10 Members of Congress Join In Voting-Rights Case (Washington Post)
Press
August 31, 1985
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Chisom Transcripts. Record Excerpts, 1989. 631c5e1e-f211-ef11-9f89-0022482f7547. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/152b401e-35ab-4b79-90fb-0c06f3fd3e7e/record-excerpts. Accessed April 06, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 89-3654 .
RONALD CHISOM,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant,
V.
CHARLES E. ROEMER,
Defendants-Appellees
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
RECORD EXCERPTS
WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY
901 Convention Center Blvd.
Fulton Place
Suite 119
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 524-0016
ROY RODNEY, JR.
McGlinchey, Stafford,
Mintz, Cellini, Lang
643 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 586-1200
PAMELA S. KARLAN
University of Virginia
School of Law
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804) 924-7810
JULIUS LeVONNE CHAMBERS
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON
JUDITH REED
DAYNA L. CUNNINGHAM
SHERRILYN A. IFILL
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
(212) 219-1900
RONALD L. WILSON
310 Richards Building
837 Gravier Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
(504) 525-4361
C. LANI-GUINIER
University of Pennsylvania
School of Law
3400 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6204
(215) 898-7032
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
TABLE 'OF CONTENTS
Page
Docket entries 1
Judgment (entered September 14, 1989) 10
Opinion (issued September 13, 1989) 11
Stipulated Facts (paragraph 7 Pretrial Order,
entered March 30, 1989) 66
N c Orleans L.
PLAIMTIFIFS
-RONALD CHISON
MARIE BOOKMAN
'mom WILLARD
MARC MORIAL
111111111N1EID
MANMEI
NAG.NO.
jwr JURY
DUI. 11
Mom; it SIAM J .._,
22071
..
8 m3426
3LBG
86-4075
A
LOUISIANA VOTER REGISTRATION/
EDUCATION CRUSADE
UNITED
DILLON, III CLASS ACTION
DOCKET
. NUMMI
61 4075
41 EDWIN EDWARDS, in his
capacity as Governor of the
State of Louisiana
• JAMES B. BROWN, in his
capacity as Secretary of the
State of Louisiana
O JERRY N. romzER, in his
capacity as Commissioner of
Elections of the StateAof.•
Louisiana
ION 8-8-88 AMENDED,COMPLT 9-30-86
ALL DISCOVERY TO SI BEARD
=FORE
CAUSE
(CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE CASE
IS FILED AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSP
42 USC 973, 1283; 28 USC 2331, 1343: VOTING RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
TATES OF AMERICA
JUDGE SCHWARTZ No New Parties Added
9-
Willi P. Quigley, zeci.lit 1144 ATTORNEYS
ventton Center -
Fulton Place, Suite 119
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 524-0016
For: Plaintiffs
Ron Wilson, Esq. 4/36-pc
Richards Building
Suite 310
037 GrilVier Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
(504) 525-4361
For: Plaintiffs
Roy Rodney, Esq. Afourq
643 Magazine St.
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 586-1200
For: Plaintiffs
1Pf6/000429
C. Lank Guinier, Esq./ Pamela S. Karianymrsq.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Fl.
New York, New York 10013 (212) 219-1900
For: Plaintiffs
-
CHECK
HERE
FORMA PAUPERIS (XV° 9 —
;Vi2L- ZP,if
IF CASE WAS
FILED IN
• 'LIMITED STATESIMS.41C-1ZUFt
ADD. AIMS COOT.
FILING FEES PAID
RECEIPT NUMBER
Kendall Vick, Esq. * 4,1063
Eavelyn T. Brooks
Asst. Atty. General
La. Dept. of Justice
234 Loyola Ave., Suite 700
New Orleans, LA 70112-2096
(504) 568-5575
For: Secretary of State
SPECIAL=ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS
if. Truman Woodward, Jr., Esq.
909 Poydras Street, Suite 2300_
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 569-7100
Arata ita.010
210 at. Charles Avenue
Suite 4000
New Orleans, LA 70170
582-1111
A. R. Christovich 4,41qty
1900 American Bank Bldg.
New Orleans, LA 70130
561-5700
/-1Noise W. Denneryltiiirn
21st Floor Pan American Life Center
601 Poydras St.
C.D. NUMBER
ZS*
STATISTICAL CARDS
CARD DATE MAILED
DC•111 IRev. 9/81)
Bob Pugh, Esq.
333 Texas St: Suite 2100
Shreveport, IA • 71101 -5302
(318) 227-2270
For: State of Louisiana,,
S'ESSIONS, FISHMAN,'BOISFONTAINE,
NATHAN, WINN, BUTLER & BARKLEY
Peter J. Butler, Esq.. 373/ -
201 St. Charles, 36th Fl.
New Orleans, LA 70170
(504)• -
For: . Walter F. Marcus, Jr.
Ira J. Rosenzweig, Esq.40/1YA3
400 Poydras Street' • -
Texaco Center, 30th Fl.
New Orleans, LA 70130
arles- A. Kronlage, Jr., Esq.
71 . Charles Avenue •
New Or anS; LA 70130 • -1.4:0
(504) 581 00'
. For: Pascal .F. logero, Jr
• Wm. Bradford •ReY'nolds, Asst. Atty. G
Gerald W. Jones, Esq-.4trr7700,000
: Steven H. Rosenbaum, Esq.#1113a2ID
Robert S. Berman, Esq. $ 7,e0oCb•
Attys., Voting Section.
Civil Rights Div.
Dept. of Justice
P. O. BOx 66128 . •
Washington, DC' 20035-6128
(202) 724-3100
For: United States of America
LEBLANC, STRICKLER & WOOLHANDLER.
George M. Strickler, T.A.4Va536
639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1075
,
DATE NR. NR.
9/19/86
9-23-86
9-24-86
9-30-86
9-30-86
10-7-86
10-24-86
11-4-86
11/5/86
11-12-86
12-2-86
12-9-86
12-18-86
1-20-87
1-28-87
2/4/87
2/4/87
3/18/87
4/6/87
4/13/87
4/10/87
5/1/87
5/7/87
5/8/87
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21-
22
23
XX
Comp1t., 3 summs issd.
Pltfs' req for convening a 3 judge court declines to enter an ex parte order & will
hold a hrg on 10-15-86 at 2:30 p.m. & parties are directed to file memo by 10-10-86
(CSJO dktd 9-24-86.
Ret on S & C to James H. Brown, Jerry M. Fowler & Edwin Edwards svd 9-24-86.
Pla ts amended complt.
Pltf's ntc of amended complt.
Mtn of Sect. of State & ORDER that hrg be CONT to 11-12-436 at 10:00 a.m. w/memos
due by 11-5-86 at 2:30 p.m. (CSJO 10-9-86 dktd 10-14-86.
Mtn of defts & ORDER that ext of time to 11/13/86 to answer is GRANTED. (CSJO
10-27-86 dktd 10-29-86.
Mas t memo in re need for 3-judge court.
Memo of Sect. of State in opp to pltfs' req for district dourt of 3 judges.
Hrg to determine if case will be 3 judge court - case will be tried as one court
case. (CSJO dktd 11-14-86.
Ntc of call dkt set for 12-10-86 at 9:45 a.m. bfr Judge. (CLERK) dktd 12-3-86.
Letter from Eavelyn T. Brooks to Judge dated 12-5-86 in re call dkt.
Pltf's mtn & ORDER that Roy Rodney & C. tani Guinier be entered as additional
counsel. (CSJO 12-20-86 dktd 12-22-86.
Ntc of call dkt set for 2-11-87 @ 9:45 a.m. before Judge. (Clerk) dktd 1-20-87.
Ntc of call dkt set for 2-11-87 is RESET to 2-25-87 at 9:45 a.m. before Judge.
(CLERK) dktd 1-29-87.
M.E.(2/4/87) ORDERED that status conf be'held 2/18/87 at 5:15 pm. (CSjr) dktd 2-4-87
Letter from William Quigley to Ms Nelson in re: conversation on 1/23/87.
Mtn of defts to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); hrg set 4/15/87 at 10:00 a.m. bfr Judge.
Pltfs' memo in oppos to clefts' mtn to dismiss.
Repy Memo by defts to pltfs' opp.
Pltf's mtn & ORDERED that Pamela S. Karlan be entered as counsel of record for pltf
(CSJO 4/13/87 dktd 4/15/87.
OPINION that defts' mtn to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted is GRANTED;unless pltfs' complt is amended wlin 10 days of entry
of this opinion clerk of Court is directed to enter judg dismissing pltfs' claim
at their costs (CSjr) 5/1/87 dktd 5/1/87.
Pltf's NOTICE OF APPEAL to 5th Circuit from judg of 5/1/87 granting deft's mtn to
dismiss.
Notice of Appeal forwarded to all parties. (dim)
.14
eotot
3
•• .
.41
:Hs
(Rev. 1. 7S)
PLAINTIFF
RONALD CHISSOM, ET AL
5/26/87 I
6-8-87
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET
DEFENDANT
iEDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL 86-4075 I DOCKET NO.
1
: PAGE ...2._OF PAC
24 Entry of dismissal of appeal on 5/22/87 from the 5th Circuit (GANUCHEAU).
25 JUDGMENT is ORDERED in favor of defts & agst pltfs, dismissing pltfs' complt
w/prej, pltfs to bear all costs. (CLERK - approved CSJr) 6-8-87 dktd 6-8-87.
CLOSED C-ASE 6-17-87
26 !Pltfs' ntc. ,of appeal ,from judg of 6-8-87.
6-19-87 I XX I Ntc of Appeal forwarded to all parties. (JMD)
I.
6/24/87 I XX Record forwarded to Court of Appeals (pal)
7-10-87 27 ORDER from 5th Circuit - At req of U.S.D.C., case is REMANDED to court for ltd
. purpose of allowing U.S.D.C. to amend opinion of 5-1-87. (Thomas M. Reavley)
7-10-87 28 Order amending Opinion of May 7, 1987.
7/10/87 xx DOc #27 & 28 forwarded to Court of Appeals as Suppl Record. (:11n1)
5-11-88 1 29 Ntc by William P. Quigley of change of firm address.
5-31-88 XX Record returned from Ct of Appeals. (.11135,
5-31-881 30 JUDGMENT FROM 5TH CIRCUIT - ORDERED that judg.of D.C. is REVERSED & case is
REMANDED to D.C. for further proceedin s..„4‘BFpyr14. Johnson & Higginbotham)
Issd as mandate 5-27-88.
iti:iiii .
fla
It t Li kit.
6-1-88 31 M.E. 6-1-88: ORDERED that stat conf is set for 6-7-88 at 5:00 p.m. in chambers.
(CSjr) dktd 6-1-88.
6-7-88 32 Mtn of Walter F. Marcus, Jr. & ORDER that leave to appear as amicus curiae is
GRANTED. (CSjr) dktd 6-8-88.
6-15-88 33
6-20-88i 34 Pltfs' mtn for a prelim injunction . Hrg set 6-29-88 at 4:30pm bfr judge.
M.E. 6-20-88: Pltfs' =ft for prel injunction is set for hrg on 6-29-88 at 4:30p.m.
by 6-21-88. (CSjr) dktd 6-20-88.
ORDERED That opp memos due by 6-24-88. List of persons to be called at hrg due
6-17-88: 33a Mtn of John A. Dixon, Jr. & ORDER that Leave to file amicus curiae brief is
GRANTED. (CSjr) 6-20-88 dktd 6-21-88.
6-21-88. 35 : Amicus Curiae Brief of John A. Dixon, Jr.
i
6-23-88: 36 M.E.6-22-88: Court AMENDS M.E. of 6-20-88 & ORDERS that by 6-28-88 at noon, ea
• : pty file & make service a list of persons whom pty intends to call at hrg.
: dktd 6-23-88.
• Court EXTS deadline to file opps from 6-24-88 to 6-27-88 at noon. (CSjr)
OVER
•
DC 111A
(Rev. 1/751
DATE NR. PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET
DEFENDANT
DOCKET NO
PAGE OF PAGES
6-27-88 37
6-27-88 38
1
6-27-8 39
6-28-88 40
6-29-881 41
7-5-88 42
7-7-88 43
7-7-88 . 44
7-11-8i 45
7-13-88 46
7-13-88 47
7-13-88 48
7-14-88 IXX
7/21/88 ! xx
7-22-88 49
Opp by defts to pltfs' mtn for prel injunction.
Mtn of Pascal F. Calogero, Jr. & ORDER that leave to file amicus curiae brief
is GRANTED. (CSjr) dktd 6-27-88.
Amicus Curiae brief of Pascal F. Calogero, Jr.
Pltfs' reply memo.
Pltf's mtn for prel inj - SUBMITTED. (CSjr) dktd 6-30-88.
M.E. 7-5-88: Clerk is directed to file affidavit of Silas Lee III as exhibit to
pltfs' mtn for prel injunction. (CSjr) dktd 7-5-88.
OPINION - Pltf's mtn for prel injunction is GRANTED. (CSjr) dktd 7-7-88.
ORDERED that pending final decision & entry of future order setting elections
for Supreme Court justiceships, defts are enjoined & prohibited from conducting
any primary or general elections to fille position of Supreme Court Justice
from 1st Supreme Court District. (CSjr) dktd 7-7-88.
M.E. 7-11-88: Stat conf held 6-7-88: ORDERED that TRIAL IS SET FOR 10-19-88
at 9:00 A.M. FINAL PTC SET FOR 10-7-88 at 3:30 p.m. Amends due by 8-6-88.
All pre-trial mtns shall be heard by 9-16-88. Disc due by 9-30-88. Witnesses
lists due by 8-31-88. Pltfs' expert reports due by 8-16-88; deft's by 9-16-88.
(CSjr) dktd 7-11-88.
M.E. 7-13-88: ORDERED that defts' mtn for stay of order of injunctive relief
pending appeal is DENIED. (CSjr) dktd 7-13-88.
Mtn of defts for stay of order of injunctive relief pending appeal & UNSIGNED
ORDER.
Notice of appeal by defts from order entered on 7-7-88. .
Ntc of Appeal forwarded to all p.arties. (jmd)
Record forwarded to Court of Appeals (dim)
ORDER FROM 5TH CIRCUIT - ORDERED that appellant's mtn for stay pending appeal is
held under submission. ORDERED that appellants' mtn for exped hrg is GRANTED &
will be heard during week of 8-1-88. (Johnson, Garwood & Jolly)
1
7-27-88 150 • ORDER FROM 5TH CIRCUIT - ORDERED that appellants' mtn for stay pending appeal is
GRANTED & ORDERED that prel inj is stayed insofar as it may prohibit actions to
be taken during qualifying period for el9ction.(Johnson, Garwood & Jolly)
•
•••••,s,
•
• ci-og"
,
CONTINUED
t;k-F:41.
;11A
1/75)
PLAINTIFF
RONALD CHISOM, ET AL.
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET
DEFENDANT
EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL.
DATE NR.
7-28-88 51
7-28-88 52
7/28/88 xx
7-29-88
7/29/88
7-29-88
53
30C
54
8-1-88 i 55
8-5-88 56
8-5-88" 57
8-8-88 58
8-8-88 59
8-15-88 60
8-16-88 61
8-16-88 62
8-16-88 63
8-22-88 64
8-22-88 65
8-23-88 66
8-24-88 67
8-26-881 68
PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NO. 86-4075 A
pAGE___3 0F____PAGEs
ORDERED that Court AMENDS & SUPERSEDES orig opinion w/amended & superseding
opinion which reflects changes. (CSjr) dktd 7-28-88.
AMENDING & SUPERSEDING OPINION - Pla ts mtn for prel.injunction is GRANTED. (CSjr)
dktd 7-28-88.
Coc #49 thru 52 forwarded to Court of Appeals. (dim)
Transcript of hrg on pltfs' mtn for prel inj on 6-29-88 bfr Judge.
Doc #53 forwarded to Court of Appeals. WrO
ORDER FROM 5TH CIRCUIT - ORDERED that req by D.C. to amend opinion entered 7-7-8
is GRANTED. (Clark, Garza & Politz)
Transcript order from by defts of proceedings held 6-29-88.
M.E. 8-5-88: Stat conf held. ORDERED that M.E. of 7-11-88 is AMENDED. -TRIAL is
set for 9-14-88 at 9:00 a.m. FINAL PTC set for 9-9-88 at 3:30 p.m. Pre-trial mtns
to be heard by 8-31-88. Expert reports & disc to be completed. by 9-2-88. Mtns for
summ judg filed by 8-16-88 will be heard on 8-31-88 w/opps due by 8-23-88.
(CSjr) dktd 8/5/88.
Mtn of U.S.A. to intervene & UNSIGNED ORDER.
M.E. 8-8-88: Mtn of U.S.A. to intervene is GRANTED. (CSjr) dktd 8-9-88.
INTERVENTION OF U.S.A.
ANSWER of defts to pltfs'. complt.
Pltfs' statement pursuant to Court's Rule 3.9.
Pltfs' mtn for summ judg; hrg set for 8-31-88 at 10:00 a.m. bfr Judge..
Pltfs' brief in support of mtn for. summ judg.
OPINION FROM 5th CIRCUIT - Prel injunction is vacated & ORDERED that election
may proceed. (CLARK, GARZA & POLITZ)
Mtn of defts & ORDER that ext to file response to pltfs' mtn for summ judg is
ext until 8-26-88. (CSjr) dktd 8-23-88.
Pltfs' mtn & ORDER That leave to file suppl affidavit is GRANTED. (CSjr)
dktd 8-24-88.
Pltfs' suppl affidavit of Dr. Richard L. Engstrom.
