Pre-Trial Order; Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Material Facts and Documents, Visual Aids, and Witnesses (Redacted)

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 82-1192 

Plaintiffs SECTION C 

-against- THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

| DAVID C. TREEN, etc., et al. CLASS ACTION 

Defendants 

PRE-TRIAL ORDER 
  

The pre-trial conference was held in this matter on January 20, 

The following parties appeared: 

A. Tor the plaintiffs: 

R. James Kellogg, Trial Attorney 

Lani Guinier, N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Education 

Fund, Inc. 

Stanley A. Halpin, Jr. 

William P. Quigley 

Steven Scheckman 

the defendants: 

Martin L.C. Feldman, Trial Attorney 

Robert Kutcher 

Kenneth DeJean, Assistant Attorney General for the State 

of Louisiana 

The plaintiffs are each black registered voters residing in the 

State of Louisiana and they represent a class composed of all black registered  



voters residing in the State of Louisiana. The defendants are the duly elected 

Governor of the State of Louisiana and the duly elected Secretary of State of 

the State of Louisiana, each of whom have certain legal and constitutional du- 

ties relative to conducting elections in the State of Louisiana. There is no 

question of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties. 

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought 

pursuant to 42 USC §1973c and 42 USC §1983. This Court has jurisdiction pur- 

suant to 28 USC §§1331 and 1343 and 42 USC §1973j. The claims arise from the 

statutes and Constitution of the United States and those claims must be deter- 

mined by a district court of three judges pursuant to 28 USC §2284 (e). Declare] 

atory and other appropriate relief are sought pursuant to 28 USC §§2201 and 

2202, 

There are no jurisdictional questions in this litigation except as 

described in paragraph five below. 

The following motions are pending or contemplated: 

a) Plaintiffs" Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The 
    

amended complaint seeks to omit all references to the challenge in the original 

complaint against the Louisiana House of Representatives districts, inasmuch 

that plan was not precleared by the United States Department of Justice and was 

subsequently amended to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs. Defendants have no 

objection to this portion of the amended complaint. 

The amended complaint also seeks to bring the allegations in this 

litigation into accordance with the 1982 Voting Rights Act Amendments Pub. L. 

No. 97-205, 96 State. 131 (1982) and the United States Supreme Court decision of] 

Rogers v. Lodge, 3 Ct. 3272 (1982), both of which postdate 

  

the filing of the original complaint. The defendants have opposed the Motion on  



essentially one ground: that neither the Voting Rights Act Amendments nor 

| Rogers create an affirmative duty on the defendants to eliminate present effects 

of past discrimination, as alleged in the Amended Complaint. 

b) Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine. Plaintiffs have filed a motion 
  

proceedings under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

c¢) Defendants' Motion to Disqualify Counsel. Defendants have 
  

filed a motion to disqualify counsel based on their assertion that one of 

plaintiffs' counsel will be a witness at trail. Plaintiffs oppose the motion 

and have been given until Menday, January 24 to file a response. 

d) Defendants also contemplate a motion to preclude any testi- 

mony by any expert witness, as listed in the plaintiffs' witness list, who 

has not furnished defendants expert witness reports or Rule 26(b) statements, 

in accordance with the time limits set forth by this Honorable Court. 

6. Brief summaries of the material facts claimed by the parties are 

attached as "Plaintiffs' Six" and '"Defendants' Six." 

7. The following material facts are uncontested: 

(1) The five plaintiffs in this matter are each black citizens of the | 

United States and of the State of Louisiana residing and registered to vote in 

the parish listed behind their name: Barbara Major (Jefferson), Michael parnell 

(Lafayette), Bernadine St. Cyr (Orleans), Brenda Quant (Orleans), and Annie A. 

Smart (East Baton Rouge). 

(2) The duly elected Governor of the State of Louisiana, David C. 

Treen, is a defendant in this action and, as Governor, has certain duties under !  



the Election Code of the State of Louisiana. La. R.S. Title 18, and also has 

the duty to support the laws of the State and of the United States and to see 

that the laws are faithfully executed. 

(3) James H. "Jim" Brown is duly elected Secretary of State of the 

State of Louisiana and is a defendant in that capacity. As Secretary of State, 

Mr. Brown has the duty to prepare and certify the ballots for all elections, 

promulgate all election returns and administer the election laws. 

(4) This matter has been certified as a class action on behalf of all 

black Setsons who are residents and registered voters of the State of Louisiana. 

The approximate number of persons in the class is 450,000. 

(5) Reapportionment of congressional districts by the Louisiana Legis 

lature is mandated by Article I, §2 of the United States Constitution and Art- | 

icle I1I, §1 of the louisiana Constitution of 1974. 

(6) Congressional districts in Louisiana were last reapportioned in 

a0 draonts pent oupfes wll male ppefio " od Les 7 6 he | 

(7) _Under the 1980 censusy—the 1972 A LU for—congress~ 

ad to o/ 

jonal districts was malapportioned;—with-a-maximumdeviation—efgreater—thay- 
N 

(8) The State of Louisiana has eight congressional districts, a 

number it has had since 1933. 

(9) The size of the ideal congressional district under the 1970 census 

was 455,580 persons, and under the 1980 census, the figure rose to 525,497 per- | 

sons. 

(10) Both houses of the legislature appointed members of a congression- 

al reapportionment subcommittee. These subcommittees were under the jurisdic-  



tion of the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs and the House 

Committee on House and Governmental Affairs. 

(11) Separate subcommittees were set up for reapportionment of both 

houses of the state legislature and the State Public Service Commission districth 

which reapportionments were also considered and completed by the November spect] 

session. Those reapportionments are in no way challenged by or involved in the | 

instant proceedings. 

(12) Hearings of the subcommittees were conducted from July through 

October 1981 at differenct regional locations throughout the state to allow the | 

public to comment on congressional reapportionment. 

(13) Governor Treen publicly released three congressional reapportion-| 

ment proposals, denominated Treen "A", "B", and "C", October 22, 1981. 

14) Various bills to reapportion the congressional districts were in- 

troduced during the session, including Senate Bills, 4, 5, 6, 28 and 29 and 

House Bills 2, 25, and 26. 

(15) All the Senate bills on congressional reapportionment, tnetuding | 

Senate Bill 5, were referred to the Senate Committee on the SEnate and Govern- 

crit al Affairs on Tuesday, November 3, 1981. 

(16) All the House bills on congressional reapportionment, including 

House Bill 2, were referred to the House Committee on the House and Governmental] 

Affairs on Tuesday, November 3, 1981. 

(17) Early in the day on Monday, November 9, Governor Treen held a 

news conference and released his "Reconciliation Plan', also referred to as 

"plan-XY.  



(18) A formal conference committee was appointed on Tuesday, November |; 

10, which consisted of Senators Hudson, Nunez and O'Keefe and Representatives 

Alavio, Bruneau and Scott. 

(19) Both the full House and Senate passed the conference committee 

plan, the amended Senate Bill 5, on November 12, 1981, the last day of the 

special session. 

