: . H (D)- (C) 

THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

CLASS ACTION 

NOTICE OF MOTION 
  

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached Motion for Summary Judgment will 

be heard in this matter on May 26, 1982 at 9:00 A.M. 

  RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  

R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

LANI GUINIER 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 

. 10 Columbus Circle 

Suite 2030 

New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs     DATE: April 30, 1982 

  

     



  
| 
| 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

i 
| 

| 
| 

  

  

{1DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: H (D) (C) 

THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

CLASS ACTION 
  

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED MATERIAL FACTS 
  

NOW INTO COURT come plaintiffs who submit that the following material 

| facts are uncontested in this matter: 

I. 

| Act No. 3 of the 1972 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature, 

| sarided by Act. No. 697 of the 1976 session of the Legislature, established the 

present congressional districts for the State of Louisiana. 

! 
| 

According to this legislative action, eight (8) districts were estab- 

|1ished for the State of Louisiana, with an ideal population of 455,398, accord- 

ing to 1970 Census figures. 

Til. 

The population deviations and relative deviations of those eight (8) 

districts were as follows when they were enacted: 

1970 ABSOLUTE RELATIVE (%) 

DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION 
  

454,836 -562 12 

454,809 -598 13 

455,575 +177 .03 

455,272 -126 .02 

455,205 -193 04 

456,178 +780 17 

455,014 -384 .08 

456,291 +893 19 

' 

Iv. 
1 

With 1980 Census figures, these eight (8) congressional districts have   
{population and relative deviations as follows:   

  

 



1980 ABSOLUTE RELATIVE (%) 

DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION 

523,271 2,226 - 42 

461,802 -63,695 »12.12 

571,131 +45,634 + 8.68 

508,593 -16,904 

507,539 -17,958 - 

577,140 +51,643 

543,235 +17,738 

511,261 -14,236 

    
  

  

  
OO
 

© 
i
n
d
i
 

OW
 

A
Y
 
D
Y
 

IN
 

8. 

D 

3. 

9. 

3. 

2 

    
Vv. 

When enacted, these eight (8) congressional districts had an overall 

population deviation of .31 percent. 

VI. 

Now, these eight (8) congressional districts have an overall population 

|deviation of 21.95 percent.   
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  

Kk. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

LANT GUINIER 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 
NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Tund, Inc.| 

10 Columbus Circle 

Suite 2030 

New York, New York 10019 
i 
i 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs i 

DATE: April 30, 1982 

| 

i 
| 

| 
| 
f il 
| 

{ 

| | 

| 
i 
! 

| 
| 

| 
| 
| 
| 

| 
| 
| 

| | 

       



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA   
  

CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 82-1192 

| DAVID C. TREEN, BET Al SECTION: H: (DD) (CG) 
| | 

i 
I THREE JUDGE COURT CASE   

CLASS ACTION   

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
  

NOW INTO COURT come plaintiffs who move for summary judgment in this 

atter, declaring that the current congressional districts of Louisiana are 

(1 

|[funconstitutional. Plaintiffs make this motion on the basis of the pleadings 

fin this matter, the statement of uncontested material facts, and the memorandum 

‘in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The grounds for this 

Ld , : : ; Na 
{imotion are that there are no material facts in dispute and plaintiffs are 
1 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

    R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

LANI GUINIER 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.! 
10 Columbus Circle 

Suite 2030 

New York, New York 10019 

| | 
| | 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs       || DATE: April 30, 1982 

RT L.E-I CAT 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon 

| opposing counsel by mailing same postage prepaid via U.S. postal service this 

| 30thday of April , 1982. 

           



  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

|| BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION   
I VERSUS 

NO. 82-1192 

DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: ‘H (D) (C) 

  

CLASS ACTION   

I 
I} 

THREE COURT CASE JUDGE 

Hl   
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
  

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: 

1. 

THE LAW ON CONGRESSIONAL REAPPORTIONMENT 
  

Congressional reapportionment requirements derive from the United 

| States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment, 

|lwhich applies to reapportionment of the state legislatures. . IH 

The Supreme Court has applied a much stricter population apportionment 

Bein in congressional redistricting cases than it had in legislative reappor- 

| 

  

| tonment cases. See Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 22 

Bg 2nd. 519, 1969. 

In this case, the Supreme Court indicated that the State must achieve | 

{| precise mathematical equality. See 394 U.S. 530-531. 

Thus, the Supreme Court has rejected congressional redistricting plans 

with deviations of 13.1 percent (Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542, 89 S.Ct. 
  

  1234, 22 L.Ed. 2nd. 535, 1969); 5.97 percent (Kirkpatrick, supra), and 4.13 

paraan; (Res Wille v, Walder, A412 U0, THY, YY B.0c, 2348, 37 L. Bd, 2nd, 334,     11973). 
il 
i 
i   

11. 

YBy, BIG GF ABN Y, LAGE LUNE ISTE UNE 
  

As was pointed out in the plaintiff's statement of wpcoptested facks, 

{when the present congressional dijtricts were drawn, they had an overall popula~ 

BAER wh oh) pueesa Wow, line Louisiana Congressional Districts have |

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.