Opp by defts to pltfs' mtn for summ judg.
OVER
69 ' M.E. 9-1-88: Hrg held on 8-31-88 on pltf's mtn for sun judg - DENIED. TRIAL set
for 12-14-88 at 9:00 a.m. FINAL PTC SET FOR 12-7-88 at 3:30 p.n. Pltfs & U.S.A.
to deliver'copies of expert reports by 11-1-88. Defts to deliver theirs by
11-21-88. Disc due by 12-2-88. ALL DISC TO BE HEARD BY JUDGE. (AGD) dktd 9-2-88.
Mtn of defts for exped hrg on mtn
Mtn of defts to strike.
Letter to Clerk from 5th Circuit
writ of cert.
M.E. 11/21/88: ORDERED that PTC set for 12/7/88 & trial
CONT to be reset. Stat conf is set for 2/1/89 at 3:30
12/19/88. (CSjr) dktd 11/22/88.
Mtn of
Judge',
M.E. .12/19/88: ORDERED that mtn of Calogero to intervene set for 12/21/$8 is
taken under submission w/o oral argument. (CSjr)dktd 12/19/88.
;Mtn of U.S.A. to lift stay of disc; hrg set for 1/4/89 at 10:00 a.m.
M.E. 1/3/89: ORDERED ,that mtn of'U.S.A. to lift stay of disc is GRANTED as
UNOPPOSED. (CSjr) dktd 1/3/89.
M.E. 1/5/89: Mtn of Pascal F. Calogero, Jr. to intervene is GRANTED. (CSjr)
dktd 1/5/89.
M.E. 1/5/89: ORDERED that M.E. of 1/3/89 is set aside- & mtn to lift stay. is set
for discussion at stat conf on 1/11/89 at 4:30 p.m. Ptys to meet & confect disc
plan due by noon 1/11/89. (CSjr) dktd 1/5/89.
M.E. 1/10/89: ORDERED that mtn to lift stay of disc is GRANTED as stip. Stat conf
set for 2/1/89 at 3:30 p.m. in chambers. Witness lists due 2/22/89. Disc cut off
is 3/10/89. FINAL..PTC SET FOR 4/10/89 at 5:00 p:m. (CSjr). dktd.1/11/89.
Joint report to court setting schedule for completion of disc & pretrial
- proceedings.
82 Mtn of Pascal Calogero, Jr. & ORDER that Charles Kronlage,i Jr. be removed &
George..Strickler, Jr. be enrolled as counsel. (CSjr) dktd 1/27/89.
Reoord returned frbm Court of Appeals.. (d.1.177)
I>
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET
PLAINTIFF '
RONALD CHISOM, ET AL.
DEFENDANT
EDWIN EDWARDS, ET AL.
- DOCKET NO.86 4075 A
PAGe____OF__PAGES
DATE NR.
2/2/89
2/2/89
2/22/89
2/22/89
2/22/89
2/28/89
3/8/89
3/23/89
3/29/89
3/30/89
3/30/89
3/31/89
4/3/89
4/3/89
4/3/89
4/3/89
4/3/89
4/4/89
83
84
PROCEEDINGS
M.E. 2/1/89: Stat conf held. ORDERED that PTC is set for 3/29/89 at 3:30 p.m.
TRIAL SET FOR 4/5/89 at 9:00 a.m. w/o jury. PTC set for 4/10/89 is CANCELLED.
(CSjr) dktd 2/2/89.
M.E. 2/1/89: Non Jury trial preparation order. (CSJr) dktd 2/2/89.
85 Witness designation by defts.
86 Witness list of U.S.A.
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
1 95
1 96
97
98
99
100
4/4/89 101
4/4/89; 102
4/5/89 103
4/26/89 104
Pltfs' witness list.
Mtn of Walter F. Marcus, Jr. & ORDER that leave to intervene is GRANTED. (CSjr)
3/1/89 dktd 3/2/89.
Suppl list by USA of potential witnesses..
Pltf's req for subps; 6 issd.
Rtn on subp to R. Ortique, M. Morial, E.,Lombard, M. Zen!), C. Floyd; svd
3/28/89.
PRE-TRLAL ORDER, P.T.E....h..:22.222: (CSjr) 3/29/89 dktd 3/30/89.
M.E. 3/29/89: NON JURY TRIAL PREP ORDER.(CSjr) dktd 3/31/89.
Ret on subp to anderson Counsel svd 3/30/89.
Pre-trial memo of U.S.A.
Proposed findings of fact & conclusions of law of U.S.A'.
Pre-trial Memo by defts.
Proposed findings of fact & conclusions of law by defts.
Ntc of U.S.A. of filing unreported decisions.
ANSWER of defts to interventicift.
Req for subp by USA; 1 issd.
Pltf's req for subp; 1 issd.
NON JURY TRIAL: exhibits offered & admittted, defts move for sequestration of
witnesses is GRANTED, witnesses sworn & testified; post trial ,briefs -due
1 week after ptys receive trans, reply briefs due 10 days after, court will
take matter under submission. (CSjr) dktd 4/6/89.
Transcript of bench trial on 4/5/89 bfr Judge.
OVER
or
DC 111A
(5aw. 1/75)
•
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
DOCKET NO
PAGE OF PAGES
DATE HR. PROCEEDINGS
4/28/89 105 ANSWER of defts in re voter participation in judicial elections.
5/9/89 106 Proposed findings of fact & conclusions of law of the United States.
5/9/89 107 Pla's mtn to suppl record; hrg set for 5/24/89 at 1000 a.m. bfr Judge.
5/23/89 108 M.E. 5/23/89: ORDERED that pltfs' mtn to suppl record to submit table as evid is
taken under submission w/o oral argument & is hereby GRANTED as unopposed. (CSjr)
dktd 5/23/89.
u 9/13/89 109 OPINION - Clerk is directed to enter judg in favor of delta dismissing pltf's
claims. (CSjr) dltd 9/13/89.
9/14/89 110 JUDGMENT is ORDERED in favor of all defts & agst all pltfs & U.S.A. as interienot,
dismissing suit w/prej, pltfs to bear all costs. (CLERK -,epp CSJr) 9/13/89
dktd 9/14/89.
9/25/89
10/18/81
11/13/891
111
)0C
USED,.
Plas'xgiua.a.aassi4 from final judgment entered on 9/13/89.
Record forwarded to Court of Appeals. (dlin)
112 ,Notice of appeal by U.S.A. from judg entered 9/14/89.
•
9
i4W-1.641,
•
•*.'". •
1Y;
• •
• •
• • ' • •
r•ts-,
•• • -.,. •
-:•
F:LED ,
U.S. NSTRICT COURT
EASTERN r2.!.S7P'CT OF LA..
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RONALD CHISOM ET AL
. VERSUS .
CHARLES E. ROEMER ET AL
JUDGMENT.
• Se 14 8 29 AM '89
LORETTA G. *HYT
CLERK
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 86-4075
SECTION "A"
Considering the written Opinion of the Court on file herein,
accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that there be judgment in
favor of all defendants and against all plaintiffs and the United States
of America as intervenor, dismissing this suit with prejudice, plaintiffs
to bear.-all costs.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of September, 1989.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATE OF ENTRY SEP 14.198Q 0
LORETTA G. WHYTE, CLERK
Denny P. Descant
Chief Deputy Clerk
T.2777
_PROC.:TESS
X
111...
DOC: :•'•L:: T r.
C. C.
0q7.P:Iry ceiriip7r
• EASTE -, •!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT —LI
SEP 13
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA .-
L
RONALD CHISOM, ET AL.
VERSUS
CHARLES E. ROEMER, ET AL.
OPINION
SCHWARTZ, J.
YTE
,
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 86-4057
SECTION "A"
This matter came before the Court for nonjury trial. Having
considered the evidence, the parties' memoranda and the applica-
ble law, the Court rules as follows. To the extent any of the
following findings of fact constitute conclusions of law, they
are adopted as such. To the extent any of the following conclu-
sions of law constitute findings of fact, they are so adopted.
Findings of Fact
This is a voting discrimination case. Plaintiffs have
brought this suit on behalf of all black registered voters in
Orleans Parish, approximately 135,000 people, alleging the
present system of electing the two Louisiana Supreme Court Jus-
tices from the New Orleans area improperly dilutes the voting
strength of black Orleans Parish voters. Specifically, plain-
tiffs challenge the election of two Supreme Court Justices from a
single district consisting of Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard and
Plaquemines Parishes. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and. injunctive
relief under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act-, as amended, 42
__FEE
-7.71 -zS
X
DOC.!ENT N
r=f7,er) r 4on
DATE OF ENTM '
I 1̀n7°° 1 I
-1-
U.S.C. S 1973 (West Supp. 1989) 1 , and under the Civil Rights Act,
42 U.S.C. S 1983 (West 1981) 2, for alleged violations of rights
secured by the fourteenth' and fifteenth4 amendments of
1/ Section 2 provides in pertinent part:
(a) No voting qualification or prerequi-
site to voting or standard, practice, or
procedure shall be imposed or applied by
any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridg-
ment of the right of any citizen of the
United States to vote on account of race or
color . . .
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this
section is established if, based upon the
totality of circumstances, it is shown that
the political processes leading to ncmina-
tion of election in the State or political
subdivision are not equally open to partic-
ipation by members of a class of citizens
protected by subsection (a) of this section
in that its members have less opportunity
to participate in the political process and
elect representatives of their choice. The
extent to which members of a protected
class have been elected to office in the
State or political subdivision is one cir-
cumstance which may be considered:
Provided, That nothing in this section
establishes a right to have members of a
protected class elected in numbers equal to
their proportion in the population.
2/ Section 1983 provides in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any stat-
ute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State . . ., subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other
proceeding for redress.
3 The fourteenth amendment provides in pertinent part:
-2-
the federal Constitution.'
I. The present-Supreme Court Districts and the black voting
population; Minority or majority?
The Louisiana Supreme Court, the highest Court in the state,
presently consists of seven Justices, elected from six Supreme
Court Districts. Each Justice serves a term of ten years. Can-
didates for the Louisiana Supreme Court must have been a resident
of that election district for at least two (2) years, and each
member of the Supreme Court must be a resident of the election
district from which he or she was elected. 6 The state imposes a
majority-vote requirement for election to the Supreme Court.
No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
4 The fifteenth amendment provides in pertinent part:
The right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condi-
tion of servitude.
5 Declaratory relief is also sought under 28 U.S.C. SS 2201
and 2202, which provide in pertinent part:
(a) In a case of actual controversy
within its jurisdiction, . . . any court
of the United States, upon the filing of
an appropriate pleading, may declare the
rights or other legal relation of any
interested party seeking such declara-
tion, whether or not further relief is
or could be sought.
6 See Pre-Trial Order Stipulation 19 at p. 28.
-3- 13
Since 1976, every candidate runs in a single preferential pri-
mary, but each candidate's political party affiliation is indi-
cated on the ballot. If no single candidate receives a majority
of votes in the preferential primary, the top two candidates with
the most votes in the primary compete in a general election.
Five of the districts elect one Justice each, but one district --
the First Supreme Court District -- elects two Justices.' These
two positions are elected in staggered terms. No Justice is
elected on a state-wide basis, although the Supreme Court sits en
banc and its jurisdiction extends state-wide.' One of the seats
in question is presently held by Justice Pascal F. Calogero, Jr.;
the other is presently held by Justice Walter F. Marcus, Jr.
Judges are not subject to recall elections.'
The five single member election districts consist of eleven
to fifteen parishes; the First Supreme Court District, as stated
above, consists of four parishes. No parish lines are cut by the
election districts for the Supreme Court."' The Louisiana Con-
stitution does not require that the election districts for the
Supreme Court be apportioned equally by population.' However,
the Louisiana Constitution does authorize the state legislature,
7 See Pre-Trial Order Stipulations 18, 21 at pp. 28-29.
8 See Pre-Trial Order Stipulations 3-6, p. 24. See also
La. Const. of 1974, art. 5, SS 3, 4 & 22A; LSA-RS 5 13:101 (West
1983).
9 See Pre-Trial Order Stipulation 23 at p. 29.
10 See id. nos. 9-10 at p. 26.
11 See id. no. 12 at p. 26.
14
-4-
by a two-thirds vote of the elected members of each house of the
legislature, to revise the districts used to elect the Supreme
Court and to divide the first district into two single-member
districts. 12
The New Orleans metropolitan area is composed of Orleans
Parish, which has a majority black electorate, and several subur-
ban parishes which have majority white electorates. As of
March 3, 1988, 81.2 percent of the black registered voters within
the First Supreme Court District resided within Orleans Parish
and 16.0 percent resided in Jefferson Parish. Only 2.1 percent
of the black registered voters in the First District resided in
Plaquemines and St. Beinard Parishes.
The following two tables set forth specific population data
from the 1980 census:
(1) For the six Supreme Court election districts: 13
District Total Black Total VAP14 Black VA? (%)
population population (%)
1 1,102,253 379,101 (34.39) 772,772 235,797 (30.51)
2 582,223 188,490 (32.37) 403,575 118,882 (29.46)
3 692,974 150,036 (21.65) 473,855 92.,232 (19.46)
4 410,850 134,534 •(32.75) 280,656 81,361 (29.99)
5 861,217 256,523 (29.79) 587,428 160,711 (27.36)
6 556,383 129,557 (23.29) 361,510 78,660 (21.76)
TOTAL 4,205,900
12 See id. no. 24 at p. 29.
13 See id. no. 13 at p. 26.
14 Voting Age Population
15
-5-
(2) For the parishes in the First Supreme
District: 16
Parish Total
population
Black
population (%)
Court
Total VAP Black VA? (%)
Jefferson 454,592
Orleans 557,515
Plaquemines 26,049
St. Bernard 64,097
63,001 (13.86)
308,149 (55.27)
5,540 (21.27)
2,411 ( 3.76)
314,334
397,183
16,903
44,352
37,145 (11.82)
193,886 (48.81)
3,258 (19.27)
1,508 ( 3.40)
•
As of March 3, 1989, registered voter data compiled by the
Louisiana Commissioner of Elections indicated the following popu-
lation characteristics:
(3) For the six Supreme Court election districts:
District Total registered voters Black registered voters (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
. 492,691
285,469
379,951
208,568
464,699
305,699
156,714
76,391
74,667
59,140
119.239
70,178
(31.8%)
(26.8%)
(19.7%)
(28.4%)
(25.7%)
(23.0%)
(4) For the parishes in the First Supreme Court
District: 16
Parish Total registered voters Black registered voters (%)
Jefferson
• Orleans
Plaquemines
St. Bernard
TOTAL
202,054
237,278
14,574
38 785
492,691
25,064
127,296
2,796
1 558
156,714
15 See Pre-Trial Order Stipulation 15 at p. 27.
16 See id. no. 16 at ID: 28.
16
(12.4%)
(53.6%)
(19.2%)
( 4.0%)
(31.8%)
-6-
„..
According to the 1980 Census, the current configuration of
election districts has the following percent deviations' from
the "ideal district”" with a population of 600,843:"
District # Total Population Percent Deviation
1 1,102,253 [-16.54 W .'
2 582,223 - 3.10 %
3 692,974 +15.33 %
4 410,850 ' -31.62 %
5 861,217 +43.33 %
6 556,383 - 7.40 %
The relative numbers and population densities of black per-
sons registered to vote in each parish are also shown in the par-
ties' stipulations that on December 31, 1988, black persons con-
17 The percentage deviations •appear to have been calculated as
follows:
% deviation = (actual district pop. - ideal district pop.) x 100
(ideal district population)
18 In its review of the memoranda, testimony and exhibits, the
Court was unable to locate any definition of the "ideal district"
apart from reference to population. See Weber Report,
Defendants' Exhibit 2, p. 48. The Court therefore accepts the
parties' stipulation as to the "ideal district" with the
understanding that other factors of legal significance may
suggest such a district is less than "ideal."
19 The "ideal district" population of 600,843 is calculated by
taking the total population of all districts (4,205,900) and
dividing by seven, the number of ideal districts.
20 The parties stipulated that DistriCt 1 shows a -8.27%
deviation from the "ideal district." See Pre-Trial Order
Stipulation 14, p. 27. However, the definition of the ideal
district is to take the state population and divide it-by the
number of districts. The First District elects two justices,
therefore, in a comparison of the First District with the "ideal
district," the First District's deviation should be multiplied by
two, since it elects two justices in what would otherwise be an
"ideal" seven district system.
-7-
11.4(-) 17
stituted a majority of those persons registered to vote in 226
out of an unspecified number of voting precincts in Orleans
Parish,' whereas in Jefferson Parish black persons constituted a
majority of those persons registered to vote in only 24
precincts. There are no census tracts in St. Bernard Parish with
a majority black population and there is only one such census .
tract in Plaquemines Parish. 22
With population size as the only stipulated indicia of an
"ideal district", the Court further finds that a district con-
sisting of just Orleans Parish would demonstrate an approximate
-7.2% deviation from the ideal district, and a district of
Jefferson, Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes would demonstrate
an approximate -9.3% deviation from the ideal district. 23 By
contrast, a district consisting of Orleans and St. Bernard
Parishes together would present a deviation of only 3.4% and a
district consisting of Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes would
-show a deviation of -20% from the ideal district.
The defendants argue that a fairly drawn district could
consist of Plaquemines, St. Bernard and Orleans Parishes, with a
21 See United States' Exhibit 47. The March 3, 1989 voter
registration data does not alter the number and/or identity of
the majority black Precincts. See United States' Exhibit 5.