(20) Governor Treen signed the bill into law on November 19, 1981 as 

20 
Act, of the First Extraordinary Session of 1981. That Act is the subject 

matter of this litigation. 

(21) The Legislature by the requisite vote, adopted, passed and 

enacted into law Act 20 of the 1981 Special Session. 

(22) Mayor Ernest N. Morial and Civil Sheriff Paul Valteau, both of 

i whom are black, were elected to their respective parish-wide offices in 1982. 

(23) Act 20 falls within a 1% deviation from the ideal congressional 

district of 525,500 people. 

(24) Act 20 of 1981 resulted in the Second District having a total 

ry 4 

population of 526,605 people, of which 44.5% are black by population. 

(25) Before reapportionment, the First Congressional District, in 

1980, was only 2,226 voters short of the ideal congressional district of 

525,000. 

8. The following issues of fact are contested: 

(1) Whether or not there has been a history of official and unofficial 

racial discrimination in Louisiana in general and in the New Orleans metropoli- | 

tan area in specific which has at times has touched upon the rights of blacks  



to vote. Plaintiffs state that there has been such a history: the defendants 

refuse to stipulate. 

(2) The extent of the impact of such alleged discrimination on the 

current ability of blacks to participate in the political processes in the 

New Orleans metorpolitan area. Plaintiffs assert there is a significant impact; 

defendants assert that there is no significant impact. 

(3) The extent of racial bloc voting in the New Orleans metropolitan 

area. Plaintiffs assert there is a significant pattern. Defendants deny a 

significant pattern. 

(4) Whether or not Act 20 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1981 

was intended to dilute the political efficacy of blacks in the New Orleans 

metropolitan area. Plaintiffs assert it was so intended; defendants deny it. 

(5) Whether or not Act 20 in effect dilutes the political efficacy of 

blacks in the New Orleans metropolitan area. Plaintiffs assert it does; ef- 

fendants deny it does. 

(6) Plaintiffs assert that the Louisiana Legislature recognized at 

least as early as the beginning of 1981 that, due to the stringent population 

equality requirements established by the "one-person, one-vote'" cases in 

congressional reapportionment, there was a need for reapportionment of the 1972 | 

§ 
districts. Defendants refuse to concede the fact. 

(7) Plaintiffs assert that in January, 1981, Senator Thomas H. Hudson, 

Chair of the Senate Reapportionment Stuty Group, advised Governor David C. Tren 

of the need for congressional and legislative reapportionment and recommended 

that reapportionment take place outside the regular legislative session to 

minimize interference with regular legislative business. Defendants refuse to  



concede this fact. 

(8) Plaintiffs assert that Governor Treen was aware of the need for 

congressional and legislative reapportionment independently of Senator Hudson 

and met with the Louisiana congressional delegation concerning the matter in 

late 1980. Defendants refuse to concede this fact. 

(9) Plaintiffs assert that no particular plans were discussed at the 

meeting in late 1980, but it was the concensus of the delegation that congress- 

ional reapportionment be accomplished at a time early enough so as not to in- 

terfere with the regularly scheduled elections in 1982. Defendants refuse to 

concede this fact. 

(10) Plaintiffs assert that Governor Treen decided that the process 

should be scheduled for a special session and he ordered a special two-week 

legislative session to consider reapportionment to begin on November 2, 1981. 

Defendants refuse to concede this fact. 

(11) Plaintiffs assert that the formal reapportionment process began 

in mid-July 1981 at the close of the regular 1981 legislative session with the 

appointment of the members of the congressional reapportionment subcommittee 

in both houses of the Legislature. Defendants refuse to concede this fact. 

(12) Plaintiffs assert that at the first meeting of the congressional 

reapportionment subcommittees, which was a joint session, held on July 21, 1987. 

rules for congressional reapportionment were adopted. Defendants refuse to 

concede this fact. 

(13) Plaintiffs assert that the subcommittees adopted rules limiting 

the maximum deviation for congressional reapportionment to *1.00%. A rule 

was also enacted to avoid dilution of minority voting strength. Defendants  



refuse to concede this fact. 

(14) During these hearings, various proposals were presented and con- 

sidered, including those of the Louisiana Congresional delegation and that al- 

though the delegation did not have access to the computer base used by the Le- 

gislature, it did develop its own proposals and was kept in consultation with 

the subcommittees. Defendants refuse to concede this fact. 

(15) Plaintiffs assert that on November 2, 1981, the First Extra- 

ordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature of 1981 convened to consider 

reapportionment matters. Congressional reapportionment did not come before 
n 

lene full Legislature until that time. Defendants refuse to concede this fact. 

| (16) Plaintiffs assert that various bills to reapportion the congress-i 

ional districts were introduced during the session, including Senate Bills 4, 

5,6, 28 and 29 and House Bills 2, 25, and 26, but of these, only Senate Bill 

5, House Bill 2 and their amendments were seriously considered. Defendants 

refuse to concede this fact. 

(17) Plaintiffs assert that all eight bills were filed on Monday, 

November 2, 1981, but only two bills were active after the second day of the 

Special Session. House Bill 2 by Mr. Scott and Senate Bill 5 by Messrs. Nunez 

and Tiemann, with their amendments, served as vehicles for congressional re- 

apportionment decisions in the Special Session. Defendants refuse to concede 

these facts. 

(18) Plaintiffs assert that Senate Bill 5, as introduced in the Senate, 

has become known as the "Nunez Plan''. It created seven white majority districts 

and one black majority district. The plan in essence provided for a Jefferson 

Parish based district (72% of the First Congressional District would be in 

Jefferson Parish) and an Orleans based district 14.9% of the Second Congress-  



ional District would be in that Parish). The First District under the Nunez 

Plan as introduced would encompass the West Bank of Jefferson Parish (i.e., the 

portion of Jefferson Parish on the west side of the Mississippi River), Plaque- 

mines and St. Bernard Parishes. The Second District would include only the 

large portion of Orleans Parish on the East Bank of the Mississippi River and 

would be 57.1% black in population and 46.37% black in registered voters.¥* 

(19) Plaintiffs assert House Bill 2, as introduced in the House, has 

become known as the "Scott Plan". It would have provided for a 50.27% black 

population majority in the Second Congressional District, with 43.97% black 

registered voters. Defendants refuse to concede these facts. 

(20) Plaintiffs assert that on November 4, Senate Bill 5 was reported ! 

out of committee and onto the floor of the Senate. Several technical amendments 

in Senate Bill 5 were adopted. Two substantive amendments to the bill were re- 

jected by the Senate. One rejected amendment embodied one of Governor Treen's 

plans, Proposal A. On the same day, the Senate passed Senate Bill 5 as amended 

by a vote of 31 to 6 and sent it to the House. Defendants refuse to concede 

these facts. 