22 See United States' Exhibit 48. The March 3, 1989 voter
registration data does not alter the number and/or identity of
the. majority black precincts. See United States' Exhibit 6.
23 The Court's calculations of percentage deviations based on
stipulated data yielded the same figures as set forth in Weber's
Report, Table. 11, p. 50.
18
deviation of only 1.1% from the ideal district.' Such a
district is also geographically compact, but would have a black
voter registration of only 45.3%. Moreover, a district thus
drawn would isolate Jefferson Parish as a district, with a devia-
tion of -24,3% from the ideal, unless of course further redis-
tricting is done affecting parishes and voting districts not
presently under consideration or before this Court. 25
Thus, if two districts were drawn without crossing parish
boundaries (as is the case in the rest of the state) and if the
"ideal district" were based upon population alone, no single
member district may fairly be drawn in which blacks would consti-
tute a majority of the voting age population and registered
voters. Either Jefferson Parish or Orleans Parish would have to
be isolated in such a districting scheme, leaving a second dis-
trict with an atypically low voter population. Moreover, to
date, no parish is isolated as a single district in this state.
The Court does not find any of the suggested divisions of the
First District to be a particularly "ideal" result. 26 It appears
the only way to provide a sizable single member district
24 See Weber Report, p. 53.
25 Any such redistricting would best be done by the state
legislature, which may revise the Supreme Court districts by a
2/3 vote of each house. See Pre-Trial Order Stipulation 111
p. 26.
26 This should not be construed as a determination at this time
by the Court that if a remedy were required the Court must adhere
to parish boundaries in creating new districts.
-9-
114L)
19
in which blacks .would constitute a voting age majority would be
to create a gerrymandering district lacking geographical
compactness.
II. Political Cohesion and Racially Polarized Voting
A wide range of evidence was made available to the Court for
the purpose of evaluating whether plaintiffs' minority is so
politically cohesive that the districting here in question
thwarts distinct minority interests. Such evidence is also-rele-
vant to the related question of whether racial bloc voting has
occurred within the First Supreme Court District.
Evidence relevant to these issues includes data pertaining
to judicial and nonjudicial elections to be evaluated against the
overall political background in the New Orleans area.
The Court will first offer some preliminary findings .bearing
generally upon the scope of evidence to be considered and upon
the use of statistical data. The Court will next discuss the
historical background of minority discrimination leading to the
present claims. A detailed analysis of facts pertinent to both
the issues of political cohesion and racial bloc voting will
follow.
The Court finds that judicial elections are sufficiently
different from elections for legislative and administrative
offices to warrant caution in making inferences about voter
behavior using the techniques employed to analyze voter polariza-
-10-
tion and vote dilution in those other types of elections. 27 In
particular, judicial elections as contrasted to those other elec-
tions are characterized by lower turnout, higher roll-off rates,
and by less voter interest. For example, analyses of the level
of competition for judicial offices compared to state legislative
offices within the four parish area of the First Supreme Court
District during the past decade indicate that almost 64 percent
of judicial races have been uncontested; whereas only about
30 percent of state senate and house of representatives elections
have gone uncontested. The number .of candidates for judicial
offices is particularly low in the election years when the terms
of incumbent judicial officers expired. However, the Court has
also considered the testimony, statistical evidence, and expert
reports pertaining to other elections, and the Court generally
finds that such evidence is consistent with the import of data
from judicial elections, even though the Court is inclined to
give evidence relating to judicial elections greater weight.
In analyzing statistical data, the Court finds that the best
available data for estimating the voting behavior of various
groups in the electorate would come from exit polls conducted
upon a random sample of voters surveyed as they leave the polling
place on election day, but such evidence is not available. The
best available data for estimating the participation of various
27 See generally Weber Report, Defendants' Exhibit 2, pp. 2-10.
While relying upon Dr. Weber's report, the Court finds much of
the matter here discussed is general knowledge of which the Court
might properly take judicial notice.
-11-
groups in the electorate is sign-in data contained in the offi-
cial records of the Parish Registrar of Voters. The best indica-
tor of participation is obtained by dividing the number of per-
sons who signed-in to vote by the number of persons in the voting
age population.
In the absence of exit poll, sign-in., and voting age popu-
lation data, analysts employ the bivariate ecological regression
technique' s to estimate the voting behavior of various groups in
the electorate. Because this analysis produces only an estimate
of voting behw.dor, the Court finds it should consider, but is
not necessarily in a position to consider, what factors are
present in the analysis, such as: the number of cases; varia-
tions of the independent and dependent variables; the timing of
electoral data as compared to the sign-in, voter registration, or
the voting age population data; and comparability of the geo-
graphical units (usually precincts) used in the analysis. From
the record before it, the Court is definitely not in a position
to assess other important aspects of statistical analyses, such
as use of proper procedures to verify the accuracy of the data,
and proper functioning of a statistical analysis computer pro-
28 "Regression analysis is a statistical technique that can be
used to develop a mathematical equation showing how variables are
related." D. Anderson, D. Sweeney and T. Williams, Statistics for
Business and Economics, 406 (2d Ed. 1981). The variable being
predicted by the mathematical equation (in this case, the
percentage of the vote won by each candidate) is the dependent
variable. The variables used to predict the value of the
dependent variable are the independent variables. In this case,
the independent variables are the percentages of voters who are
black or white. See Weber Report, Defendants' Exhibit 2, pp. 10-
11.
-12-
1151
22
gram. A further challenge is to avoid becoming entrenched in a
"numbers game" that obscures the forest for the trees. The par-
ties have often times been of scant assistance by offering numer-
ical data (such as the total percentage deviations from ideal
districting) lacking in readily apparent meaning. It thus
appears that precise correlation between the race of voters and
their voting preferences cannot be made on the basis of the sta-
tistical analyses presented. However, no better data is
provided, and the Court has given the statistical data
considerable weight. 29
In any event, whether testimony, stipulated data, or statis-
tical analysis is cited, the Court's evaluation of the presence
of political cohesion and racially polarized voting includes con-
sideration of the race of the voters, the race of the candidates,
and the access the minority has had to the political process.
A. Access to the Political Process --
Effect of Past Discrimination 30
29 This Court has additional reservations regarding use of much
of the statistical analyses here presented, which reservations
are expressed in the Court's opinion on plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction. See Chisom v. Edwards, 690 F. Supp.
1524, 1528 & n. 25 (E.D. La.), vacated 850 F.2d 1051, reh'g
denied, 857 F.2d 1473 (5th Cir. 1988).
30 Monroe v. City of Woodville, No. 88-4433, slip op. (5th
Cir. Aug. 30, 1989), suggests that the Court need not reach the
Thornburg totality of the circumstances inquiry, if it finds that
the plaintiffs fail to establish all three elements of the
initial 3-part test in Thornburg. This Court nonetheless makes
the following findings, in part to -provide a full record of
findings and in part because the inquiry into these elements
overlaps to some extent the inquiry into political cohesion and
bloc voting.
-13-
The Court's analysis of the presence of racial bloc voting
and political cohesion must be made against a background evalua-
tion of the extent to which political opportunities are presently
hampered by vestiges of past discrimination.' The Court's his-
torical findings are based primarily upon stipulated facts, with
reference to live testimony where indicated.
1. Voting
Louisiana has had a past history of official discrimination
bearing upon the right to vote. In this regard, the parties
stipulated32 to most facts found by the three judge panel in
Major v. Tieen, 33 including the imposition in 1898 of property
and educational qualifications on the franchise, and the
enactment of a "grandfather" clause34 to allow whites, but not
similarly situated blacks, to vote even when, they did otherwise
qualify. In 1923, Louisiana authorized white only primaries,
which continued until their invalidation in 1944. 35 In the
31 See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S. Ct. 2752,
2776, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986).
32 See Pre-Trial Order Stipulations 36-38, p. 38.
33 574 F. Supp. 325 (E.D. La. 1983).
34 In Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 35 S. Ct. 926, 59
L.Ed. 1340 (1915), the Supreme Court ruled that "grandfather"
clauses violated the Fifteenth Amendment. The state then amended
its constitution to replace the "grandfather" clause with a
requirement that an applicant "give a reasonable interpretation"
of any section of the federal or state constitution as a
prerequisite to voter registration. In Louisiana v. United
States, 380 U.S. 145, 85 S. Ct. 817, 13 L.Ed.2d 709 (1965), the
Supreme Court held the "interpretation" test to be another aspect
of illegal disenfranchisement.
35 See Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S. Ct. 1052, 88
L.Ed. 1594 (1944).
-14-
1950s, Louisiana instituted "citizenship" tests and anti-single-
shot voting laws.' In 1959, the State Democratic Party adopted
a majority vote requirement for election of party officers. 37
The State of Louisiana is also subject to special provisions
of the Voting Rights Act because in 1965 it employed a "test or
device," as defined in the Act, as a prerequisite to register to
vote. Less than fifty percent of the voting age population (at
that time 21 years of age or older) voted in the 1964 presiden-
tial election. Moreover, since the enactment of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act, federal examiners have been appointed to enforce the
Act's provisions in twelve Louisiana parishes including, from the
First District, Plaquemines Parish. 38 The federal examiners then
listed a total of 26,978 persons as eligible to vote in those
parishes; 38 of that number 25,138 (93.18 percent) were black. As
of January 1, 1989, 15,432 persons remained on the voting rolls
as federally listed voters, who are presumed not otherwise
registered to vote. 4° At the time of Plaquemines'
36 For a description of single-shot bullet voting, see
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 38, n. 5, 106 S. Ct. at 2760,
n. 5; City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 184 n. 19, 100
S. -Ct. 1548, 1565 n. 19, 64 L.Ed.2d 119 (1980).
37 See Pre-trial
38 See 42 U.S.C.
'PP- 39-40.
39 See 42 U.S.C.
pp. 39-40.
40 See 42 U.S.C.
pp. 39-40.
Order Stipulation 42 at p. 39.
S 1973d; Pre-Trial Order Stipulation 44,
S 1973e(b); Pre-Trial Order Stipulation 44,
S 1973e(a); Pre-Trial Order Stipulation 44,
115
,
designation, only 96 black persons in the parish were registered
to vote. However, by October 1967, federal examiners had listed
1,254 black persons in Plaquemines Parish, resulting in an
increase in the number of black persons registered to vote in
Plaquemines Parish from 96 to over 1,300. 41
In sum, notwithstanding historic disenfranchisement, voter
registration since 1965 has demonstrated generally increased par-
ticipation by black voters, and today no state action or laws
prevent black participation in the electoral process. In the
summer of 1984, the most recent analysis of voter registration by
race showed over seventy percent of both races are registered to
vote and that the gap in between black and white voter
registration continues to close. In fact, as previously
indicated, black voter registration now exceeds white voter
registration in Orleans Parish.
2. The History of the Redistricting Plan Here in Question
For the past 110 years, the First Supreme Court District has
encompassed the greater metropolitan New Orleans area. The
present districting plan for the Supreme Court, which includes
the First Supreme Court District consisting of the parishes of
Orleans, St. Bernard, Plaquemines and Jefferson, was first
drafted in the 1879 Constitution for the State of Louisiana.
Since that time, the voters in the First Supreme Court District
have elected two justices on the Supreme Court. In each of the
Constitutions since then, 1898, 1913, 1921 and 1974, this
41 See Pre-Trial Order Stipulation 45, p. 40.
-16-
2 B
, • ,
districting plan has been readopted without objection. After the
1974 Constitution had been ratified, the United States of
America, through the Justice Department, precleared the
Constitution electing not to challenge the composition of the
districts and the number of justices to be elected from each
district. Cognizant of the factors identified in Overton v. City
of Austin, 871 F.2d 529, 540 (5th Cir. 1989), this Court finds
that the creation of the present First Supreme Court districting
scheme was not devised for discriminatory pUrposes. The district
was created because the parishes of Orleans, St. Bernard,
Plaquemines and Jefferson were considered an inseparable
metropolitan or quasi-metropolitan area.
Access to the political process is further confirmed by the
history of the present districting plan, which is set forth in
the 1974 Louisiana Constitution. The delegates to Louisiana's
1973 Constitutional Convention were 132 in number. There were
10E. elected delegates, all of whom were elected from their
respective districts of the Louisiana House of Representatives.
The remaining delegates, 27 in number, were appointed by the Gov-
ernor to represent various facets of the Louisiana populace.
Twelve of the delegates were black.' Each delegate to the con-
vention, whether elected or appointed, had the right to select
committee assignments. 43 None of the blacks chose to be on the
42 A listing of the names, status as elected or appointed, and
home districts of the black delegates appears in the Appendix to
this Opinion, Table 4.
43 See Records of the 1973 Louisiana Constitutional Convention,
vol. 1, pp. 6 and 35, Rule 51.
-17- 27
Judiciary Committee; therefore, the Judiciary Committee for the
1973 Constitutional Convention consisted of eighteen delegates,
all of whom were white.
The voting record of black delegates for the districting
plan and its amendments shows the following:
A proposed amendment to divide the state into seven Supreme
Court Districts with a Justice elected from each district was
defeated by a vote of 85-27, with a black delegate vote of one
for the amendment, eleven against, and one absent.
A proposed amendment to divide the state into seven equally
apportioned Supreme Court Districts with a Justice elected from
each district was defeated by a vote of 67-47, with a black dele-
gate vote of seven for the amendment, four against, and one
absent.
Another amendment proposed that after January 1, 1975, the
legislature divide the first district (Jefferson, Orleans,
Plaquemines, and St. Bernard Parishes) into two districts with
one Justice to be elected from each district. In support of this
amendment, a white delegate argued:
We have seven Supreme Court Justices,
yet we have six supreme court districts,
two being elected _from one. If I follow
the feeling of this constitutional
right, we argued single member
districts. Why should we make an
exception here, why here? Why provide
that district one is going to have two
Justices and the rest of the districts
are going to have one? Why not have
seven districts? 44
A black delegate elected from Legislative District 97 in Orleans
Parish argued that the present arrangement of the Supreme Court
Districts should not be changed.' This amendment was defeated
by a vote of 63-50, with a black delegate vote of five for the
amendment, and seven against.
The final districting plan, providing for six Supreme Court
Districts, was adopted by a total vote of 103-9, with a black
delegate vote of eight for the final plan, one against, and two
absent." The Constitution proposed by the 1973 Convention was
approved by the federal Department of Justice 47 and ratified by
the voters on April 20, 1974. The present districting may now
be altered by a two-thirds vote of the elected members of each
-- house of the legislature. 48 Although certain pioposals are
pending, no amendment is forthcoming as of this date.
3. Other Discrimination
In addition to data pertaining to franchisement, other stip-
ulated data demonstrate the discrimination in education, hous-
ing, employment, and general access to political processes that
44 Id. vol. VI, p. 720.
45 Id. at 714-15.
46 See Pre-Trial Order Stipulation 31, pp. 37-38. The parties'
stipulation does not account for the twelfth delegate.
47 See 42 U.S.C. S 1973c (1982). See also Chisom v. Edwards,
690 F. Supp. 1524, 1525 & n. 4 (E.D. La. 1988).
48 See Pre-trial Order Stipulation 11, p. 26 and note 15 supra.
-19-
29
has sadly figured prominently in Louisiana's history.' For
example, Louisiana enforced a policy of racial segregation in
public education prior to 1954, in transportation prior to 1964,
and in accommodations prior to 1964, until these practices were
outlawed by the United States Supreme Court and Congress.
Vestiges of such discrimination still exist, as in the
State's system of higher public education; as recently as August
1988, a panel of three judges found Louisiana higher public
education operated as a dual system. s° A prime example of such
vestiges of past discrimination can be found in the legal
profession, an important point of access to the political
process. Until 1947, no black persons were admitted to law
school in Louisiana. At the present time, Louisiana operates two
public law schools: Southern University attended by virtually
all of the State's public black law student population and the
academically superior LSU Law School, attended by most of the
white public student population. - All the current officers of
the Louisiana Bar Association are white, and no black judge has
ever served as one of the officers of the Louisiana District
Judges Association. The Court further accepts the testimony of
49 The Court will not detail here the parties' Stipulations in
this regard, appearing in the Pre-Trial Order as Stipulations 36-
45 at pp. 38-40 and 93-99 at pp. 53-54.
50 See United States v. State of Louisiana, 692 F. Supp..642
(E.D. La. 1988.)
51 In making these findings, the Court takes judicial notice of
facts in the record of proceedings before the three judge Panel
in United States v. State of Louisiana, Civil Action 80-3300.
-20- 00
Judge Revius 0. .Ortique that the New Orleans Bar Association has
never endorsed a black candidate.
The relatively lower economic status of local black resi-
dents further affects accessibility to better education and such
practicalities as campaign funding. 52 In this regard, both Judge_
Ortique and Judge Bernette Johnson testified that black
candidates have considerable difficulty raising campaign funds
and that generally, the better funded candidates win.
4. Recent Access to Political Candidacy
Black candidacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and the
parties' stipulations detail the extent to which blacks have been
unsuccessful in their bids for judicial office and/or have not
run for judicial office. The Court heard testimony from several
unsuccessful black judicial candidates, including Civil District
Court Section "H" Judge Revius Ortique, who testified regarding
his unsuccessful bid for a seat on the Supreme Court in 1972;
Melvin Zeno, Assistant District Attorney for Jefferson Parish and
practicing attorney, who was unsuccessful in a bid for Division
"L" of the 14th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish; and
Anderson Council, who testified regarding his unsuccessful 1987
bid for Juvenile Court Judge in Jefferson Parish. The Court also
heard testimony from Edwin Lombard concerning his unsuccessful
bid for the statewide office of Secretary of State in 1987.
Melvin Zeno testified that he maintained a low profile
during his campaign in order to keep his race unknown. Mr. Zeno
52 See Pre-Trial Order Stipulations 101-9, pp. 54-55.
-21- 3L
• -••.:
turned down personal appearances and excluded certain of his
qualifications from his campaign materials for the purpose of
obscuring his race. Additionally, Mr. Zeno's opponent was an
area attorney who had been a state legislator for approximately
five to seven years and had good name recognition in Jefferson
Parish. Mr. Zeno also testified that he spent only half what his
opponent spent in campaigning for the judicial seat. 53
Likewise, Anderson Council testified that he maintained low
visibility during his campaign in an attempt to keep the white
public from learning he was black. Mr. Council also testified
that he spent only 5% of the total campaign moneys spent by all
the candidates. 54
In the 1987 statewide election for Secretary of State, Rudy
Lombard had the same name recognition problem that Melvin Zeno
encountered. Mr. Lombard ran opposite Fox McKeithen, a candidate
with great name recognition due to the fact that his father was a
former governor of the state. In the statewide election,
Mr. Lombard did not advance to the runoff; however, the returns
from the primary parishes in the First Supreme Court District
show that Lombard was the leader. If the returns in the rest of
the state had been like those in the First Supreme Court Dis-
trict, Mr. Lombard would have made the runoff as the election
front runner. 55
53 See Transcript p. 81.
54 See Transcript p. 92.
55 See-Appendix to this opinion, Table 6.
-22- 3 2
In addition, the Court heard testimony from Civil District
Court Section "I" Judge Bernette Johnson, who testified that she
would not run for the Supreme Court notwithstanding her perceived
qualifications because of her speculation that she would not win.
Stipulated statistical data pertaining to election of judicial
offices elected on a parish-wide basis in the First Supreme Court
District shows that black persons currently serve as judges only
in Orleans Parish."
For example, only two black persons have ever run for a seat
as Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court in this century; no
black person has been elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court in
this century; and the only 'black person to serve on the Supreme
Court in this century was attorney Jessie Stone, who was
appointed to a vacancy on the Louisiana Supreme Court for a
period of 17 days, from November 2, 1979, through November 19,
1979. Nevertheless, the significance of black candidacy must be
remarked, however recent its development.
The two black candidates ran in special elections for the
two seats from the First Supreme Court District in 1972. Each
chose to become a candidate for a different seat, but the evi-
dence fails to.demonstrate this candidacy or the outcome were
dictated by racial factors. Judge Revius Ortique chose to run
against three white candidates, including present Justice Pascal
Calogero, one of the more "liberal" Justices, rather than to
compete with Justice Marcus, one of the more "conservative"
56 See Appendix Tables 1 and 3.
-23-
11°4'
judges, because .like Justice Calogero, Judge Ortique had no prior
judicial experience at that time. Earl J. Amedee competed
against four white candidates for the other position. However,
in light of the candidates' failure to obtain the support of the
black communities, discussed below, the Court cannot find that
their candidacy was limited by vestiges of past segregation.
Rather, their participation suggests increasing access to
judicial candidacy.
It is true that since January 1978, a position in the First
Supreme Court District has been filled by contested primary elec-
tions in 1980 and 1988, and there were no black candidates in
either of the elections. Judge Ortique and Judge Johnson both
testified they would not run again because they cannot win. The
Court rejects this testimony as speculative, and lacking proba-
tive value; if black candidates do not run and increase their
notoriety, they surely cannot win.
Notwithstanding Louisiana's history of discrimination, the
recent careers of several of New Orleans' black politicians dem-
onstrate the increased access minority members have had to local
political processes, including the judiciary. While such success
is usually due to large support by the black community, the white
vote has contributed significantly to the election of black
candidates.
Such increased political access is demonstrated by the
political career of former New Orleans Mayor Ernest Morial. He
was the first black person to serve on the Louisiana Court of
Appeal in this century, elected in 1972 in a contested election
-24-
against a white candidate to a seat from District 1 of the 4th
Circuit Court of Appeal (Orleans Parish). At the time of his
election, Mr. Morial was a judge on the Orleans Parish Juvenile
Court, a position to which he was appointed in 1970. He served
on the court of appeal until 1977 when he resigned to become
Mayor of.the City of New Orleans.
No black person has served on the court of appeal in this
century from an election district encompassing Jefferson,
St. Bernard or Plaquemines Parish, but the recent history of the
Orleans Parish Civil District Court presents a different picture:
Israel Augustine, a black lawyer, was unopposed in his 1981
election to an open seat on District' 1 of the 4th Circuit Court
of Appeal (Orleans Parish). At the time of his election,
Mr. Augustine was serving as a member of the Criminal District
Court of Orleans Parish. Joan Armstrong, a black lawyer, was
unopposed in her 1984 election to an open seat on District 1 of
the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal (Orleans Parish). At the time of
her election, Ms. Armstrong was serving as a judge in the Juve-
nile Court of Orleans Parish, a position she served by appoint-
ment following Morial's resignation in 1972 to run for the 4th
Circuit Court.
Judge Ortique was the first black person to serve on the
Orleans Parish Civil District Court, having been recommended for
appointment as ad hoc judge in Division B of the court by Jus-
tices Calogero and Marcus in 1978. Judge Ortique was serving as
an ad hoc judge, when he defeated a white challenger for Divi-
sion H.of the court in 1979. He was unopposed for reelection in
1984..
-25- 3 5
_
In 1984, Judge Bernette Johnson became the first black can-
didate to defeat a white candidate in a contest for an open seat
on the Orleans Parish Civil District Court. In 1986, Yada Magee,
a black lawyer, defeated a white candidate in a contest for an
open seat on the Orleans Parish Civil District Court.
The first black person to serve on the Orleans Parish Crimi-
nal District 'Court in this century was Israel Augustine who was
appointed in 1969. As an incumbent, Judge Augustine defeated two
white challengers in the 1970 Democratic primary election to
become the unopposed Democratic nominee in the general election.
He served on the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court until
1981 when he was elected to the court of appeal. No black
person, other than Israel Augustine, has been elected to the
Orleans Parish Criminal District Court in this century.
In 1984, Ernestine Gray became the first and only black
person in this century to defeat a white candidate in a contest
for an open seat on the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court. In 1988,
Dennis Dannel became the first and only black person in this cen-
tury to defeat a white incumbent candidate in a contest for the
Orleans Parish Traffic Court. No other black person has been
elected as an Orleans Parish Traffic Court judge in this century.
In 1986, Bruce McConduit became the first and only black
person in this century to defeat a white candidate in a contest
for an open seat for the Orleans Parish Municipal Court. No
other black person has been elected as a municipal court judge in
Orleans Parish in this century.
36
-26-
In this century, no black person has served as a judge in
St. Bernard or Plaquemines Parish, but since 1978, no black per-
sons have been candidates for a judgeship in the parishes of
St. Bernard and Plaquemines. In this century, no black person
has been elected to the First or Second City Court for New
Orleans. Since 1978, no black candidate has been elected in a
contested election to parish-wide office in St. Bernard,
Plaquemines and Jefferson.
The above facts show many areas of judicial office in which
black candidates have not participated. However, this Court is
not prepared to make a blanket finding of restricted access to
candidacy, given recent significant strides in this area. More'-
over, at least in so fat as relates to the recent elections of
Orleans Parish Criminal Court Judges and Orleans Traffic Court
Judges, blacks have crossed race lines.
5. Other Thornburg Factors
The Court further notes that there is no suggestion or
record evidence of racial overtones or appeals in judicial or
other elections, nor of a lack of responsiveness on the part of
judges or other elected officials to the particularized needs of
the members of the minority group.
B. Analysis of Racial Bloc Voting and Cohesion
• 1. The Judiciary
Since 1976, candidates for judicial office do not run in
partisan elections. Instead, all candidates for all of the
offices to be elected on a given date run in the open primary
-27-
election. However, a candidate's political party enrollment is
indicated on the ballot. There is a majority-vote requirement in
elections for judicial office. If no candidate receives a major-
ity of the vote in the primary, the top two vote-getters then
compete in a general election. Parish-wide judicial offices are
elected to a designated position.
a. Elections for Supreme Court Justices from the First
District
Since January 1978, a position on the Supreme Court for the
State of Louisiana has been filled by contested elections in 1980
and 1988. These contested positions were filled in the primary
elections. There were no black candidates in either of the elec-
tions. However, weighted regression analysis suggests the fol-
lowing allocation of votes:"
%.of Black % of White
Voters for Voters for
Winning Winning
Year Election Winner Candidate Candidate
1974 General Calogero 98.3 71.0
1980 Primary Marcus 77.5 69.7
1988 Primary Calogero 59.9 64.7
57 See Weber Report, Appendix B, pp. B-1, 2 and 3.
-28- 38
Homogeneous Precinct Analyses show:
% of Black % of White
Voters for Voters for
Winning Winning
Year Election Winner Candidate Candidate
1974 General Calogero 96.4 71.0
1980 Primary Marcus 75.3 69.3
1988 Primary Calogero 59.3 64.9
Unweighted Regression Analyses suggest:
% of Black % of White
Voters for Voters for
Winning Winning
Year• Election Winner Candidate Candidate
1974 General Calogero 98.6 71.7
1980 Primary Marcus 77.9 71.2
1988 Primary Calogero 60.7 65.7
Thus, the candidate supported by a majority of black voters
was elected in each instance. Although no statistical evidence
was presented concerning the racial voting patterns in the 1972
special election for the First Supreme Court District, a black
candidate ran for both of the available seats. One candidate,
Judge Ortique testified that there was a substantial number of
blacks who crossed over and supported the white candidate. 58
Judge Ortique received 27,648 votes (14.0%) in the First Supreme
Court District and 21,744 votes (20.7%) in Orleans Parish.'
From the statistics that are available concerning the 1972
58 See Trial Transcript p. 30.
59 For election results, see Appendix in this Opinion, Table 5.
A majority of the black vote in Orleans would have to be 50% of
53.6%, or 26.8% of the black vote.
-29- 30
special electior.), it appears that there was a black crossover in
the election for the second Supreme Court seat in the First
District. In that election, Mr. Amedee, the only black
candidate, received only 11,872 votes (5.8%) in the First Supreme
Court District and 8,997 votes (8.5%) in Orleans Parish,
revealing that there was even a greater black crossover vote than
in the Ortigue/Calogero race. 6°
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds there is no pat-
tern of racial bloc voting in the four most recent elections for
Supreme Court Justice from the First Supreme Court District.
b. Other Judicial Elections
:Nor is there a usual pattern of defeat for the black minor-
ity's preferred candidates in the 75 other judicial elections
within the four parishes of the First Supreme Court District
between 1978 and the present.
Since January 1978, in the parishes that constitute the
First District, there have been 51 instances in which one of the
judicial positions have been filled by contested election. For
these 51 contested judicial positions, 66 primary and general
election contests have been held to fill the seats at issue.
Black persons have participated as candidates against white per-
sons for 21 of the contested judicial positions and in 30 of the
primary and general elections conducted .to fill those positions.
The remaining 30 contested judicial positions and the 36 elec-
tions necessary to fill those positions involved white candidates
60 See Appendix in this Opinion, Table 5.
-30 40
only. Most importantly, however, the minority candidate of
choice has been elected in 62.7% of the elections."
Ecological regression analyses for 34 judicial elections (24
primaries and 10 general elections)'' show that there is signif-
icant crossover voting among both white and black voters in judi-
cial elections. A considerable number of black voters do not
always support the black candidate, nor do the white voters
always support the white candidate.
In addition, the Court heard testimony from Melvin Zeno who
received significant endorsements from white Jefferson Parish
officials and from primarily white political organizations in his
bid for District Court Judge in Jefferson Parish during 1988. 63
The willingness of prominent white politicians to actively sup-
port black candidates demonstrates that crossover politics exists
even in :Jefferson Parish.
Lionel Collins was the first and only black person to serve
as a judge in Jefferson Parish in this century. Judge Collins
was appointed to a seat on the 24th Judicial District Court in
1978. As an incumbent, he was supported by prominent political
factions and was unopposed for both his initial election to
another seat in 1978 and for his reelection in 1984. Judge
Collins died in April 1988 before completing his term in office.
61 See Appendix Table 2.
62 See United States' Exhibit 16.
63 See Trial Transcript, pp. 67-68.
-31- 41
-
There are two city courts in New Orleans for which judges
are not elected on a parish-wide basis. All of the persons
residing in Orleans Parish except for those persons who reside on
the West Bank of the parish in the 15th Ward (Algiers) are eligi-
ble to vote for the three members of ,the First City Court for New
Orleans. All persons residing on the West Bank of the parish in
the 15th Ward (Algiers) are eligible to vote for one member of
the Second City Court for New Orleans. Since 1978 there have
been 4 instances in which a First City Court judgeship position
has been filled by contested election, and 5 primary and general
elections have been held to fill the 4 positions. Black persons
have participated as candidates against white persons for 3 of
the contested positions and in 4 of the elections held to fill
those positions.
In 1988, black candidate Dennis Dannel achieved his victory
for Orleans Parish Traffic Court Judge notwithstanding other
black leaders' endorsements of Dannel's white opponent. For
example, both former Mayor Ernest Morial and State Senator Bill
Jefferson endorsed white candidate Lambert Hassinger in his bid
.for reelection to Traffic Court against Danne1. 64
2. Exogenous Elections
In the 1987 primary election for Secretary of State, there
were two black candidates and seven white candidates. 65 Weighted
ecological regression analysis for the 1987 primary
64 See Times-Picayune 11/2/88, at B-3; 11/7/88, at B-2.
65 See Appendix Table 6.
-32-
election for Secretary of State indicates that in the four
parishes that constitute the First District, over 80 percent of
black voters and under 20 percent of white voters cast their
votes for Edwin Lombard, a black candidate.
In the 1987 Secretary of State primary election; Edwin
Lombard received 35 percent of the vote in the four parishes that
comprise the First District, to finish as the plurality. winner.
He received a majority of the votes cast within Orleans Parish,
but obtained only 20 percent of the votes cast in Jefferson,
Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes.
Additional Findings
. In First District elections, there is a majority-vote
requirement and staggered terms; single-shot voting is not
allowed.
Cross-over voting by-voters of one race to support candi-
dates of another race is occurring increasingly in Orleans Parish
elections for non-judicial offices indicating a pattern of both
white and black voters to look at factors other than the race of
candidates in making election choices.
Cross-over voting by white voters to support black candi-
dates for non-judicial offices in Orleans Parish occurs on a reg-
ular basis with the result that black candidates frequently win
parish-wide offices such as mayor, councilman at-large, and
school board posts.
Roll-off in Orleans Parish judicial elections by black
voters is sometimes large enough to prevent black candidates from
winning elections in which white candidates participate.
1:12
-33- 43
Moreover, black and white voters in Orleans Parish partici-
pate at approximately equal rates in recent elections for major
office (President, U.S. Senate, Governor, and Mayor).
Factual Conclusion
Based upon the totality of circumstances before the Court,
the Court is unable to find, and the plaintiffs, for the reasons
hereinabove stated have failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence as a factual matter, that a bloc voting majority is usu-
ally able to defeat candidates supported by a politically cohe-
sive geographically insular minority group." The overall
present reality in the Court's view is not a picture of racial
polarization to the detriment of the minority plaintiffs isolated
in Orleans Parish, but rather is an emerging political process in
Metropolitan New Orleans, wherein the talents of black
individuals as leaders in the judiciary and in other
traditionally political offices have been recognized by black and
white voters. A brief glimpse at the statistical evidence serves
to demonstrate that black individuals constitute a clear minority
of elected officials, who have risen to positions of political
prominence primarily in Orleans Parish only, where the greatest .
number of black individuals in the Metropolitan area reside. But
the black community has been able to elect their candidates of
choice in a significant number of elections."
66 In reaching this conclusion, the Court has given great
weight to the expert reports of Dr. Ronald E. Weber and
Dr. Robert S. Miller.
67 While the Court's conclusion applies to the entire four-
parish area of the First District, the Court finds that its
-34- 4,4
In reaching this conclusion, the Court has noted the opinion
testimony of Dr. Engstrom to the effect that racially polarized
voting exists. However, as will be detailed below in the Court's
discussion of the applicable law, the overall focus of the
Court's inquiry must be whether the minority candidate can elect
its candidates of choice. As this Court previously stated:
Whether Dr. Engstrom's analysis in this
case comports with what even the plurality
was approving* in Thornburg is unclear. While
Dr. Engstrom centered his analysis in this
case on the race of the candidates, the plu-
rality stated that "the race of the candidate
per se is irrelevant to racial bloc voting
analysis." Id. at 67, 106 S. Ct. at 2775.
But cf. id. at 68, 106 S. Ct. at 2775-76
("Because both minority and majority voters
often select members of their own race as
their preferred representatives, it will fre-
quently be the case that a black candidate is
the choice of blacks, while a white candidate
is the choice of whites.").
Thus, while election and support of black candidates is important
in the totality of circumstances, it is not determinative of a
finding of racial cohesion or racially polarized voting.
While blacks support black candidates to a large degree, and
whites white candidates, the Court finds enough crossover voting
exists to prevent a finding of significant racial polarization,
and while the evidence demonstrates the relatively small number
of black persons holding office, this finding dces not trigger
the additional more important finding that blacks in the first
district have been unable to elect the candidates of their
conclusion is even stronger vis-a-vis the plaintiff-class, black
Orleans Parish voters.