(21) Plaintiffs assert that on November 4, House Bill 2 was reported 

out of committee with amendments. The amendments were significant as the 

committee voted 12 to 1 to replace the "Scott Plan" with Governor Treen's Pro- 

posal B. By the same margin, the committee rejected an amendment to incorporate 

the Nunez Plan into House Bill 2. The bill as reported out of committee was 

placed on the House calendar, where it remained until Friday, November 6. 

Defendants refuse to concede these facts. 

r (22) Plaintiffs assert that on Thursday, November 5, Senate Bill 5 

  

*Defendants refuse to concede this fact.  



was received by the House and referred to the Committee on House and Governmen- 

tal Affairs. Defendants refuse to concede this fact. 

(23) Plaintiffs assert that on Friday, November 6, in proceedings 

before the full House,an amendment to substitute Governor Treen's Proposal A 

for Proposal B on House Bill 2 was rejected by a vote of 51 to 47. Defendants 

refuse to concede this fact. 

(24) Plaintiffs assert on the same day, an amendment to substitute 

the Nunez Plan for Treen Proposal B was adopted by the House by a vote of 59 

to 38. A floor amendment was offered to further change the plan to be similar 

(though not identical) to one of Treen's proposals but by a vote of 49 to 45, 

the House voted to decide the final passage of House Bill 2. House Bill 2, 

incorporating the Nunez Plan, was finally passed by the House by a vote of 61 

to 38 and was sent to the Senate. Defendants refuse to concede these facts. 

(25) Plaintiffs assert that after the House Bill 2 vote on November 6, 

Governor Treen issued a public statement that "Any bill in that form is un- 

acceptable and without question will be vetoed." Defendants refuse to concede 

this. fact: 

(26) Plaintiffs assert after House Bill 2 was sent over to the 

Senate on November 6, it was discovered that there had been a technical defect 

in the Bill. The amendment in the House which had substituted the Nunez Plan 

for Treen Proposal B left out one voting precinct in Jefferson Parish. Defen- 

dnats refuse to concede these facts. 

(27) Plaintiffs assert that the Senate leadership decided not to 

ratify House Bill 2 because it would afford Governor Treen a technical excuse 

to carry out his public threat of a veto and decided to wait over the weekend  



  

  

    

until Monday, November 9 to straighten out the technical variance. Defendants 

refuse to concede this fact. 

(28) Plaintiffs assert that November 9, the full House considered 

Senate Bill 5, which had been reported out of committee with amendments incor- 

porating a plan similar to those proposed by Governor Treen. A proposed amend- 

| ment on the House floor to adopt the Nunez Plan was defeated by a vote of 54 

to 45. An amendment to incorporate Treen's Plan X was adopted by a vote of 74 

to 26. The amended bill was passed by a vote of 79 to 22 and returned to the 

Senate. Defendant refuses to concede this fact. 

(29) Plaintiffs assert that upon receint of the amended Senate Bill 

the Senate rejected the House amendments to its bill by a vote of 28 to 3, 

necessitating the appointment of a conference committee to work out the differ- 

ences between the chambers. Defendants refuse to concede this fact. 

(30) Plaintiffs assert that the actual work of hammering out a 

settlement took place in the Senate Computer Room in the basement of the State 

Capitol basement. Participants in the basement were Jefferson Parish Assessor 

Lawrence Chehardy, State AFL-CIO Presidnet Victor Bussie, Senate President 

O'Keefe and Senators Nunez and Laurcella, Representatives Alario, Congressman 

Gillis Long and aides to Congresswoman Lindy Boggs, Long and Billy Tauzin and 

members of the Senate administrative services staff. No members of the Louis- 

iana Black Caucus participated at these sessions, nor were the aides of 

Governor Treen or of Congressmen Livingston and Mopre participants. Defendants; 

refuse to concede these facts. 

(31) Plaintiffs assert on Tuesday, November 10, during the evening, 

the group finally reached agreemetn on a plan which became Act 20 and which 

{ 

 



is the subject matter of this litigation. After the agreement was reached 

by the group, it was taken to the Governor for his examination. Defendants 

refuse to concede these facts. 

(32) Plaintiffs assert on Wednesday, November 11, Governor Treen gave 

to representatives of the group his approval for the plan and stated he would 

not veto it. 

(33) Plaintiffs assert on the evening of Wednesday, November -11, nthe 

conference committee formally met and adopted the compromise plan by a vote of 

4 to 2 with Representatives Scott and Alario dissenting. Representatative 

Scott proposed amendments to create a majority black district in New Orleans, 

|| but those amendments were rejected. Defendants refuse to concede these facts. 

(34) Defendants assert that Act 20 was precleared by the United 

States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, by letter, dated June 18, 

1982. Plaintiffs do not contest this fact , but assert it is irrelevant.as 
/\ 

argued in support of their now pending Motion In Limine. 
  

(35) Defendants assert that the election process in the State of 

Louisiana is equally accessible to all Louisiana residents. Plaintiffs refuse 

to concede this fact. 

(36) The percentage of registered black voters in Orleans Parish is 

46.5%. Without a specification of a particular date, plaintiffs refuse to 

concede this fact. 

(37) Defendants assert that the new Second District has a total 

population of blacks of 44.5%, an increase from 40.7% black in the Second 

Congressional District, as drawn under the previous reapportionment plan. 

Plaintiffs have asked for more specificity as to the data base upon which this  



asserted fact is based (1970 or 1980 census) and without such information re- 

fuse to concede this fact. 

(38) Defendants assert that since 1843 Orleans Parish has formed a 

part of two congressional districts. Plaintiffs have asked for documentation 

of this fact and without such information are not willing to concede the fact. 

Plaintiffs concede, however, that Orleans Parish has formed a part of two 

congressional districts since the 1930's. 

(39) Defendants assert that Governor Treen's Proposals A, B, C, and 

Plan X all would have increased the black voting strength in the Second Congreesi 

ional District from the current population percentage of 40.7%. Plaintiffs 

ll have asked for clarification of this proposed fact: they are unsure whether 

the 40.77 figure refers to the Act 20 plan, the 1972 plan using 1970 census 

figures or 1972 plan using 1980 census figures. Without such clarification, 

plaintiffs are unwilling to concede this fact. 

(40) Black candidates can be elected in districts in the New Orleans 

| area which have less than 50% black population and voter registration. Plain- 

tiffs do not contest that some black candidates have been so elected, but 

| refuse to concede the fact as stated. 

(41) Defendants assert the issue of defeating a black majority dis- 

trict was not a primary concern in the formulation of Act 20.7 

(42) Defendants assert the Legislature did not intend to dilute 

voting minority strength by virtue of the adoption of Act 20, Plaintiffs 

| refuse to concede this fact. 

(43) Defendants assert that the result of Act 20 is not to result in 

I voting in the dilution of minority strength voting. Plaintiffs refuse to 

| concede this fact. 

   



(44) Defendants assert the purpose of the Nunez Bill was to create a 

I Jefferson Parish dominated congressional district. Plaintiffs refuse to con- 

{| cede that this was the only purpose of the Nunez Plan. 