-35- 45
choice. The political reality in South Louisiana is that the
support of the black community is a very important factor in the
success of any political candidate. It is rare that one may suc-
ceed without it. 88
Conclusions of Law
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this matter
under 28 U.S.C. SS 1331 and 1432 and 42 U.S.C. S 1973C.
There are two issues of law:
1. Whether the multimember district system
in Louisiana's First Supreme Court District
violates Section 2(a) of the Voting Rights
Act; and
2. Whether the multimember district system
in Louisiana's First Supreme Court District
violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amend-
ments to the United States Constitution and
42 U.S.C. S 1983.
The Court will address each issue in turn.
1. The Voting Rights Act
With respect to the first issue, the Fifth Circuit has pre-
viously determined in this litigation that section 2 generally
applies to judicial elections. G9 However, the parties raise a
threshold legal issue whether both subsections of section 2 apply
to judicial elections or whether only subsection (a) is applica-
ble-. If only subsection (a) applies, defendants suggest only
68 In addition to the facts recited heretofore, the Court in
reading its conclusions herein has received and taken into
consideration the 109 stipulations of fact set forth in paragraph
7 of the Pre-Trial Order of March 29, 1989.
69 Chisom v. Edwards, 839 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S. Ct. 390 (1988).
-36-
4 6
intentional acts, of discrimination are prohibited. If both sub-
sections apply, plaintiffs may prevail "by demonstrating that
under a totality of the circumstances, a challenged election law
or procedure has the, effect of denying or abridging the right to
vote on the basis of race."' In other words, under subsection
(b), a "results test" may be used to evaluate the challenged
election law or procedure.
Because of the Fifth Circuit's discussion (in its order of
remand herein) of both subsections of section 2 and its reliance
upon legislative history concerning subsection (b), it appears as
a directive for this Court to apply both subsections of section 2
to this case.
However, defendants contend the resolution of this case is
not governed by section 2(b) of the Act. Defendants assert that
section 2(b) of the Voting Rights Act enshrines the "one man, one
vote" principle as the touchstone test, which should not be used
to analyze judicial elections, because the "one man, one vote"
test was expressly rejected as applying to the judiciary in Wells
v. Edwards, 347 F. Supp. 453 (M.D. La. 1972), aff'd 409
U.S. 1095, 93 S. Ct. 904, 34 L.Ed.2d 679 (1973).
The Wells litigation pre-dates the 1982 amendments to the
Voting Act instituting the "results test." However, Wells has
never been overruled and the law of the case is silent on Wells'
viability.
70 839 F.2d at 1059.
-37- 4
If this Court's assumption as noted above is incorrect, and
Wells applies as the governing standard, this Court would con-
clude without hesitation that plaintiffs have failed to prove
discriminatory intent with respect to the scheme here at issue,
and that therefore plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claims must be
dismissed. However, since the tenor of the Fifth Circuit's opin-
ion in this case suggests otherwise, this Court is bound by that
opinion as the law of the case.
Accordingly, this Court has evaluated the facts before it
under the rules of Gingles and its progeny.' As stated by the
Fifth Circuit:
It has been widely recognized that "multi-
member district and at-large voting schemes
may operate to minimize or cancel out the
voting strength of racial minorities in the
voting population." [Citing Gingles] Such
schemes are not, however, per se violations
of section 2. [citation omitted)
Westwego Citizens for Better Government v. City of Westwego, 872
F. 2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1989). This Court must undertake "a
searching practical evaluation of past and present reality," with
a "functional view of the political process." Id. at 1204
(quoting Gingles).
Addressing the specific evidence necessary under
section 2(b) to prove a section 2(a) violation, the Gingles
plurality set forth three matters a minority group must prove:
71/ See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S. Ct. 2752, 92
L.Ed. 2525 (1986) and cases cited in this Court's Opinion of
July 28, 1988, Rec. Doc. no. 52, 690 F. Supp. 1524 (E.D. La.
1988).
-38- 48
(1) that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to
constitute a majority in a single-member district; (2) that it is
politically cohesive; and (3) that the white majority votes
sufficiently in a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the
minority's preferred candidate because the minority's submergence
in a white multi-member district impedes the minority's ability
to elect its chosen representatives. See 478 U.S. at 50-51, 106
S. Ct. at 2766-67, 92 L.Ed.2d 46-47; Campos v. City of Baytown,
840 F.2d 1240, 1243 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109
S. Ct. 3213 (1989).
Other relevant but not necessary focal factors -72 are
enumerated in the Senate Judiciary Committee majority report in
respect of section 2' 3 and include: the state's history of
voting discrimination; the extent of racially polarized voting;
the state's use of such voting practices as unusually large
election districts, majority vote requirements and anti-single
shot procedures; -74 access to candidate slating processes; the
extent to which limited education and employment opportunities
and health benefits hinder minority participation; racial appeals
in political campaigns and the extent to which minority members
have been elected to public office; elected officials'
72 Gingles, 106 S. Ct. at 2765-66.
73 This report accompanied the bill amending section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act in June 29, 1982. See S. Rep. No. 97-417, 97th
Cong. 2d Sess. 28 (1982), USCCAN 1982, pp. 206-07, cited in
Thornburg v. Gingles, supra, 106 S. Ct. at 2759-60.
74 Bullet (single-shot) voting is defined in Gingles, 106
S. Ct. at 2760 n. 5.
-39- 9 4
iesponsiveness to minority needs; and the viability of voting
qualifications.
In evaluating the statistics necessary for plaintiffs to
prove racial bloc voting, this Court is bound by recent Fifth
Circuit authority to consider statistical evidence from judicial
elections and from exogenous elections.' However, in the
instant case, there is no sparsity of data pertaining to judicial
elections in which black candidates have run, and while the Court
gives due consideration to data from exogenous elections, the
Court concludes data from judicial elections should receive
greater weight. Nevertheless, as previously indicated, the Court
is of the opinion plaintiffs have failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence, the existence of racial bloc
voting as a matter of law."
This conclusion is critical because multi-member districts
and at large election schemes, are not per se violative of minor-
ity voters' rights.'" Rather, plaintiffs must prove that the use
of a multi-member electoral structure operates to minimize or
cancel out their ability to elect their preferred candidates.
This, the plaintiffs have not done. As detailed in the Court's
findings of fact, the statistical evidence regarding judicial and
75 See Westwego, 872 F.2d at 1206; Citizens for a Better Gretna
v. City of Gretna, 834 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1987).
76 To hold otherwise, the Court would be required to ignore the
expert reports of Drs. Weber and Miller which the Court declines
to do.
77 Thornburg v. Gingles, supra, 106 S. Ct. at 2752
-40- 50
non-judicial elections shows that the blacks have had full access
to the political process and routinely elect their preferred can-
didates, often times joining forces with a significant portion of
the white electorate, and creating significant crossover voting.
Plaintiffs would have the Court create an amoeba-shaped,
wholly-metropolitan district unique among the Supreme Court dis-
tricts in the state for the sole purpose df guaranteeing a black
justice. In concluding, the Court stresses that the plaintiffs'
goal appears wholly contrary to the express proviso in section 2
that "nothing in this section establishes a right to have
[blacks] elected in numbers equal to their proportion in
population."
2. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
With respect to the second issue, "multimember districts are
not per se unconstitutional, nor are they necessarily unconstitu-
tional when used in combination with single-member districts in
other parts of the State." White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93
S. Ct. 2332, 2339 (1973). Proof of racially discriminatory
intent or purpose is required to show a violation under either
the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment. Kirksey v. City of
Jackson, Miss., 663 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1981). Washington
v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-241, 96 S. Ct. 2040 (1976). Plain-
tiffs have failed to prove as a matter of law that the present
system by which Louisiana Supreme Court Justices are elected was
instituted with specifi.c intent to dilute, minimize or cancel the
voting strength of plaintiffs. It is clear that an invidious
discriminatory purpose was not a .factor at all in the legislative
-41- • r;
decision to provide a multi-member district for the Louisiana
First Supreme Court District. Such being the case, plaintiffs
have failed to prove any constitutional violation from the opera-
tion of the present voting scheme.
For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing plaintiff's
claims.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of September, 1989.
/ 0'44
UNITED STATES DISTRICT J1GE
L.;
TABLE 1
Judicial Offices Elected on a Parish-Wide Basis
in the
First Supreme Court District
Parish Court
Jefferson District 24
Number of
of judges
15
Juvenile 3
Number of
black judges
Orleans Civil 12 3
Criminal 10 0
Juvenile 5 1
Crim. Magistrate 1 0
Municipal 4 1
Traffic 4 1
Plaquemines District 25
St. Bernard District 34
2
3
Orleans 4th Circuit,
Plaquemines at-large
St. Bernard (court of appeal) 2 0
Orleans 4th Circuit,
1st District
(court of appeal) 8 1
Plaquemines 4th Circuit,
2nd District
(court of appeal) 1 0
St. Bernard 4th Circuit,
3rd District
(court of appeal) 1 0
Jefferson 5th Circuit,
1st District
(court of appeal) 6 0
53
TABLE 2
Election of Minority Candidates
Contested Elections for Judicial Positions
in the First Supreme Court District (1978-88)
Percentage of Number
Elections Where Total Black
Judgeship/ Winner is Preferred Number of vs. White
District by Minority Bloc Elections Elections
Supreme Ct.
Dist. 1 100% 3 0
-
24th 71% 7 1
25th . 100% 1 0
34th 100% 4 0
Orleans Civil 56% 9 6
Orleans Crim. 29% 7 3
IV Circuit
At-Large 0 0
IV Circuit
Dist. 1 75% 4 1
IV Circuit
Dist. 2 75% 4 0
IV Circuit
Dist. 3 100% 3 0
V Circuit
Dist. 1 0% 1 0
Orleans Juvenile 20% 5 5
New
Municipal 75% 4 2
New Orleans
Traffic 100% 2 1
New Orleans
First City 50% 4 2
Jefferson
Juvenile 0% 1 1
TOTAL 62.7% 59 21
TABLE 3
Ecological Regression Analysesi for 34 Elections2
Percent of Vote for
Black Candidate
Black
Election. Candidate Office
ORLEANS PARISH
Black White
Voters Voters
1978
Primary Wilson Criminal Mag. 32 2
Primary Douglas Juvenile Ct. Sec. B 57 3
Young Juvenile Ct. Sec. B 24 2
1979
Primary Ortique Civil Dist. Div. H 97 14
General *Ortique3 Civil Dist. Div. H 99 13
Primary Young Juvenile Ct. Sec. E 65 5
General Young Juvenile Ct. Sec. E 80 25
Primary Pharr 1st City Ct. Sec. C 6 2
1980
Primary Young 1st City Ct. Sec. A 72 4
General Young 1st City Ct. Sec. A 92 15
1 This table is set forth in Pre-trial Order Stipulation 78,
pp. 48-50. Voter sign-in data, by precinct and by race, is not
available from the State of Louisiana for elections conducted
prior to January 1, 1988.
2 The elections in bold print are outcome determinative
elections. An "outcome determinative election" is an election in
which a candidate is elected to fill the position at issue.
Black candidates have participated in 23 of the 57 outcome
determinative elections held for contested judicial positions in
the first district since 1978. A black candidate was successful
in 6 of these 23 outcome determinative elections.
3 "*" Indicates a winning candidate.
• 55
•
1981
Primary Thomas 1st City Ct. Sec. C 94 17
1982
Primary Julien Crim. Dist. Div. I 39-41 4-5
Wilson Crim. Dist. Div. I 31 3
General Julien Crim. Dist. Div. I 88 16
1983
PrimarY Davis Civil Dist. Div. D 97 6-7
1984
Primary Dorsey Civil Dist. Div. F 51-52 23
Primary *Johnson Civil Dist. Div. I 85 30
Primary Young Juvenile Ct. Sec. C 46 5
Primary Douglas Crim. Dist. Div. B 72-74 6-'7
General Douglas Crim. East. Div. B 88 11
Primary Dannel Juvenile Ct. Sec. A 20 19
Gray Juvenile Ct. Sec. A 69 10
General *Gray Juvenile Ct. Sec. A 96 16
1986
Primary Blanchard Crim. Dist. Div. J 72-75 13-15
Primary Magee Civil Dist. Div. F 75 9-10
Wilkerson Civil Dist. Div. F 22 35
General *Magee Civil Dist. Div. F 92 12-13
Primary Dannel Juvenile Ct. Sec. D 84 21
_
Primary McConduit Municipal Ct. 71 12
General *McConduit Municipal Ct. 84 27
1987
Primary Douglas 4th Cr. Court of 53-54 21-22
Appeal, Dist. 1
56
-
1988
Primary Hughes Civil Dist. Div. G 35 3
General Hughes Civil Dist. Div. G 83-85 9
Primary Julien Municipal Ct. 62-64 14
Primary . Dannel Traffic Ct. 48-49 23
Hughes Traffic Ct. 35-36 11
General *Dannel Traffic Ct. 76-77 34
JEFFERSON PARISH
1987
Primary Council Juvenile Ct. Div. A 81-82 3
• 1988
Primary Zeno District 24 Div. L 100-104 15-18
57
-
TABLE 4
Black Delegates to 1973 Constitutional Convention
AVERY C. ALEXANDER, Vice Chairman of the Convention, Dele-
gate elected from Legislative District 93 (Kenner, Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana)
GEORGE DEWEY HAYES, Delegate elected from Legislative.Dis-
trict 63 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana)
J. K. HAYNES, Delegate appointed to represent public at
large. (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana)
ALPHONSE JACKSON, JR., Delegate elected from Legislative
District 2 (Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana)
JOHNNY JACKSON, JR., Delegate elected from Legislative Dis-
trict 101 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana)
LOUIS LANDRUM, SR., Delegate elected from Legislative Dis-
trict 91 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana)
ANTHONY MARK RACHAL, JR., Delegate appointed to represent
the Civil Service (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana)
NOVYSE E. SONIAT, Delegate elected from Legislative
88 (Metairie, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana)
DOROTHY MAE TAYLOR, Delegate appointed to represent
Minorities (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana.
THOMAS A. VELAZQUEZ, Delegate elected from Legislative Dis-
trict 97 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana)
District
Racial
GEORGE ETHEL WARREN, Delegate elected from Legislative Dis-
trict 102 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana)
MARY E. WISHAM, Delegate elected from Legislative District
No. 67 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana)
58
•,t
TABLE 5
1972 Special Elections Results
for the Two Seats
from the First District
Orleans vote as
a proportion of
Candidate Total vote (%) Orleans vote (%) the total vote
Ortique (B) 27,648 (14.0) 21,744 (20.7) 78.6
Calogero 67,256 (34.1) 34,473 (32.8) 51.3
Redmann 22,262 (11.3) 10,542 (10.0) 47.4
Sarpy 79,796 (40.5) 38,256 (36.4) 47.9
196,962 105,015 53.3
Amedee (B) 11,872 ( 5.8) . 8,997 ( 8.4) 75.6
Marcus 78,810 (38.7) 46,629 (43.4) 59.2
Borsetta 35,272 (17.3) 19,728 (18.4) 55.9
Garrison 52,249 (25.7) 26,055 (24.2) 49.9
Samuel 25,476 (12.5) 5,994 ( 6.6) 23.5
203,679 107,403 52.7
5!)
TABLE 6
Secretary , of State Results in 1987 Primary
for Parishes in the First Supreme Court District
Candidate Jefferson Orleans Plaquemines St. Bernard Total Pct.
Cutshaw 24,097 12,936 1,564 5,854 43,911 14.7
Lombard 27,081 71,146 2,002 4,026 104,255 35.0
McKeithen 41,091 29,613 2,680 11,452 84,836 28.5
Rivers 1,233 2,889 111 365 4,598 1.5
Tassin 16,039 6,545 925 2,877 26,386 8.9
Others 17,789 10,802 1,396 4,102 34,089 11.4
Source: Official Return from Louisiana Office of Secretary of State
f3 0
j
TABLE 7
Orleans Parish
Election Results for Parish-Wide Offices
Involving Black vs. White Candidates
Weighted Regression Analysis
1980-1988 4
Date of % Black % White
Election Office Candidates Vote Vote
09-13-80 School Galman (B) 21.6 2.5
Board (2) *Koppel 12.0 41.7
*Spears (B) 26.0 20.5
Watson 2.7 9.6
*Zanders (B) 26.3 7.2
White Others 2.0 8.8
Black Others 9.4 9.9
02-06-82 Civil Bush (B) 6.9 1.9
Sheriff *D'Hemecourt 15.1 42.8
Ivon 8.5 33.2
*Valteau (B) 69.5 22.1
Mayor All 0.3 0.2
*Faucheaux 0.3 80.5
Fertel 0.2 0.5
Jefferson (B) 8.0 6.2
*Morial (B) 90.8 12.6
Waters (B) 0.3 0.2.
Councilman *Barthelemy . (B) 52.7 26.7
At-Large (2) Dee 1.9 6.1 -
*Giarrusso 32.9 42.1
Koppel 12.5 25.1
4 The information contained in this table is taken from
Weber's Report, Defendants' Exhibit 2, pp. 33-37 and Appendices C
and E and Engstrom's Report, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, Table 1. "*"
designates a winning candidate. Weber's Report sets forth both
weighted and unweighted regression analyses and a homogenous
precinct analysis. Engstrom's report provides both analyses for
black judicial candidates. The Court has considered statistics
produced by all three analyses, but has chosen to set forth here
only the weighted regression analysis for illustrative purposes,
given that all three analyses produced figures appearing
relatively similar and weighted regression analysis appears to
take more variables into consideration in most instances. See
Weber, pp. 10-13, Engstrom Report, pp. 3-5.