(45) Defendants assert that a secondary purpose of the Nunez Bill 

| was the creation of a black majority Second Congressional District in Orleans 

Parish. Plaintiffs concede that the creation of the district was a second 

purpose, but refuse to concede that it was secondary. 

(46) Defendants assert that Lawrence Chehardy, John Mamoulides and 

lI members of the Jefferson Parish Delegation actively supported the Nunez Bill, 

| their intent being to create a Jefferson Parish dominated First Congressional 

| District, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Mr. Chehardy and Mr. Mamoulides 

| supported the Nunez Plan, but refuse to concede what their intent was. 

(47) Defendants assert the coalition of the Black Caucus and the 

Jefferson Parish legislators was unusual and unique in the anals of Louisiana 

I Legislature. Plaintiffs refuse to concede the fact as stated. 

(48) Defendants assert that the Nunez Bill clearly involved drawing 

I congressional districts solely along racial lines to satisfy political motiva- 

| tions of certain legislators. Plaintiffs refuse to concede this fact. 

(49) Defendants assert that the result of the Nunez Bill would have 

| been to establish the First Congressional District with a 65% new voter popu- 

{ lation, to the detriment of the citizens of St. Bernard and Plaquemine Parishes. | 

{| Plaintiffs refuse to concede this fact as stated. 

(50) Defendants assert that the Nunez Bill would have resulted in 

| substantial dilution of black votes in all congressional districts except the  



Second. Plaintiffs refuse to concede this fact as stated. 

(51) Defendants assert that Act 20 of 1981 was ultimately designed 

to enhance minority voting strength in the Second District, which resulted in 

the unusual or irregular shape of the new Second Congressional District. 

Plaintiffs refuse to concede this fact. 

(52) Defendants assert that Act 20 affords black citizens in the 

State of Louisiana the fullest political expression possible in an area of the 

State with a large black population without materilaly diluting the strength 

of black voters in other districts. Plaintiffs refuse to concede this fact. 

(53) Defendants assert that Act 20 substantially reflects the 

political and philosophical make up of the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs re- 

fuse to consent this fact. 

9. The following issues of law are contested: 

(1) Whether or not the defendants have an affirmative duty to remedy 

the effects of past discrimination. 

(2) Whether or not the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 are 

| applicable to pending cases. 

(3) Whether or not Act 20 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1981 

| violates the Voting Rights Act, as amended, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 

1983 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu- 

jj tion. 

(4) The applicability of the 1982 amendment to the Voting Rights Act. 

(5) Whether plaintiffs must establish an intent to discriminate in 

ff order to prevail under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. * 

  

"The parties agree that items (1), (2), (3), (4) and (13) are contested 

issues of law. Items (5)-(12) and (14) (15) at the request of the defendatns.  



establish (6) Whether plaintiffs must 

order to prevail under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

establish (7) Whether plaintiffs must 

order to prevail under the Fifteenth Amendment. 

(8) Whether plaintiffs must establish 

Jo 

in order to prevail under the Civil Rights Act 

(9) Whether plaintiffs must establish 

tion of minority voting strength in order to prevail under Section 

* 
Voting Rights Act. 

(10) Whether plaintiffs must establish 

dilution of minority voting strength in order to 

* 
Amendment. 

(11) Whether plaintiffs must establish 

dilution of minority voting strength in order to 

* 

Amendment. 

(12) Whether plaintiffs must establish 

dilution of minority voting strength in order to 

Rights Act. 

(13) The effect of preclearance by the 

plaintiffs' case. 

(14) Whether plaintiffs have presented 

as Act 20 constitutes a non-racial gerrymander. 

- 

(15) All questions of law implicit in 

*See note on page 16. 

an intent to discriminate in 

to < 

an intent todiscriminate in 

* 

an intent to discriminate in 

that Act 20 resulted in a dilu- 

2 of the 

that Act 20 resulted in a 

prevail under the Fourteenth 

that Act 20 resulted in a 

prevail under the: Fifteenth 

in that Act 20 resulted a 

prevail under the Civil 

Justice Department on 

a justiciable issue insofar 

the foregoing questions of  



10. Discovery is not complete. Depositions are scheduled for experts 

on Friday, January 21, and Monday, January 24. 

11. A list and description of exhibits to be introduced at trial 

' each of the parties is attached as "Plaintiffs' Eleven" and !"Defendants' E 

No de SosTsion testimony will be introduced—dinto evidence except F : | | 
™N NL N \\ 

: : 2% 
for impeachment purposes. 

13. A list and brief description of any charts, graphs, maps and so 

forth to be introduced by the parties is attached hereto as "Plaintiffs' Thir- 

teen" and ''Defendants' Thirteen". 

14. A list of witnesses for each of the parties is attached hereto as 

"Plaintiffs' Fourteen" and "Defendants' Fourteen". 

15. This is a non-jury case. Suggested findings of fact and suggest 

ed conclusions of law stated in separately numbered paragraphs shall be deliver 

ed to the Court and opposing counsel not later than one week prior to the trial 

date, unless specific leave to the contrary is granted by the Court. 

Each party shall file with the Court a seaparate memorandum on conten 

tions of fact and law at least two days prior to trial. 

16. No damages are sought. 

17. There are no other matters which might be expected to expedite 

disposition of this case. 

18. The parties estimate that five days,will be necessary for 

the case is scheduled to begin on January 31, 1983 at 

9 o'clock a.m. 

19. This Pre-Trial Order has been formulated after a conference at 

which counsel for the respective parties have appeared in person. Reasonable  



opportunity has been afforded counsel for correcitons, or additions, prior to 

signing. Hereafter, this Order will control the course of the trial and may 

not be amended except by consent of the parties and the Court, or by Order of 

the Court to prevent manifest injustice. 

20. Possibility of settlement of this case was considered. 

Dated: New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of January, 1983. 

  
ROBERT F. COLLINS oo 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

the Plaintiffs: For the Defendants: 

Lani Guinier Kenneth DeJean 

Stanley A. Halpin Martin L.C. Feldman 

R. James Kellogg Robert A. Kutcher 

William P. Quigley David Poynter 

Steven Scheckman 

BY: 

T-IRIAL ATTORNEY =. + TRIAL ATTORNEY 

 



PLAINTIFFS' SIX 

(MATERIAL FACTS) 

In general, plaintiffs claim that in relation to reapportionment of the 

Louisiana Congressional districts, each House of the Louisiana Legislature 

appointed subcommittees in early 1981 to hold public hearings throughout the 

state. A number of such hearings were held, and a number of plans were consi 

dered, including a plan submitted by the Louisiana congressional delegation. 

Early consideration was also given to plans which would have an Orleans Parish 

based district which would be a majority black in population and a Jefferson 

Parish based district. 

Governor Dave Treen released three proposals for congressional reapport- 

jonment shortly before the Legislature convened in Special Session on November 

2, 1981. Various bills were introduced during the session, but of those intro- 

duced only Senate Bill 5, House Bill 2 and their amendments were seriously 

considered. 

Senate Bill 5, as introduced in the Senate, has become known as the 

"Nunez Plan'. It created seven white population majority districts and one 

majority black district, centered on Orleans Parish. 

House Bill 2, as introduced in the House, was known as the '"Scott Plan" 

and would also have created a black majority district, but by a smaller percen- 

tage. 

All other bills died in committee. 

The Senate on Novmeber 5 passed Senate Bill 5 (Nunez Plan) with techni- 

cal amendments and sent it to the House. 

House Bill 2 was amended in committee on November 4 to delete the Scott  



Plaintiffs" Six (Material Facts) 
9 Page 

Plan and substitute one of Governor Treen's proposals (none of which created 

a black majority district). On November 6, the full House voted to substitute 

the Nunez Plan for Governor Treen's Plan and House Bill 2, incorporating the 

Nunez Plan, was passed by the House and sent to the Senate. 

After the House vote, Governor Treen issued a public statement that 

"any bill in that form is unacceptable and without question will be vetoed." 

Soon thereafter, a technical defect in House Bill 2 was discovered: one 

voting precinct in Jefferson Parish had been left out. The Senate leadership 

decided to let the matter ride until the following Monday. 

On Monday, November 9, Governor Treen held a news conference and re- 

leased his "Reconciliation Plan' which was similar to his earlier proposals ir 

that it sill did not create a balck majority district. The House soon approved 

the Plan as an amendment to Senate Bill 5, but the Senate refused to go along 

with the amendment. A conference committee was appointed. 

The actual work of hammering out a settlement took place in the Senate 

Computer Room in the basement of the State Capitol. Participants in this pro- 

cess were Jefferson Parish Assessor Lawrence Chehardy, State AFL-CIO President 

Victor Bussie, Senate President O'Keefe and Senators Nunez and Laurcella, 

Representatives Alario, Congressman Gillis Long and aides to Congresswoman Lindy 

Boggs, Long and Billy Tauzin. Members of the Senate administrative services 

taff were also present. 

A plan which became Act 20 was developed by the group which divides 

Orleans Parish into two districts and significantly splits the black population 

concentration in that Parish into two districts. I'he boundaries between the  



Plaintiffs' Siw (Material Facts) 

Page 3 

First and Second Districts are extremely irregular and create a rough approxima- 

tion of the cartoon character Donald Duck. 

The plan was presented to Governor Treen, who approved it, and was 

adopted by the conference committee and both Houses. It became Act 20 upon 

Governor Treen's signature. 

Plaintiffs will show that the challenged plan intentionally and in 

effect dilutes effective voter participation by blacks in the New Orleans area. 

Although Orleans Parish has elected several blacks in recent years to city- 

wide offices, there is still a significant amount of racial bloc voting in both 

Orleans and Jefferson Parishes. Furthermore, blacks in the New Orleans area 

still suffer the continuing effects of past official and unofficial discrimina- 

tion in the areas of voting, housing, employment and similar areas. 

It is plaintiffs' position that the factual background of Act 20, 

coupled with the lack of a substantial state interest advanced by the plan, 

racial bloc voting, the history of official and unofficial discrimination 

against blacks in New Orleans and in Louisiana, and the continuing effects of 

ive rise to the inference that the plan was adopted with past discrimination ¢ 

the intent to dilute minority participation in the political processes. Alter- 

natively, the same factors establish that the plan has the effect of diluting 

minority participation, and the plan should be declared unconstitutional and 

illegal.  



DEFENDANTS SIX I 

(STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS) 

Pursuant to federal law, it was necessary for the Louisiana Legisla- 

ture to reapportion the congressional districts of the State in accordance witt 

the 1980 census. 

One of the problems in adopting a reapportionment plan for Louisiana 

in 1981 was how to acknowledge the increasing black constituency of the Second 

Congressional District while not unfairly diluting the black vote in other 

districts, and while maintaining geographic compactness and contiguity. 

The City, of New Orleans is coextensive with Orleans Parish, which in 

cludes a large portion on the Second Congressional District. According to the 

1980 Census, the City has a black population of 55% and a black registered vote 

Clearly, if Orleans Parish could comprise one congressional district 

the potential for electing a black person to Congress would be enhanced. But 

Orleans Parish is too big to be a separate congressional district; it must 

form part of two districts, as it has since 1843. The task, then, facing the 

Louisiana Legislature and Governor Treen in the Fall of 1981 was to craft dis- 

trict lines which could reconcile all the conflicting interests of the Congress 

ional delegation, elected state officials, public interest groups, civil rights 

groups, and the like, and at the same time structure a new Second District 

which as fairly as possible would recognize and reflect the growing black 

ulation in that area of the State. 

Before passage of the present reapportionment plan, Louisiana's eight 

congressional districts had a total population of 4,203,972 people of which  



69.25% were white and 29.43% were black. The Second Congressional District con 

tained 461,802 people and was 57.37% white and 40.77% black. The 1980 Census re- 

flected that the Second Congressional District contained a 12.27% deviation and 

that the ideal congressional district should contain 525,500 people. The 

State, therefore, had to bring up the population of the District to within 1% 

deviation from the ideal without reducing the black population there. 

But the First Congressional District finished the decade virtually 

perfect from the standpoint of one man, one vote population equality. It was 

only 2,226 voters under the ideal or -0.42%. The Third District, the only 

other congressional district bordering on the Second District, had an excess 

of voters of 45,625 or +8.68%. The logical place to find additional voters 

for the Second District was the Third District. However, the addition of 

45,000 to 65,000 voters from the Third Congressional District to the Second 

would have very seriously diluted the black share of population in the Second 

because the adjacent portions of the Third District, in Jefferson Parish, were 

largely white. 

While the Legislature was finding it difficult to agree on any re- 

apportionment plan, Governor Treen submitted his proposals (his basic ideas 

were called Proposal A) to the Louisiana Legislature during October of 1981. 

Proposal A sought to increase the Second Congressional District from 40.77% 

black to 43.5%. It would have added 60,852 new people into the district, of 

which 64.017 were black. 

Proposal A was resisted in the political tug of war. Meanwhile, the 

plan the Congressional delegation sent to the legislative committee was reject- 

ed because of its 1.3% deviation although the joint legislative committee could  



not agree on its own, or any other plan. Plans, and amendments to plans, were 

debated back and forth by a multitude of legislators and interested people. 

Then, the co-called Nunez Plan was introduced, which did two things: it 

created a Second District which was 567% black; more important to the political 

agenda of the plan's proponents than electing a black, it created a First 

District which was dominated politically by Jefferson Parish at the expense of 

St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes. The Nunez Plan began to thread its way 

through the State Senate, while versions on the House side differed materially. 

The Black Caucus wanted a Second Congressional District which would be pre- 

dominantly black. But public opinion among blacks was divided. Others ques- 

tioned the value of concentrating black voting strength in one congressional 

district. For example, according to the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate of 
  

September 20, 1981, "Rupert Richardson, president of the Louisiana NAACP, said 

a black-majority district isn't necessarily in the interests of black citizens. 