6f
03-20-82
. 09-11-82
11-02-82
06-18-83
09-29-84
Criminal
Dist, Ct.
(Div. I)
Civil
Sheriff
Mayor
Criminal
Dist. Ct.
(Div. I)
School
Board (2)
School
Board (1).
Civil
Dist. Ct.
(Dist. D)
U.S. Congress
(Dist. 2)
School
Board (1)
District
Attorney
Civil
Dist. Ct.
(Div. F)
*Julien (B)
Kogos
Meyer
Scaccia
Wilson (B)
*Wimberly
D'Hemecourt
*Valteau (B)
Faucheaux
*Morial (B)
Julien (B)
*Wimberly
Jeffrion (B)
Lombard (B)
*Loving (B)
*McKenna (B)
Pope
Rittiner
*Robbert
McKenna (B)
*Robbert
Davis (B)
*Di Rosa, L.
Augustine (B)
*Boggs
Morrison
Lodrig (B)
Torregano (B)
Beverly
Charitat
*Glapion (B)
*Higbee
Hirsch
Lombard (B)
West (B)
Zanders (B)
*Connick
Marcal
Reed (B)
Dorsey (B)
*Roberts
39.3 4.2
=MOO=
=1.1=
.=1.
31.3 3.2
12.7 50.2
13.0 65.9
87.0 34.1
1.6 86.3
98.4 13.7
88.1 16.3
12.3 83.6
6.7 3.4
11.1 5.2
47.5 21.0
32.0 9.4
0.2 11.8
0.1 22.9
1.5 26.3
91.4 16.8
8.6 83.2
97.0 6.6
2.8 93.5
64.4 7.6
34.5 90.7
0.4 0.6
0.4 0.5
0.1 0.6
1.9 3.6
1.9 9.9
49.0 6.3
1.2 56.4
0.2 4.6
6.1 3.8
0.8 1.5
38.9 13.9
13.5 89.0
1.6 2.8
84.9 8.2
51.6 23.2
49.1 76.7
-
Civil Harris
Dist, Ct. *Johnson (B)
(Div. I)
84.9 30.0
09-29-84 Criminal *Douglas (B) 72.1 6.0
Dist. Ct. Myers __ --
(Div. B) *Quinlan 6.7 67.0
Juvenile Dannel (B) 19.7 18.7
Court *Gray (B) 69.0 . 9.6
(Div. A) *Horton 4.1 67.8
Martin ..... __
. Juvenile Ducote .0 ..IP •,. M.
Court *Mule 41.8 64.5
(Div. C) Young (B) 46.2 4.7
11-06-84 School *Glapion (B) 97.2 15.6
Board (1) Higbee 2.8 84.4
Criminal Douglas (B) 88.3 10.4
Dist. Ct. *Quinlan 12.0 89.1
(Div. B)
Juvenile *Gray (B) 95.7 16.2
Court Horton
(Div. A)
02-01-86 Criminal Aubrey (B) 10.6 5.3
Sheriff *Foti 76.7 82.7
Ghergich 12.7 12.0
Civil Begg 2.6 9.3
Dist. Ct. Ciamarra 2.2 12.6
Clerk Douglas (B) 43.4 6.6
*Foley 51.8 71.5
Criminal Carroll 5.8 31.9
Dist. Ct. *Lombard (B) 94.2 68.1
Clerk
Recorder of Bogan (B) 54.2 10.7
Mortgages *Demarest 45.8 89.3
Registrar of *Lewis (B) 48.0 6.2
Conveyances Merrity 10.9 6.8
*Schiro 27.2 57.4
Watermeier 13.9 29.6
02-01-86 Mayor *Barthelemy (B) 24.4 42.1
Hardy 0.3 0.2
*Jefferson (B) 71.0 7.2
LeBlanc 1.0 48.7
Lombard (B). 3.1 1.5
Rauch 0.2 0.3
6
03-01-86
09-29-86
11-04-86
10-24-87
03 -08 -88s
Councilman
At-Large (2)
Civil
Dist. Ct.
(Div. F)
Criminal
Dist. Ct.
(Div. J)
Registrar of
Conveyances
Civil
Dist. Ct.
(Div. F)
School
Board (2)
Municipal
Court
Judge
Juvenile
Court
(Sec. D)
School
Board (1)
Municipal
Court
Judge
4th Circuit
1st Dist.
Civil
Dist. Ct.
(Div. G)
*Bagneris (B)
Detweiler
*Giarrusso
Kent
*Taylor (B)
Williams (B)
*Hawkins
*Magee (B)
Wilkerson (B)
Blanchard (B)
*Cannizzaro
Lewis (B)
*Schiro
Hawkins
*Magee (B)
Evans (B)
*Koppel
*Lambert-Busshoff
Lombard (B)
*McKenna (B)
Williams (B)
Zanders (B)
White Others
Black Others
*Comarda
Fitzsimmons
*McConduit (B)
Dannel (B)
*Lagarde
*McKenna (B)
Lambert-Busshoff
.Comarda
,*McConduit (B)
Douglas (B)
*Plotkin
Barnett
Cresson
Exnicios
*Giarrusso
*Hughes (B)
36.0 8.1
0.6 28.3
24.0 34.8
0.4 14.1
33.4 6.8
5.6 7.9
3.4 55.6
75.0 9.5
21.8 34.6
74.7 15.0
27.7 86.8
74.3 17.2
25.7 82.8
91.5 12.4
25.3 4.9 •
11.4 42.7
1.1 27.2
5.9 2.7
21.3 9.3
12.7 5.6
13.2 3.2
0.5 1.8
8.6 2.6
17.0 58.6
70.8 11.8
84.1 21.0
16.2 78.9
89.3 24.0
10.7 76.0
84.2 26.5
54.0 22.2
47,2 78.7
- -
ONO
47.8
35.8
- -
•••
MI. MN
39.7
3.4
6,1
04-16-88 Civil
Dist, Ct.
(Div. G)
10-01-88 Municipal Ct.
Judge
Traffic Ct.
Judge
School Board
(2)
11-08-88 Traffic Ct.
Judge
*Giarrusso
Hughes (B)
*Glancey
Julien (B)
*Dannel (B)
*Hassinger
Hughes (B)
Gagliano
*Koppel
*McKenna (B)
*Dannel (B)
Hassinger
16.7 91.5
84.6 9.1
36.2 85.5
62.4 13;5
48.7 22.9
15.1 65.8
35.4 11.1
.22.5 30.2
25.8 41.3
51.7 28.5
77.0 34.4
4=1, •M.
65
• , -
material facts which would relate to the matter now before the
Court for determination.
7. Uncontested material facts.
The plaintiffs, the United States and the defendants
stipulate that the following statements are true and that these
facts may be admitted in evidence in lieu of further proof or
testimony:
1. According to the 1980 Census of Population (General
Population Characteristics, Table 15), the State of Louisiana's
population was 4,205,900 of whom 1,238,241 (29.44%) were black
persons.
2. The 1980 Census further indicated .that there were
2,875,432 persons eighteen (18) years of age or older (voting age
population or "VAP") of whom 766,187 (26.44%) were black persons.
3. The Louisiana Supreme Court consists of seven members
elected in public elections to ten-year terms.
4. Pursuant to state law, the Louisiana Supreme Court sits
en banc and its jurisdiction extends statewide.
5. A single judge of the supreme court may issue a writ of
habeas corpus and all needful writs, orders and process in aid of
the court's jurisdiction, and exercise of this authority is
subject to review by the whole court.
6. None of the members of •the supreme court is elected on a
statewide basis.
24 -
6 6
7. For purposes of electing members of the supreme court
the state is divided into five single-judge election districts
and one multi-judge election district.
8. The supreme court election districts are comprised of
the following parishes:
First district: Orleans, St. Bernard, Plaque-
mines, and Jefferson.
Second district: Caddo, Bossier, Webster,
Claiborne, Bienville, Natchitoches, Red
River, DeSoto, Winn, Vernon, and Sabine.
Third district: Rapides, Grant, Avoyelles,
Lafayette, Evangeline., Allen, Beauregard,
Jefferson Davis, Calcasieu, Cameron, and
Acadia.
Fourth district: Union, Lincoln, Jackson,
Caldwell, Ouachita, Morehouse, Richland,
Franklin, West Carroll, East Carroll, Madi-
son, Tensas, Concordia, LaSalle, and Cata-
houla.
Fifth district: East Baton Rouge, West Baton
Rouge, West Feliciana, East Feliciana, St.
Helena, Livingston, Tangipahoa, St. Tammany,
Washington, Iberville, Point Coupee, and St.
Landry.
Sixth district: St. Martin, St. Mary, Iberia,
Terrebonne, Lafourche, Assumption, Ascension,
- 25 -
67
St. John the Baptist, St. James, St. Charles,
and Vermilion.
United States' Exhibit 1 is a map of Louisiana which accurately
indicates the supreme court election districts.
9. The five single-member election districts consist of
eleven to fifteen parishes; the First Supreme Court District
[first district], the sole multi-member district, consists of
four parishes and elects two judges.
10. No parish lines are cut by the election districts for
the supreme court.
11. Under the Louisiana Constitution, the state legislature
has.the authority, by a vote of two-thirds of the elected members
of each house of the legislature, to revise the districts used to
elect the supreme court and to divide the first district into two
single-member districts.
12. The Louisiana Constitution does not require that the
election districts for the supreme court be apportioned equally
by population.
13. The 1980 Census indicates that the population charac-
teristics for the six supreme court elections districts are as
follows:
- 26 -
68
Total pop. Black pop. (%) Total VAP Black VAP (%)
1,102,253 379,101 (34.39) 772,772 235,797 (30.51)
2 582,223 188,490 (32.37) 403,575 118,882 (29.46)
3 692,974 150,036 (21.65) 473,855 92,232 (19.46)
4 410,850 134,534 (32.75) 280,656 81,361 (29.99)
5 861,217 256,523 (29.79) 587,428 160,711 (27.36)
6 556,383 129,557 (23.29) 361,510 78,660 (21.76)
14. According to the 1980 Census, the current configuration
of election districts has the following population deviations
from the ideal district.
Total Pop. Deviation (%)
1 1,102,253 - 8.27
2 582,223 - 3.10
3 692,974 +15,33
4 410,850 -31.62
5 861,217 +43.33
6 556,383 - 7.40
Ideal District = 600,843 Total Deviation = 74.95
15. The 1980 Census indicates that the population charac-
teristics for the parishes in the First Supreme Court District
are as follows:
Parish Total pop. Black pop. (% Total VAP Black VAP(%)
Jefferson 454,592 63,001 (13.86) 314,334 37,145 (11.82)
Orleans 557,515 308,149 (55.27) 397,183 193,886 (48.81)
Plaquemines -26,049 5,540 (21.27) 16,903 3,258 (19.27)
St. Bernard 64,097 2,411 ( 3.76) 44,352 1,508 ( 3,40)
- 27 -
69
•
16. As of March 3, 1989, registered voter data compiled by
the Louisiana Commissioner of Elections indicated the following
characteristics for the supreme court election districts:
District Total Regis. Voters Black Regis. Voters (%)
1 492,691 156,714 (31.8)
2 285,469 76,391 (26.8)
3 379,951 74,667 (19.7)
4 208,568 59,140 . (28.4)
5 464,699 119,239 (25.7)
5 305,699 70,178 (23.0)
17. As of March 3, 1989, registered voter data compiled by
the Louisiana Commissioner of Elections indicated the following
characteristics for the First Supreme Court District:
Parish Total Regis. Voters Black Regis. Voters (%)
Jefferson 202,054 25,064 (12.4)
Orleans 237,278 127,296 (53.6)
Plaquemines 14,574 2,796 (19.2)
St. Bernard 38 785 1,558 ( 4.0)
Total 492,691 156,714 (31.8)
18. Since 1976, candidates for the supreme court do not run
in partisan elections. Instead all candidates for all of the
offices to be elected on a given date run in the open primary
election. However, a candidate's political party enrollment is
indicated on the ballot.
19. Candidates for the supreme court must be citizens of
Louisiana, registered voters, residents of their respective dis-
- 28 -
70
trict for two years, admitted to practice law in Louisiana for at
least five years and not be under an order of imprisonment for
conviction of a felony.
20. The American Bar Association's Canons of Judicial
Ethics have been adopted by the Louisiana Judicial Council and
govern the conduct of judicial election campaigns in Louisiana.
21. There is a majority-vote requirement in elections for
the supreme court. If no candidate receives a majority of the
vote in the primary, the top two vote-getters then compete in a
general election.
22. Elections for the two positions in the first district
are not conducted in the same years (staggered terms). This pre-
cludes voters from single-shot voting.
23-- The Louisiana Constitution, Article X, Section 26,
provides that supreme court justices as well as other judges of
the courts of record are not subject to recall elections.
24. The configuration of supreme court election districts,
detailed in paragraph 8, supra, was first adopted in the Consti-
tution of 1921 and has notNchanged since then. The election
districts were removed from the state constitution adopted in
1974, and now the districts may be altered by a two-thirds vote
of the elected members of each house of the legislature.
25. Prior to the adoption of the 1921 Constitution, a
committee of the Louisiana Bar Association, known as the Spencer
Committee, drafted a report on the proposed judiciary article for
the 1921 Constitution.- That report stated:
- 29 -
71
-
ARTICLE 5. The Chief Justice and associate
justices. of the Supreme Court and the judges of the
several Courts of Appeals now in office shall be
respectively Chief Justice and associate justices of
the Supreme Court and judges of the Courts of Appeals,
and shall serve until the expiration of the respective
terms for which they were elected, and thereafter until
their successors qualify.
The judges of the District Courts of the several
Judicial Districts and of the Parish of Orleans now in
office shall be judges of the District Courts, and
shall serve until the general election in 1924, and
thereafter until their successors qualify.
Each justice and judge now in office shall be
considered as a representative of the judicial district
within which is situated the parish of his residence at
the time of his election.
The present incumbents of courts inferior to the
District Courts shall remain in office, and said courts
shall remain in existence with their present jurisdic-
tions, until the general election in 1924, when said
courts shall stand abolished, and the General Assembly
shall vest in the several district and parish courts
hereby created so much of their jurisdiction as it
shall deem proper. Vacancies occurring in said courts
prior to said time shall be filled for the unexpired
terms by appointment by the Governor.
Upon this Constitution becoming operative, the
Supreme Judicial Council, the several Judicial District
Councils, and the courts hereby created, except the
Parish Courts, shall be forthwith organized and perform
the duties hereby imposed upon them respectively. The
Governor shall, in the manner hereinafter provided,
appoint the two additional associate justices of the
Supreme Court, and the three judges of the Courts of
Appeals provided for herein; provided that each
judicial district shall always be represented by one
associate justice, and that not more than two associate
justices of the Supreme Court at the time of appoint-
ment shall be residents of the same Judicial District,
and not more than two judges of a Court of Appeals or
District Court, except in the First District, at the
time of appointment shall be residents of the same
parish. The Chief Justice shall be chosen from the
State at large and irrespective of the residents of the
other justices.
- 30 -
_ ,
Reprinted in Projet of a Constitution for the State of Louisiana
with Notes and Studies, Volume One, Part II, at pp. 1039-40.
26. On January 5, 1973, the State of Louisiana convened a
constitutional convention in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
27. The delegates to Louisiana's 1973 Constitutional Con-
, vention were 132 in number. There were 105 elected delegates,
each of whom was elected from their respective districts of the
Louisiana House of Representatives. The remaining delegates, 27
in number, were appointed by the Governor to represent various
facets of the Louisiana populace. Twelve of the delegates were
black persons. Their names and respective capacities were:
Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of the Convention, Delegate
elected from Legislative District 93 (Kenner, Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana); George Dewey Hayes, Delegate elected from Legislative
District 63 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana); J.
K. Haynes, Delegate appointed to represent public at large
(Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana); Alphonse
Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from Legislative District 2
(Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana); Johnny Jackson, Jr.,
Delegate elected from Legislative District 101 (New Orleans,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected
-from Legislative District 91 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana); Claude Mauberret, Jr., Delegate elected from
Legislative District 95 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Anthony Mark Rachel, Jr., Delegate appointed to represent the
Civil Service (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Novyse E.
- 31 -
73
:.•
Soniat, Delegate elected from Legislative District 88 (Metairie,
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); Thomas A. Valazquez, Delegate
elected from Legislative District 97 (New Orleans, Orleans
Parish, Louisiana); George Ethel Warren, Delegate elected from
Legislative District 102 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana); Mary E. Wisham, Delegate elected from Legislative
District No. 67 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana).
28. Rule 51 of the 1973 Constitutional Convention, found in
Volume 1 on Pages 6 and 35 of the Records of the Louisiana Con-
stitutional Convention provided that each delegate to the conven-
tion, whether elected or appointed, had the right to select com-
mittee assignments. None of the black delegates chose to be on
the Judiciary Committee; therefore, the Committee on Judiciary
for the 1973 Constitutional Convention cdnsisted of 18 delegates,
all of whom were white.
29. On July 5, 1973, the Committee on Judiciary introduced
Committee Proposal Number 6 which provided, inter alia, for the
election of seven supreme court justices from five single-judge
districts and one multi-judge district. United States' Exhibit
44 is a true and accurate copy of Committee Proposal Number 6 as
printed. On August 15, 1973, Committee Proposal Number 21 was
introduced as a substitute to Committee Proposal Number 6; the
method of electing members of the supreme court was the same as
in Committee Proposal 6. United States' Exhibit 45 is a true and
accurate copy of Committee Proposal 21 reprinted as engrossed.
- 32 -
74
30. On August 15, 1973, the constitutional convention
debated and voted on the following three amendments to Committee
Proposal 21:
(a) One amendment proposed to divide the state into seven
supreme court districts with a justice elected from each dis-
trict. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 87-27. The
black delegates voted as follows:
For the amendment: George Dewey Hayes, Delegate elected
from Legislative District 63 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana);
Against the amendment: Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of
the Convention, Delegate elected from Legislative District 93
(Kenner, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); J. K. Haynes, Delegate
appointed to represent public at large (Baton Rouge, East Baton
Rouge Parish, Louisidna); Alphonse Jackson Jr., Delegate elected
from Legislative District 2 (Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisi-
ana); Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected from Legislative
District 91 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Anthony
Mark Rachel, Jr., Delegate appointed to represent the Civil
Service (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Novyse E.
Soniat, Delegate elected from Legislative District 88 (Metairie,
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); Thomas A. Valazquez, Delegate
elected from Legislative District 97 (New Orleans, Orleans
Parish, Louisiana); George Ethel Warren, Delegate elected from
Legislative District 102 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisi-
- 33 -
75
-
ana); Mary E. Wisham, Delegate elected from Legislative District
No. 67 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana);
Absent: Johnny Jackson Jr., Delegate elected from Legislative
District 101 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Claude
Mauberret, Jr., Delegate elected from Legislative District 95
(New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana).
(b) One amendment proposed to divide the state into seven
equally apportioned supreme court districts with a justice
elected from each district. This amendment was defeated by a
vote of 67-47. The black delegates voted as follows:
For the amendment: George Dewey Hayes, Delegate elected
from Legislative District 63 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana); J. K. Haynes, Delegate appointed to represent
public at large (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisi-
aria); Anthony Mark Rachel, Jr., Delegate appointed to represent
the Civil Service (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Novyse E. Soniat, Delegate elected from Legislative District 88
(Metairie, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); Thomas A. ValazqueZ,
Delegate elected from Legislative District 97 (New 'Orleans,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana); George Ethel Warren, Delegate elected
from Legislative District 102 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana); Mary E. Wisham, Delegate elected from Legislative
District No. 67 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana);
Against the amendment: Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of
the Convention, Delegate elected from Legislative District 93
- 34 -
76
Delegate elected from Legislative District 2 (Shreveport, Caddo
Parish, Louisiana); Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected from
Legislative District 91 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Absent: Johnny Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from Legis-
lative District 101 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Dorothy Mae Taylor, Delegate appointed to represent racial
minorites (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana).
(c) One amendment proposed that after January 1, 1975, the
legislature divide the first district (Jefferson, Orleans, Pla-
quemines, and St. Bernard Parishes) into two districts with one
justice to be elected from each district. In support of this
amendment, Delegate Wendell Gauthier said:
We have seven Supreme Court jus-
tices, yet we have six supreme
court districts, two_being elected
from one. If I follow the feeling
of this constitution right, we
argued single member districts.
Why should we make an exception
here, why here? Why provide that
district one is going to have two
justices and the rest of the
districts are going to have one?
Why not have seven districts?
Records of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of
1973, Vol. VI at 720.
Thomas A. Velazquez, Delegate elected from Legislative District
§7, New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, a black delegate,
argued that the present arrangement of the Supreme Court dis-
tricts should not be changed. Id. at 714-715.
- 35 -
77
This amendment was defeated by a vote of 63-50. The black
delegates voted as follows:
For the amendment: George Dewey Hayes, Delegate elected from
Legislative District 63 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana); Johnny Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from Legis-
lative District 101 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Dorothy Mae Taylor, Delegate appointed to represent racial
minorites (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); George Ethel
Warren, Delegate elected from Legislative District 102 (New
Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Mary E. Wisham, Delegate
elected from Legislative District No. 67 (Baton Rouge, East Baton
Rouge Parish, Louisiana);
Against the amendment: Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of
the Convention,-Delegate elected from Legislative District 93
(Kenner, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); J. K. Haynes, Delegate
appointed to represent public at large (Baton Rouge, East Baton
Rouge Parish, Louisiana); Alphonse Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected
from Legislative District 2 (Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisi-
ana); Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected from Legislative Dis-
trict 91; (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Anthony Mark
Rachal, Jr., Delegate appointed to represent the Civil Service
(New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Novyse E. Soniat, Dele-
gate elected from Legislative District 88 (Metairie, Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana); Thomas A. Valazquez, Delegate elected from
Legislative District 97 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana).
- 36 -
78
31. Committee Proposal No. 21 was then adopted by a vote of
103-9. The black delegates voted as follows:
For the Proposal: Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of the
Convention, Delegate elected from Legislative District 93 (Ken-
ner, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); J. K. Haynes, Delegate appoin-
ted to represent public at large (Baton Rouge, East Baton. Rouge
Parish, Louisiana); Alphonse Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from
Legislative District 2 (Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana);
Johnny Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from Legislative District
101 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Novyse E. Soniat,
Delegate elected from Legislative District 88 (Metairie, Jeffer-
son Parish, Louisiana); Dorothy Mae Taylor, Delegate appointed to
represent racial minorites (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louis-
- iana); Thomas A. Velazquez, Delegate elected from Legislative
District 97 (NeW Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); George
Ethel Warren, Delegate elected from Legislative District 102 (New
Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Against the Proposal: Mary E. Wisham, Delegate elected from
Legislative District No. 67 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana);
Absent: Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected from Legis-
lative District 91 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Anthony Mark Rachal, Jr., Delegate appointed to represent the
Civil Service (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana). i)
On December 15, 1973, Delegate Ruth Miller, first vice-chair of
the convention, introduced Delegate Proposal 35 to have
- 37 -
•
r
Reprinted in Projet of a Constitution for the State of Louisiana
with Notes and Studies, Volume One, Part II, at pp. 1039-40.
26. On January 5, 1973, the State of Louisiana convened a
constitutional convention in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
27. The delegates to Louisiana's 1973 Constitutional Con-
vention were 132 in number. There were 105 elected delegates,
each of whom was elected from their respective districts of the
Louisiana House of Representatives. The remaining delegates, 27
in number, were appointed by the Governor to represent various
facets of the Louisiana populace. Twelve of the delegates were
black persons. Their names and respective capacities were:
Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of the Convention, Delegate
elected from Legislative District 93 (Kenner, Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana); George Dewey Hayes, Delegate elected from Legislative
District 63 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana); J.
K. Haynes, Delegate appointed to represent public at large
(Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana); Alphonse
Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from Legislative District 2
(Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana); Johnny Jackson, Jr.,
Delegate elected from Legislative District 101 (New Orleans,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected
from Legislative District 91 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana); Anthony Mark Rachal, Jr., Delegate appointed to
represent the Civil Service (New Orleans, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana); Novyse E. Soniat, Delegate elected from Legislative
District 88 (Metairie, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); Dorothy Mae
- 31 -
Taylor, Delegate appointed to represent racial minorites (New
Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Thomas A. Velazquez, Dele-
gate elected from Legislative District 97 (New Orleans, Orleans
Parish, Louisiana); George Ethel Warren, Delegate elected from
Legislative District 102 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana); Mary E. Wisham, Delegate elected from Legislative
District No. 67 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana).
28. Rule 51 of the 1973 Constitutional Convention, found in
Volume 1 on Pages 6 and 35 of the Records of the Louisiana Con-
stitutional Convention provided that each delegate to the conven-
tion, whether elected or appointed, had the right to select com-
mittee assignments. None of the black delegates chose to be on
the Judiciary Committee; therefore, the Committee on Judiciary
for the 1973 Constitutional Convention consisted of 18 delegates,
all of whom were white.
29. On July 5, 1973, the Committee on Judiciary introduced
Committee Proposal Number 6 which provided, inter alia, for the
election of seven supreme court justices from five single-judge
districts and one multi-judge district. United States' Exhibit
44 is a true and accurate copy of Committee Proposal Number 6 as
printed. On August 15, 1973, Committee Proposal Number 21 was
introduced as a substitute to Committee Proposal Number 6; the
method of electing members of the supreme court was the same as
in Committee Proposal 6. United States' Exhibit 45 is a true and
accurate copy of Committee Proposal 21 reprinted as engrossed.
- 32 -
81
• . '
30. On August 15, 1973, the constitutional convention
debated and voted on the following three amendments to Committee
Proposal 21:
(a) One amendment proposed to divide the state into seven
supreme court districts with a justice elected from each dis-
trict. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 87-27. The
black delegates voted as follows:
For the amendment: George Dewey Hayes, Delegate elected
from Legislative District 63 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana);
Against the amendment: Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of
the Convention, Delegate elected from Legislative District 93
(Kenner, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); J. K. Haynes, Delegate
appointed to represent public at large (Baton Rouge, East Baton
Rouge Parish, Louisiana); Alphonse Jackson Jr., Delegate elected
from Legislative District 2 (Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisi-
ana); Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected from Legislative
District 91 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Anthony
Mark Rachal, Jr., Delegate appointed to represent the Civil
Service (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Novyse E.
Soniat, Delegate elected from Legislative District 88 (Metairie,
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); Dorothy Mae Taylor, Delegate
appointed to represent racial minorites (New Orleans, Orleans
Parish, Louisiana); Thomas A. Velazquez, Delegate elected from
Legislative District 97 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
George Ethel Warren, Delegate elected from Legislative District
- 33 -
102 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Mary E. Wisham,
Delegate elected from Legislative District No. 67 (Baton Rouge,
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana);
Absent: Johnny Jackson Jr., Delegate elected from Legislative
District 101 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana). (b)
One amendment proposed to divide the state into seven equally
apportioned supreme court districts with a justice elected from
each district. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 67-47.
The black delegates voted as follows:
For the amendment: George -Dewey Hayes, Delegate elected
from Legislative District 63 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana); J. K. Haynes, Delegate appointed to represent
public at large (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisi-
ana); Anthony Mark Rachal, Jr., Delegate appointed to represent
the Civil Service (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Novyse E. Soniat, Delegate elected from Legislative District 88
(Metairie, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); Thomas A. Valazquez,
Delegate elected from Legislative District 97 (New Orleans,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana); George Ethel Warren, Delegate elected
from Legislative District 102 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana); Mary E. Wisham, Delegate elected from Legislative
District No. 67 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana);
Against the amendment: Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of
the Convention, Delegate elected from Legislative District 93
(Kenner, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); Alphonse Jackson, Jr.,
- 34 -
S
(Kenner, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); Alphonse Jackson, Jr.,
Delegate elected from Legislative District 2 (Shreveport, Caddo
Parish, Louisiana); Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected from
Legislative District 91 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Absent: Johnny Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from Legis-
lative District 101 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Claude Mauberret, Jr., Delegate elected from Legislative District
95 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana).
(c) One amendment proposed that after January 1, 1975, the
legislature divide the first district (Jefferson, Orleans, Pla-
quemines, and St. Bernard Parishes) into two districts with one
justice to be elected from each district. In support of this
amendment, Delegate Wendell Gauthier said:
We have seven Supreme Court jus-
tices, yet we have six supreme
court districts, two being elected
from one. If I follow the feeling
of this constitution right, we
argued single member districts.
Why should we make an exception
here, why here? Why provide that
district one is going to have two
justices and the rest of the
districts are going to have one?
Why not have seven districts?
Records of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of
1973, Vol. VI at 720.
Thomas A. Valazquez, Delegate elected from Legislative District
97, New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, a black delegate,
argued that the present arrangement of the Supreme Court dis-
tricts should not be changed. Id. at 714-715.
- 35 -
8
a
This amendment was defeated by a vote of 63-50. The black
delegates voted as follows:
For the amendment: George Dewey Hayes, Delegate elected from
Legislative District 63 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana); Johnny Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from Legis-
lative District 101 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
George Ethel Warren, Delegate elected from Legislative District
102 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Mary E. Wisham,
Delegate elected from Legislative District No. 67 (Baton Rouge,
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana);
Against the amendment: Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of
the Convention, Delegate elected from Legislative District 93
(Kenner, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); J. K. Haynes, Delegate
appointed to represent public at large (Baton Rouge, East Baton
Rouge Parish, Louisiana); Alphonse Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected
from Legislative District 2 (Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisi-
ana); Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected from Legislative Dis-
trict 91; (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Anthony Mark
Rachel, Jr., Delegate appointed to represent the Civil Service
(New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Novyse E. Soniat, Dele-
gate elected from Legislative District 88 (Metairie, Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana); Thomas A. Valazquez, Delegate elected from
Legislative District 97 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Absent: Claude Mauberret, Jr., Delegate elected from Legis-
lative District 95 (New Orleans,. Orleans Parish, Louisiana).
36 -
85
•
31. Committee Proposal No. 21 was then adopted by a vote of
103-9. The black delegates voted as follows:
For the Proposal: Avery C. Alexander, Vice Chairman of the
Convention, Delegate elected from Legislative District 93 (Ken-
ner, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana); J. K. Haynes, Delegate appoin-
ted to represent public at large (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana); Alphonse Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from
Legislative District 2 (Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana);
Johnny Jackson, Jr., Delegate elected from Legislative District
101 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Novyse E. Soniat,
Delegate elected from Legislative District 88 (Metairie, Jeffer-
son Parish, Louisiana); Thomas A. Valazquez, Delegate elected
from Legislative District 97 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana); George Ethel Warren, Delegate elected from Legis-
lative District 102 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Against the Proposal: Mary E. Wisham, Delegate elected from
Legislative District No. 67 (Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana);
Absent: Louis Landrum, Sr., Delegate elected from Legis-
lative District 91 (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana);
Anthony Mark Rachel, Jr., Delegate appointed to represent the
Civil Service (New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana); Claude
Mauberret, Jr., Delegate elected from Legislative District 95
(New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana).
32. On December 15, 1973, Delegate Ruth Miller, first vice-
chair of the convention, introduced Delegate Proposal 35 to have
- 37 -
86
the Committee on Judiciary return to the constitutional conven-
tion, with or without recommendation, her proposal to have the
legislature divide the state into seven supreme court election
districts with one justice elected from each district. The con-
vention refused Delegate Miller's request by a vote of 53-39. No
roll call vote was taken. United States' Exhibit 43 is a true
and accurate copy of Delegate Proposal 35.
33. On January 16, 1974, Committee Proposal 21 was signed
by the chairman of the constitutional convention and attested by
the secretary of the convention.
34. The state constitution proposed by the 1973 Constitu-
tional Convention was ratified by the voters on April 20, 1974.
35. The 1973 Constitutional Convention's Committee Pro-
posal 21 resulted in Articles IV and V of the current Louisiana
State .Constitution.
36. In 1896, 126,849 black persons and 153,174 white per-
sons were registered to vote in Louisiana, according to the 1902
Report of the Secretary of State of Louisiana.
37. The 1898 Louisiana Constitution imposed a "grandfather"
clause as well as educational and property qualifications for
voter registration.
38. On March 17, 1900, 5,320 black persons and 125,438
white persons were registered to vote in Louisiana, according to
the 1902 Report of the Secretary of State of Louisiana.
39. In 1906, the state Democratic Party established, pur-
- 38 -
;•
suant to state law, an all-white primary which was in use until
1944.
40. In 1921, six years after the United States Supreme
Court ruled in Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915), that
"grandfather" clauses violated the Fifteenth Amendment, the state
amended its constitution and replaced the "grandfather" clause
with a requirement that an applicant "give a reasonable inter-
pretation" of any section of the federal or state constitution as
a prerequisite to voter registration.
41. The United States Supreme Court in Louisiana v. United
States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965), held the "interpretation" test to be
one facet of the state's successful plan to disenfranchise its
black citizens.
42. Following the invalidation of the all-white primaries
in Smith V. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), the state instituted
"citizenship" tests and anti-single-shot voting laws, and the
state Democratic Party adopted a majority-vote requirement for
party officers.
43. The State of Louisiana is subject to the special pro-
visions of the Voting Rights Act because in 1965 it employed a
"test or device," as defined in the Act, as a prerequisite to
register to vote and less than 50 percent of the voting age
population (at that time 21 years of age or older) voted in the
1964 presidential election. 30 Fed. Reg. 9897 (1965).
44. Since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
12 parishes in the State of Louisiana have been designated pur-
- 39 -
88 •
suant to its provisions for the appointment of federal examiners.
The parishes and the dates of designation are: East Carroll, East
Feliciana and Plaquemines (August 9, 1965); Ouachita (August 18,
1965); West Feliciana (October 29, 1965); Madison (August 12,
1966); Bossier, Caddo, and DeSoto (March 23, 1967); St. Helena
(August 16, 1972); Sabine (September 27, 1974); and St. Landry
(December 5, 1979). A total of 26,978 persons, of whom 25,138
(93.18 percent) were black, have been listed by federal examiners
as eligible to vote. As of January 1, 1989, a total of 15,432 -
persons remained on the voting rolls as federally listed voters.
45. Of the four parishes in the first district, Plaquemines
Parish was designated for the appointment of federal examiners.
At the time of the designation, only 96 black persons in the
parish were registered to vote. By October 1967, federal exam-
iners had listed 1,254 black persons, resulting in an increase in
the number of black persons registered to vote in Plaquemines
Parish from 96 to over 1,300.
46. No black person has been elected to the Louisiana
Supreme Court in this century.
47. A black attorney, Jessie Stone; was appointed to a
vacancy on the Louisiana Supreme Court for a period of 17 days,
from November 2, 1979, through November 19, 1979. He is the only
black person to serve on the supreme court in this century.