I'm not at all convinced that one black congressman is better if it meant losing 

two of our strongest supporters, Mrs. Boggs and Mr. Long,' Mrs 

The Governor felt the Nunez Plan was flawed because it clearly involved drawing 

the congressional districts solely along racial lines. During the debate the 

Governor publicly acknowledged that race is a valid factor to be used in drawing 

new district lines, but he believed that it should not be the only factor. 

More to the point, the Governor looked upon the attempt to craft the First 

District so it would be dominated by Jefferson Parish as fundamentally unfair 

to the citizens of St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes. 

Since Proposal A did not satisfy everyone, and because he would not 

support the Nunez plan, Governor Treen submitted a second plan, called Plan X,  



® ¢ é& © 

in November. He hoped to reconcile the Senate and House differences, and 

still recognize the growing black population that is taking place in the New 

Orleans area. According to Plan X, the Second District would contain a total 

population of 525,885 people of which 44.75% would be black. After further 

deliberations by the Legislature, a compromise plan was finally adopted which 

became Act 20 of 1981 of the Louisiana Legislature. Act 20 of 1981 gave the 

Second District a total population of 526,605 people of which 44.5% are 

black, only slightly less than what the Governor intended. 

Act 20 of 1981 took into consideration all of the conflicting interests 

of the parties and it represents a conscientious effort to address the concerns 

which were expressed by members of the Black Caucus and black citizens in 

Louisiana. It affords blacks the fullest political expression possible in an 

area of the State with a large black population without at the same time ma- 

terially diluting the strength of the black vote in other congressional dis- 

tricts in the State. It increases the black population in the Second District 

substantially and thereby avoids retrogression. 

Defendants contend that it was neither the effect not the intent of 

Act 20 to dilute minority voting strength and defendants did not violate the 

Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the 

Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights of 1965 as amended. 

 



PLAINTIFFS' ELEVEN 

(DOCUMENTS) 

Transcript of Proceedings 7/23/81; House and Governmental Affairs Sub- 

committees on House, Congressional and Public Service Reapportionment 

(Baton Rouge) 

Transcript of Proceedings 8/21/81; Senate Reapportionment Study Committee 

and Subcommittee of House and Governmental Affairs on Congressional and 

Public Service Commission Reapportionment (Baton Rouge) 

Transcript of Reapportionment Hearing, 8/27/81 (Ruston) (omit pages 1-71, 

referring to reapportionment of State House and State Senate) 

Transcript of Proceedings, 9/16/81; Subcommittee of House and Governmental 

Affairs on Congressional and Public Service Reapportionment and Senate Re- 

apportioment Study Committee (Lafayette) (omit pages 2-91, referring to 

reapportionment of State House and State Senate) 

Transcript of Proceedings; Subcommittee of House and Governmental Affairs 

in Congressional and Public Service Reapportionment and Senate Reapport- 

ionment Study Committee; 9/24/81 (Baton Rouge) 

Transcript of Proceedings 9/29/81; Subcommittee of House and Governmental 

Affairs in Congressional and Public Service Reapportionment and Senate Re- 

apportionment Study Committee (Baton Rouge) 

Transcript of Proceedings, Senate Reapportionment Study Committee and 

Subcommittee of House and Governmental Affairs on Congressional and Public 

Service Reapportiomment, 10/7/81. (Baton Rouge) 

Transcript of Proceedings Subcommittees of House and Governmental Affairs 

on Congressional and Public Service Reapportionment, 10/15/81 (Baton Roug ) 

Transcript of Proceedings, Committee on House and Governmental Affairs, 

10/15/81 (Baton Rouge) 

The following proposals, in globo, considered by the Senate Reapportionment 

Study Committee and the House and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on 

Congressional and Public Service Reapportionment: 

A) Alternative One (La. Congressional Delegation Proposed) 

B) Alternative Two (Statewide) 

C) Alternative Three (Statewide) 

D) Alternative Four (Statewide) 

E) Orleans-Jefferson Area Proposal 2 

F) Proposal Six, 9/29/81 

G) Proposal Seven, 9/29/81] 

H) Proposal Eight, 9/29/81  



Plaintiffs' Eleven (Documents) 

Page 2 

Press Release by Governor Treen, 10/22/81, "Topic: Governor Releases 
Congressional Reapportionment Plans." 

Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs, Minutes of Meeting, 
11/3/81 

Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee Meeting, Excerpt of Discussion 
on Senate Bill 5.,°11/3/81 

Transcript of Proceedings, Committee on House and Governmental Affairs, 
11/4/81 

Transcript of Proceedings, Committee on House and Governmental Affairs, 
11/5/81 

Transcript of Proceedings, Committee on House and Governmental Affairs, 
11/6/81 

Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee Meeting, Excerpt of Discussion on 
House Bill 2, 11/10/81 

Transcript of Proceedings, Conference Committee on Congressional Reapport- 
ionment, 11/11/81 

1981 Official Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives of the State of Louisiana and the Legislative Calendar, Seventh 
Extraordinary Session of the Legislature under the Constitution of 1974 

Louisiana Legislative Council, Memoranda, January, 1981, Re: Judicial 
[nterpretations affecting Reapportionment 

Memorandum, Louisiana House of Representatives, 7/23/81 Re: Submission 
of Reapportionment Plans in accordance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965 

Memorandum, Congressional Research Service, "Legal Analysis of whether the 
Voting Rights Act requires that a Black Majority Congressional District be 
created in a covered state having a significant black population, 10/9/81 

Louisiana State Memorandum, 10/21/81, Principles of Reapportionment 

Louisiana Legislative Staff Memorandum, 11/6/81, "Congressional Redistrict- 
ing Veto and DOJ Review" 

Louisiana Legislative Staff Memorandum, 11/8/81, "Congressional Redistrict- 
ing: Veto and DOJ Review"  



Plaintiffs' Eleven (Documents) 

Page 3 

globo, the following material concerning Senate Bill No. 4: 

Original 
/, Congressional Reapportionment: Statistical Analysis, Senate Bill 4 

(Original), Nov. 2, 1981 

globo, the following material concerning Senate Bill No. 5 

Original 

Congressional Reapportionment: Statistical Analysis, Senate Bill 5 

(original), Nov. 2, 198] 

Engrossed 

Statistical Analysis, Senate Bill 5 (Engrossed), Nov. 4, 1981 

Re—-engrossed 

Statistical Analysis, Senate Bill 5 (Re-engrossed), Nov. 4, 1981 

District ethnic totals and registered voters, Senate Bill No. 5 

(Re-engrossed), June 14, 1982 

District Ethnic totals and resigtered voters, Senate Bill No. 5, 

(House Amendments) June 14, 1982 

Conference Committee Report, Senate Bill No. 5, Nov. 11, 1981 

Statistical Analysis, Senate Bill 5 (Conference Committee Report) 

Nov. 11, 198} 

Enrolled 

Act 20 

Comparison of various S.B. 5 plans - Ethnic breakdowns and district 

variances (undated) 

District ethnic totals and registered voters, S.B. 5, 

June 14, 1982 

In globo, the following material concerning House Bill 2: 

Original 

Engrossed 

Re—-engrossed 

Comparison of various House Bill 2 Plans: Ethnic Breakdowns and 

District Variances (undtated) 

District Ethnic Totals and Registered Voters, House Bill 2 Re-engrossed 

June 14, 1982 

District Ethnic Totals and Registered Voters, Present (pre-1981) Congress- 

ional Districts, June 14, 1932 

State of Louisiana - Commissioner of Elections 

Report of Registered Voters Congressional Districts, 6/3/82 

Validated 1980 Louisiana Census Data for Redistricting  



Plaintiffs' Eleven (Documents) 

| Page 4 

In globo, Orleans Parish Election Returns by Precinct, for every election 

since 1975 

In globo, Jefferson Parish Election Returns by Precinct, for every elec- 

tion since 1975 

Letter from Tommy Hudson to David Treen, January 27, 1981 

Letter of Notice from Governor Treen concerning Special Session, October 

27, 1981, with attachments 

Memorandum to Members of the Legislature from Dave Treen, November 9, 1981 

Louisiana Cities over 50,000 population 

Louisiana Metropolitan Parishes 

Population, Voting Age Population and Registered Voters by Race for the 

State of Louisiana, Orleans Parish (New Orleans) and Jefferson Parish, 

1980 Census 

Louisiana Congressional Districts: Population of the State of Louisiana, 

Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish 1930 through 1980 Census 

Louisiana Congressional Districts, 1980 Census, under 1972 and 1981 Plans 

Comparison of the Present Congressional Plan, the Submitted Plan (Act No. 

20) and the Nunez Plan (Senate Bill 5 and House Bill 2); Population and 

Registered Voters by Race and Election Results in 1979 Gubernatorial and 

1980 Presidential Elections 

Maps of the New Orleans Metropolitan area, including Jefferson Parish, with 

overlays to show the following: 

A) Prior Congressional lines (pre-1981) 

B) Act 20 lines 

C) House Bill 2 lines, as passed by House 

D) Senate Bill 5 lines, as passed by Senate 

E) Henderson Plan for Orleans Parish 

F) Black/white population change from 1970 to 1980 
G) Other demographic patterns--housing, employment, income, etc. 

H) Voting patterns (racial bloc voting analysis) 

I) Racial composition of Orleans Parish under 1980 census 

Flow chart of legislative process for House Bill 2 and Senate Bill 5, 

showing what actions were taken at what time and by whom  



Plaintiffs' Eleven (Documents) 

Page 5 

45. A series of computer printouts relative to racial bloc voting in Orleans 

and Jefferson Parish, to be sued in connection with Dr. Henderson's 

testimony, will be introduced. 

1980 census statistics, if available, or other evidence showing demo- 
’ ls 

graphic data for Orleans and Jefferson Parishes. 

If plaintiffs' Motion in Limine is not granted, they intend to introduce 

the following Department of Justice documents: 

(a) Findings and recommendations of all levels of the Voting Rights 

Section staff that an objection should be interposed to Act 20. 

Telephone conversations and the circumstances and substance of those 

meetings and conversations between William Bradford Reynolds and 

David Treen from August 1981 through June, 1982. 

Telephone conversations and meetings between Department of Justice 

Staff and representatives of Governor Treen 

Travel by William Bradford Reynolds to meet with David Treen 

First mailing/recall and second mailing of Request for more Informa- 

tion from Department of Justice to the defendants 

The irregular and process by which the Assistant Attorney General 

failed to interpose an objection to Act No. 20 

Please Note -- Plaintiffs expect to use graphs, charts and maps as visual 

aids at trial which will be enlargements of some of the material listed above. 

These visual aids are discussed as "Plaintiffs' Thirteen" 

  

Defendants do mot intend to oppose introduction of documents #+—19-inclu= 
sives 

Devendants, as of the time of the pre-trial conference have not agreed to 
introduction of any ether document, nor have they stated reasons in opposition 
to the introduction of any of the documents. EN defeemrtor (forma, 2b, 

/ yi Sg A. of ¢ =O £7 2 dt y Sid all pnts a ys alr tuner he ao Co Ava A 44 
, Le A 

Pusls mn ¢ di A pnd and Nldpng the WL {on Lia 7 
3 k 

Vv  



DE FENDANTS' ELEVEN 

(EXHIBITS) 

1. Expert witness report of E. Kenneth Selle, dated January 5, 1983, 

together with all attachments. 

Report of Registered Voters, quarter ending December 31, 1980, as 

certified by the Commissioner of Elections. 

3.. Book entitled Dave Treen of Louisiana, by Grover Rees, 171. 

4. Louisiana Politics, Festival in a Labyrinth, edited by James Bolner, 

Chapter 11 "Blacks in Louisiana Politics', together with all charts and gr: 

contained therein. 

5. Treen Proposals A, 1 C. 

Plan X. 

Act 20 of the Louisiana Legislature. 

The Nunez Plan, as introduced in the Senate. 

c 

Legislative History Senate Bills 4,5,6, 28 and 29, and House 

Legislative Journal. 

Statistical analysis and official returns of the two Morial, Valteau 

Shirley Wimberly elections. 

Department of Justice pre-clearance letter, dated June 18, 19 

13. April 7, 1982 memorandum from the Governor to William J. Guste, with 

attachments. 

Rules for Congressional Reapportionment - Joint Legislative Committee 

15.0 June 6, 1982 ‘letter from Governor Treen to William Bradford Reynold 

with attachments.  



Defendants Eleven (Exhibits) 

Page 2 

16. 1980 census. 

17. Pamphlet entitled "A New Commitment to Black Louisiaan tang. 

18. Transcript of Covernor's press conference, November 9, 

19. Senate statistical comparison of old law and Act 20. 

Memorandum from Governor Treen to members of Legislature, November 

21. Precinct Racial Analysis, Voter Registration, as prepared by 

Orleans Registrar of Voters. 

22 Comparison of Reconciliation Plan with Nunez Plan. 

23. Congressman Livingston's submisisons to the Department of Justice. 

24. All documents produced in discovery or in depositions in this matter 

Plaintiffs do not intend to oppose introduction of documents 1, 2, 3, 

12, 16,.19, 20 and 21. Plaintiffs oppose introduction of the 

following documents for the following reasons: 

Hearsay 

9. Defendants have not clarified what these documents are. 

11. Plaintiffs do not oppose introduction of official electoral returns. 

At this time they oppose introduction of "statistical analysis" until such a 

document is given to them for their review. 

12. Relevance, and for the reasons stated in plaintiffs pending Motion 

in Limine. 

13. Relevance, hearsay 

15. Relevance, hearsay  



Defendants Eleven (Exhibits) 

Page 3 

Relevance, hearsay 

Plaintiffs have not been given a copy of this document to review, 

nor is the source described, nor which versions of which plans are compared 

or by what method. 