48. In 1972, in special elections for the two seats from
the first district, two black persons were candidates with one
running for each position. In the first Democratic primary,
- 40 -
89
Revius 0. Ortique, Jr. competed against three white candidates
for one position, while Earl J. Amedee competed against four
white candidates for the other position. Ortique received 27,648
votes (14.0%) in the district and 21,744 votes (20.7%) in Orleans
Parish. Amedee received 11,872 votes (5.8%) in the district and
8,997 votes (8.4%) in Orleans Parish. The election results are
as follows:
Candidate Total vote (%)
Ortique (B) 27,648 (14.0)
Calogero 67,256 (34.1)
Redmann 22,262 (11.3)
Sarpy 79,796 (40.5)
196,962
Orleans Vote (%)
21,744 (20.7)
34,473 (32.8)
10,542 (10.0)
38,256 (36.4)
105,015
Orleans vote as
a proportion of
the total vote
78.6
51.3
47.4
47.9
53.3
Amedee (B)
Marcus
Borsetta
Garrison
Samuel
11,872
78,810
35,272
52,249
25,476
203,679
( 5.8)
(38.7)
(17.3)
(25.7)
(12.5)
8,997
46,629
19,728
26,055
5,994
( 8.4)
(43.4)
(18.4)
(24.2)
( 6.6-)
107,403
75.6
59.2
55.9
49.9
23.5
52.7
49. Since 1976 candidates for judicial office do not run in
partisan elections. Instead all candidates for all of the offi-
ces to be elected on a given date run in the open primary elec-
*
- 41 -
90
,
tion. However, a candidate's political party enrollment is indi-
cated on the ballot.
50. There is a majority-vote requirement in elections for
judicial office. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote
in the primary, the top two vote-getters then compete in a gen-
eral election.
51. Parish-wide judicial offices are elected by a desig-
nated position.
52. The following chart identifies the judicial offices
elected on a parish-wide basis in the First Supreme Court Dis-
trict and the number of black persons currently serving in those
positions:
Parish
Jefferson
Orleans
Plaquemines
St. Bernard
Number Number of
Court of judges black judges
District 24 15 0
Juvenile 3 0
Civil 12 3 .
Criminal 10 0
Juvenile 5 1
Crim. Magistrate 1 0
Municipal 4 1
Traffic 4 1
District 25 2 0
District 34 3 0
Orleans 4th Circuit,
Plaquemines at-large
St. Bernard (court of appeal) 2 0
- 42 -
Parish
Orleans
Plaquemines
St. Bernard
Jefferson
Court
Number Number of
of judges black judges
4th Circuit,
1st District
(court of appeal) 8 1
4th Circuit,
2nd District
(court of appeal) 1 0
4th Circuit,
3rd District
(court of appeal) 1 0
5th Circuit,
1st District
(court of appeal) 6 0
53. Since January 1978, in the parishes that constitute the
first district, there have been 51 instances in which one of the
judicial positions identified in paragraph 52, supra, has been
filled by contested election. For these 51 contested judicial
positions, 66 primary and general election contests have been
held to fill the seats at issue. Black persons have participated
as candidates against white persons for 21 of the contested
judicial positions and in 30 of the primary and general elections
conducted to fill those positions. The remaining 30 contested
judicial positions and the 36 elections necessary to fill those
positions involved white candidates only.
54. There are two city courts in New Orleans for which
judges are not elected on a parish-wide basis. All of the per-
sons residing in Orleans Parish except for those persons who
reside on the West Bank of the parish in the 15th Ward (Algiers)
are eligible to vote for the three members of the First City
Court for New Orleans. All persons residing on the West Bank of
- 43 -
the parish in the 15th Ward (Algiers) are eligible to vote for
one member of the Second City Court for New Orleans. Since 1978
there have been 4 instances in which a First City Court judgeship
position has been filled by contested election, and 5 primary and
general elections have been held to fill the 4 positions. Black
persons have participated as candidates against white persons for
3 of the contested positions and in 4 of the elections held to
fill those positions.
55. Since January 1978 a position on the supreme court for
the State of Louisiana has been filled by contested elections in
1980 and 1988. These contested positions were filled in the
primary elections. There . were no black candidates in either of
the elections.
56. United States' Exhibit 16 identifies the black persons
who have participated as candidates for the 24 contested judicial
positions filled as a result of the 34 elections described in
paragraphs 53 and 54, supra, the position sought, incumbency, and
the year and outcome of the election.
57. An "outcome determinative election" is an election in
which a candidate is elected to fill the position at issue.
Black candidates have participated in 23 of the 57 outcome
determinative elections held for contested judicial positions in
the first district since 1978. A black candidate was successful
in 6 of these 23 outcome determinative elections.
58. The first black person to serve on the Louisiana Court
of Appeal in this century was Ernest Morial, who was elected in
- 44 -
93
1972 in a contested election against a white candidate to a seat
from District 1 of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal (Orleans
Parish). At the time of his election Mr. Morial was a judge on
the Orleans Parish Juyenile Court. See paragraph 67, infra. He
served on the court of appeal until 1977 when he resigned to run
for the office of Mayor of the City of New Orleans.
59. Israel Augustine, a black lawyer, was unopposed in his
1981 election to an open seat on District 1 of the 4th Circuit
Court of Appeal (Orleans Parish). At the time of his election,
Mr. Augustine was serving as a member of the Criminal District
Court of Orleans Parish.
60. Joan Armstrong, a black lawyer, was unopposed in her
1984 election to an open seat on District 1 of the 4th Circuit
Court of Appeal (Orleans Parish). At the time of her election,
Ms. Armstrong was serving as a judge in the Juvenile Court of
Orleans Parish.
61. No black person has served on the court of appeal in
this century from an election district including Jefferson, St.
Bernard or Plaquemines Parish.
62. The first black person to serve on the Orleans Parish
Civil District Court in this century was Revius 0. Ortique, Jr.,
who was appointed as an ad hoc judge in Division .B of the court
in 1978. Judge Ortique was serving as an ad hoc judge when he
defeated a white challenger for Division H of the court in 1979.
He was unopposed for reelection in 1984.
- 45 -
4
z,
63. In 1984, Bernette Johnson became the first black candi-
date to defeat a white candidate in a contest for an open seat on
the Orleans Parish Civil District Court.
64. In 1986, Yada Magee, a black lawyer, defeated a white
candidate in a contest for an open seat on the Orleans Parish
Civil District Court.
65. The first black person to serve on the Orleans Parish
Criminal District Court in this century was Israel Augustine who
was appointed in 1969. As an incumbent, Judge Augustine defeated
two white challengers in the 1970 Democratic primary election to
become the unopposed Democratic nominee in the general election.
He served on the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court until
1981 when he was elected to the court of appeal.
66. No black person, other than Israel Augustine, has been
elected to the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court in this
century.
67. The first black person to serve on the Orleans Parish
Juvenile Court was Ernest Morial who was appointed in 1970. Fol-
lowing his resignation in 1972, Joan Armstrong, another black
attorney, was appointed to the vacancy. Joan Armstrong was
reelected without opposition in 1978 and resigned in 1984 when
she was elected to the court of appeal.
68. In 1984, Ernestine Gray became the first and only black
person in this century to defeat a white candidate in a contest
for an open seat on the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court.
- 46 -
95
69. In 1988, Dennis Dannel became the first and only black
person in this century to defeat a white incumbent candidate in a
contest for the Orleans Parish Traffic Court. No other black
person has been elected as an Orleans Parish Traffic Court judge
in this century.
70. In 1986, Bruce McConduit became the first and only
black person in this century to defeat a white candidate in a
contest for an open seat for the Orleans Parish Municipal Court.
No other black person has been elected as a municipal court judge
in Orleans Parish in this century.
71. In this century, no black person has been elected to
the First or Second City Court for New Orleans.
72. In this century, the first and only black person to
serve as a judge in Jefferson Parish was Lionel Collins who was
appointed in 1978 to a seat on the 24th Judicial District Court.
As an incumbent, he was unopposed both for his initial election
to another seat in 1978 and for his reelection in 1984. Judge
Collins died in April 1988 before completing his term in office.
73. In this century, no black person has served as a judge
in St. Bernard Parish.
74. In this century, no black person has served as a judge
in Plaquemines Parish.
75. Since 1978, no black persons have been candidates for a
judgeship in the parishes of St. Bernard and Plaquemines.
76. Since 1978 no black candidate has ever been elected in
- 47 -
96
a contested election to parish-wide office in St. Bernard,
Plaquemines and Jefferson.
77. Voter sign-in data, by precinct and by race, is not
available from the State of Louisiana for elections conducted
prior to January 1, 1988.
78. The following table shows the valid and reliable re-
sults of the weighted ecological regression analyses for the 34
elections (24 primaries and 10 general elections) identified in
United States Exhibit 16, supra. The elections in bold are
outcome determinative elections as defined in paragraph 57,
supra.
Black
Election Candidate Office
Percent of Vote for
Black Candidate
Black Voters White Voters
ORLEANS PARISH
1978
Primary Wilson Criminal Mag. 32 2
Primary Douglas Juvenile Ct. Sec. B 57 3
Young Juvenile Ct. Sec. B 24. 2
1979
Primary Ortique Civil Dist. Div. H . 97 14
General *Ortique Civil Dist. Div. H 99 13
Primary Young Juvenile Ct. Sec. E 65 5
General Young Juvenile Ct. Sec. E 80 25
Primary Pharr 1st City Ct. Sec. C 6 2
1/ Indicates a winning candidate
- 48 -
97
•••
Percent of Vote
for Black Candidate
Black
Election Candidate
1980
Primary Young
General Young
1981
Primary Thomas
1982
Primary Julien
Wilson
General Julien
1983
Primary Davis
1984
Primary Dorsey
Primary *Johnson
Primary Young
Primary Douglas
General Douglas
Primary Dannel
Gray
General *Gray
1986
Primary Blanchard
Primary Magee
Wilkerson
General *Magee
Office Black Voters
1st City Ct. Sec. A 72
1st City Ct. Sec. A 92
1st City Ct. Sec. C 94
Crim. Dist. Div. I
Crim. Dist. Div. I
Crim. Dist. Div. I
Civil Dist. Div. D
Civil Dist. Div. F
Civil Dist. Div. I
Juvenile Ct. Sec. C
Crim. Dist. Div. B
Crim. Dist. Div. B
Juvenile Ct. Sec. A
Juvenile Ct. Sec. A
Juvenile Ct. Sec. A
Crim. Dist. Div. J
Civil Dist.
Civil Dist.
Div. F
Div. F
Civil Dist. Div.
- 49 -
39-41
31
88
97
51-52
85
46
72-74
88
20
69
96
72-75
75
22
12
White Voters
4
15
17
4-5
3
16
6-7
23
30
5
6-7
11
19
10
16
13-15
9-10
_35
12-13
98
Percent of Vote for
Black Candidate
Black
Election Candidate Office Black Voters White Voters
1986 (cont'd)
Primary Dannel Juvenile Ct. Sec. D 84 21
Primary McConduit Municipal Ct. 71 12
General *McConduit Municipal Ct. 84 27
1987
Primary Douglas 4th Cir. Court of 53-54 21-22
Appeal, Dist. 1
1988
Primary Hughes Civil Dist. Div. G 35 3
General Hughes Civil Dist. Div. G 83-85 §
Primary Julien Municipal Ct. 62-64 14
Primary Dannel Traffic Ct. 48-49 23
Hughes Traffic Ct. 35-36 11
General *Dannel Traffic Ct. 76-77 34
JEFFERSON PARISH
1987
Primary Council Juvenile Ct. Div. A 81-82 3
1988
Primary Zeno District 24 Div. L 100-104 15-18
79. In the 1987 primary election for Secretary of State,
there were two black candidates and seven white candidates.
80. The valid and reliable weighted ecological regression
analysis for 1987 primary election for Secretary of State indi-
cates that in the parishes which constitute the first district
- 50 -
99
over 80 percent of black voters and under 20 percent of white
voters cast their votes for Edwin Lombard, a black candidate.
81. In the 1987 Secretary of State primary election, Edwin.
Lombard received 35 percent of the vote in the four parishes that
comprise the first district to finish as the plurality winner.
He received a majority of the votes cast within Orleans Parish
but obtained only twenty percent of the votes cast in Jefferson,
Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes.
82. The first district has twice the population of any con-
gressional district in Louisiana and, in terms of population, is
the largest of any of the state's election districts.
83. In first district elections, there is a majority-vote
requirement and staggered terms; single-shot voting is not
allowed.
84. A supreme court election district comprised exclusively
of Orleans Parish would have a black majority of the total popu-
lation (55.27%), according to the 1980 Census, and of the regis-
tered voters (53.6%) as of March 3, 1989.
85. United States' Exhibit 46 identifies those census
tracts in the first district in which, according to the 1980
Census, black persons constituted a majority of the residents.
86. United States' Exhibit 4 is a map of Jefferson, Orleans
and a portion of St. Bernard Parishes that accurately portrays
those census tracts identified in paragraph 85, supra. The
Census further indicates-there are no census tracts in St. Ber-
- 51 -
100
nard Parish which have a majority black population and that there
is only one suCh census tract in Plaquemines Parish.
86. On December 31, 1988, black persons constituted a
majority of those persons registered to vote in 226 voting
precincts in Orleans Parish. United States' Exhibit -47 is an
accurate list of those precincts. The March 3, 1989, voter
registration data does not alter the number and/or identity of
the majority black precincts.
87. United States' Exhibit 5 is a map of election precincts
in Orleans Parish that accurately depicts the voting precincts
identified in paragraph 87, supra.
88. On December 31, 1988, black persons constituted a
majority of those persons registered to vote in 24 precincts in
Jefferson Parish. United States , Exhibit 48 is an accurate list
of those precincts. The March 3, 1989, voter registration data
does not alter the number and/or identity of the majority black
precincts.
89. United States' Exhibit 6 is a map of election precincts
in Jefferson Parish that accurately depicts the voting precincts
identified in paragraph 89, supra.
90. The New Orleans metropolitan area is composed of
Orleans Parish which has a majority black electorate and several
suburban parishes which have majority white electorates.
91. As of March 3, 1989, 81.2 percent of the black regis-
tered voters within the first district of the Louisiana Supreme
Court resided within Orleans Parish and 16.0 percent resided
- 52 -
1 0 1
within Jefferson Parish. Only 2.1 percent of the black regis-
tered voters within the first district resided in Plaquemines and
St. Bernard Parishes.
93. In the twentieth century, no law school in Louisiana
accepted any black students until the opening of Southern Univer-
sity Law School in 1947.
94. The first class to graduate from Southern University
Law School was in 1950.
95. The first black graduate of Louisiana State University
Law School, Ernest Morial, was admitted to the law school after a
three-judge federal court in the class action case of Wilson v.
Board of Supervisors, 92 F. Supp 986 (E.D. La. 1950) (three-judge
court), summarily aff'd, 340 U.S. 909 (1951), ordered the Board
of Supervisors of Louisiana State University to stop denying law
school admission to black students on the basis of race.
96. All the current officers of the Louisiana Bar Associ-
ation are white.
97. No black judge has ever served as one of the officers
("officers" meaning president, 1st vice president, 2nd vice
president, secretary, and treasurer) of the Louisiana District
Judges Association.
98. Louisiana enforced a policy of racial segregation in
public education prior to 1954, in transportation prior to 1964,
and in accommodations prior to 1964, until these practices were
outlawed by the Supreme Court .and Congress.
- 53 -
102
99. Most public accommodations and facilities in Louisiana
were racially segregated until after the enactment of the Civil
Rights. Act of 1964, P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241.
100. The following chart indicates, by race, the percent of
the estimated voting age population in the four parishes which
constitute the first district who were registered to vote as of
March 1988.
Parish White persons Black Persons Differential
Jefferson 58.3 42.8 -15.5
Orleans .64.6 57.6 -6.8
Plaquemines 76.3 78.1 1.8
St. Bernard 81.1 95.2 14.1
First District 62.2 55.1 -7.6
101. The following 1980 Census statistics indicate that
black residents of the four parishes in the first district lag
significantly behind white residents in several socio-economic
categories.
Jefferson Orleans Plaouemines St.Bernard First District
persons over 25 high
school grad. (X) 70.9 49.2 70.8 46.9 56.0 27.1 58.5 32.0 69.5 46.9
per capita income $8,302 4,279 9,781 3,985 6,620 3,185 6,660 3,155 8,484 4,017
families below
poverty level (%) 5.3 24.7 7.4 33.4 7.7 32.4 6.6 31.6 6.17 31.92
persons 200% be-
low poverty level (X) 20.2 55.0 8.0 29.1 29.9 68.0 26.1 74.8 16.85 34.26
X of civilian work-
force unemployed 3.6 8.3 4.0 10.1 3.5 14.4 4.7 15.0 3.82 9.87
- 54 -
103
102. According to the 1980 Census, the median household in-
come for white households in Orleans Parish was $15,605.
103. According to the 1980 Census, the median household in-
come for black households in Orleans Parish was $8,847.
104. According to the 1980 Census, the mean household in-
come for white households in Orleans Parish was $21,975.
105. According to the 1980 Census, the mean household in-
come for black households in Orleans Parish was $12,159.
106. According to the 1980 Census, the median family income
for white families in Orleans Parish was $21,544.
107. According to the 1980 Census, the median family income
for black families in Orleans Parish was $10,516.
108. According to the 1980 Census, the mean family income
for white families in Orleans Parish was $28,496.
109. According to the 1980 Census, the mean family income
for black families in Orleans Parish was $13,727.
- 55 -
104