23. Relevance, hearsay 

Plaintiffs cannot agree to the wholesale introduction of all docu 

ments produced in discovery, nor to wholesale introduction of deposition. The 

standards for what is discoverable and what is admissible are different. 

Furthermore, plaintiffs assert they are entitled to know specifically which 

documents defendants intend to introduce and object to the use ol 

device to evade the rules and orders of this Court. 

 



PLAINTIFF' THIRTEEN 

(VISUAL AIDS) 

Plaintiffs expect to use a number of visual aids at trial, reduced 

copies of which will be provided to each of the judges and opposing counsel. 

These aids include: 

A. Maps of the Metropolitan New Orleans area, including Jefferson 

Parish, with overlays to show the materials and items listed in "Plaintiff 

Eleven (Documents)' Item No. 43. 

Maps of the State of Louisiana with Overlays to show the various 

plans. 

Flow chart of the progress of the various bills in the 1981 Speci 

Session which dealt with Congressional reapportionment. 

D. Graphs and Charts as follows: 

Population characteristics of Orleans and Jefferson Parishe: 

1970 and 1980: 

Total Population and registered voters by race 

Orleans and Jefferson Population Percentages of al Congre 

jonal ‘District: 1930 to 1980 

Racial bloc voting patterns in Orleans and Jefferson in 

elections since 1975 

Comparison of population and registered votes by race and 

population deviations of contressional plans: 

a): «1972 

b) House 

c) Senate 

d) Henderson 

e) Act 20 

1 

 



Plaintiffs’ Thirteen (Visual Aids) i] 

Page 2 

Projection of vote possibilities in Act 20, District 20 

Community of Interest comparison of Orleans and Jefferson: 

Race, housing, income, voter registration and other demographi 

statistics 

 



Defendants' Thirteen 

(Visual Aids) 

Defendants may use various charts and graphs showing election resul 

various maps of the State of louisiana showing the breakdown of the Congre 

ional Distficts. 

 



PLAINTIFFS' FOURTEEN 

(WITNESSES) 

Plaintiffs wi 2s the following expert witnesses: 

]. Gordon Henderson 

Farlham College 

Richmond, Indiana 

Dr. Henderson is expected to testify as to racial bloc voting in the New 

Orleans area, analysis of various congressional plans, population projections 

census statistics and similar matters. 

Richard Engstrom, PH.D. 

University of New Orleans 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

Dr. Engstrom is expected to testify as to various electoral arrangements 

that result in "second generation' electoral discrimination, including the gerr 

mandering of electoral district boundaries. He also will testify concerning 

demographic and electoral data concerning the New Orleans metropolitan area 

and Louisiana to explain the present effects of past discrimination in such 

areas as housing, education, voter registration, income and so forth. 

ntiffs may call the following expert witnesses: 

Raphael Cassimere, Jr., Ph.D. 

University of New Orleans 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

Dr. Cassimere may testify as to the history of Louisiana in racial terms up 

to the early 1960's, including the use of various disfranchisement techniques 

and other devices to dilute and limit minority participation. 

Joe Logsdon, Ph.D. 

University of New Orleans 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

Dr. Logsdon may testify as to the role race has played in the career of 

Dave Treen, including Governor Treen's relationship with the States Rights 

Party, his votes in Congress on various civil rights bills and results of 

various elections in which Treen was a candidate.  



Plaintiffs' Fourteen (Witnesses) 

Page 2 

Plaintiffs will call the following factual witnesses: 

1. Lawrence C. Chehardy 

Assessor, Jefferson Parish 

Metairie, Louisiana 

Mr. Chehardy may testify as to the processes leading up to the passage ol 

of the challenged plan and the impact of various plans considered by the 

Legislature. Mr. Chehardy may also testify as to the existence of a community 

of interests between Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, and economic, sociological 

and political differences between the two Parishes, including participation by 

blacks in the political processes of the two Parishes. 

D. Plaintiffs may call the following witnesses: 

1. Mayor Ernest Morial 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

Mayor Morial may testify as to the existence of a community of interests 

between Orleans and Jefferson Parishes and economic, sociological and politi 

differences between the two Parishes, including participation by blacks in the 

political processes of the two Parishes. 

2. Lloyd Lewis 

Jefferson Parish 

Lewis is a black community activist in Jefferson Parish and may testify 

areas outlined for Mayor Morial. 

3. David Poynter, Clerk of House of Representatives, may be called to 

authenticate documents and lay a foundation for their submission, if defendants 

are unable to stipulate their introduction. 

Baer, Secretary of the Senate may be called for a similar pur- 

5. The following persons may be called to testify as to factual matter: 

surrounding the legislative process by which Act 20 was passed, including 

consideration and rejection of other plans: 

A) Nancy Barringer 

Senate Staff 

Louisiana State Capitol 

Jaton Rouge, louisiana  



' Plaintiffs Fourteen (Witnesses) 

Page 3 

Glen Koepp 

Senate Staff 

Louisiana State Capitol 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Representative Gillis Long 

Representative Robert Livingston 

Jan Scudemacher 

c/o Congresswoman Lindy Boggs 

Causen Killers 

c/o Gillis Long 

Representative John Hainkel 

Representative Mary Landrieu 

Representative Leo Watermeier 

Representative Jock Scott 

Representative Emile '"Peppi' Bruneau 

Representative Richard Turnley  



Plaintiffs' Fourteen (Witnesses) 

Page 4 

M) Senator Samuel Nunez 

Governor David Treen 

Louisiana Capitol 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Governor Treen may be called to outline his participation in the reapportion: 
ment process and his positions on racial matters. 

7. The plaintiffs may be called to establish their standing, residences, 

Sam Altobello 

Registrar of Voters 

Gretna, Louisiana 

Mr. Altobello may be called to authenticate election returns and voter 
registration figures for Jefferson Parish, if defendants are unwilling to stipu- 

their introduction. 

9. A representative of the Board of Election Supervisors for Orleans 

Parish may also be called for the same purpose. 

 



DEFENDANTS' FOURTEEN 

(WITNESSES) 

EXPERT 

'. Kenneth Selle | 7 
1 

, CALL 

Governor David C. Treen 

Executive Mansion 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 

Representative John Hainkel 

Representative Emile "Peppi' Bruneau 

ALL 

Honorable Machael Baer 

Secretary, Louisiana Senate 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 

Representative Mary Landrieu 

Representative Leo A. Watermeier 

Senator Samuel Nunez 

Congressman Gillis Long 

Congressman Robert Livingston  



of Witnesses 

Page 2 

- 
7) lani Guinier 

10 Columbus Circle 

Suite 2030 

New York, New York 10019 

8) Any witnesses listed by any other party. 

9) Any depositions of any individuals taken in this case. 

D. REBUTTAL WITNESSES 

Defendants specifically reserve the right to call, as rebuttal witnesses, 

any such individuals whose testimony cannot be reasonably foreseen at this time