Section 5 Submission Analysis on Louisiana Reapportionment by Robert Kwan; Memorandum from Reynolds to The File

    9 

SECTION 5 SUBMISSION ANALYSIS 

Reapportionment of Congressional Districts 
in the State of Louisiana 

by : 
Act No. 20 of the First Extraordinary Session 

of the Louisiana Legislature of 1981 

TIME LIMIT 

Recalvad December 17, 1941 

More Information Received Apeil 19, 19u2 

Dua Out June 18, lyb2 

PACTUAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS 
  

By: Robert N. Kwan 
Attorney 
Voting Section 

I. RELATED LITIGATION 

A lawsuit challenging the submitted legiulation on Section $ and constitutional racial vote dllution grounds is currently punding. 
Halos Ve Trean, C.A. NG. 82=1192~H (B.D. La.). 1/ Laut wuuk, a slngTe~judge Court on an uncontested motion tor summary judgment 
ruled that thu present Conyressional apportionment plan adopted in 
1971 violatus the ®one-person, one-vota® Fourteenth Awcudment standard. Discovery is now underway in this litigation on the merits of the 1982 Congressional reapportionment plan. A Lhreu- judge court has buen designated to hear this action (Circult Judge Politz and District Judges Collins and Casaibry). 

The same federal district court dismissed as Premature 
a second lawsuit brought under 2 U.S.C. §2 on bahalt ot a prospective Congressional candidate to fix Congressional distcict boundaries #40 that he can run. Couhiq v. Brown, C.A. No. 82-l136-D (E.D. La.,)., 
  

1/ The Falor lawsult also challenges the legality ot Act No. 1 Of the Flrst Extraordinary Session of the Loulstana Legylslatuce of 1981 providing for the reapportionment of the Louisiana Housu of Representatives. Subsequent to the filing of that action, a Section 5 objection was lnterposed to the House Plan on June 1, 1982. The district court has severed the House reapportionment controversy trom Congressional reapportionamsnt.  



in
o 

aa
? 

et 
R
T
E
 

W
E
,
 

A
B
 

T
l
?
 

be
 
AA
 

O
n
d
i
n
e
 

S
A
S
L
 

eX
 
E
B
X
 
S
A
S
S
 

Lo
a 

dd
t 
A
A
A
 

l
e
y
 

Ld 
Wh
 
v
a
l
e
 

e
w
 

a
 

3 

II. INTRODUCTION 

A. Recognition of the Need for Congressional Reapportionment 
Reapportionment of Congressional districts Legislature {is mandated by the Art. I, Constitution and Art. III, S) of the 7 

by the Louisiana 
$2 of the United Status 

Louisiana Constitution of 

ansus ’ 

stricta 
+ 21.95%). 

dulonal distcicta, a number {it 
p eal Congreuslonal distric the 1970 Census was 

and under tha 
1980 Censua, the figure rose to 525,497 persona. Glven the stringent 
population equality requirements of Conygreasional Tuapportionment, 
it is likely that the present Congressional districts would not meet "one-person, one-vote® Pourteenth Amendmant requitumuentsa, 
Kirkpatrick v, Prelsler, 394 U.8. 526 (1969)) White v. Welser AZ0E 78 sry 

The Louisiana Le 
there way 

  

+ Senator Thomas 

Yyrevuslional and 
at Cuapport tunment 
sion to winlmlze 

business. 

  

legislative fuapportionawnt 1 Primavily 
but {f that 

Census, the feapport 
Louisiana Supreme Court, $§6(8). 

gation devolves to the 
Louisiana Constitution, art. 111,  



od 

-3- 

. 
e
e
 

A
 

8
.
 

a
l
 

L
L
 

M
A
P
L
E
 

A
N
 

B. The Reapportionment Process LI
EN
 

LI
 

A
 
S
P
R
 

The formal reapportionment process began in mid-July 1981 at 
the close of the regular 1981 leyislative session with the appolntmant 
of the memburs of the Congressional reapportionment subcommittuus 
in both houses of the leylslature. 3/ (Separats subcommlttues wera 
set up for statu legislative reapportionment.) Senator Hamuul 1. 
Nunez, Jr., President Pro Tempore of the Louisiana Sunatu, waw 
named the chalrperson of the Senate Congressional ruapportionmunt 
subcommittee. Representative John "Jock® W. Scott was selected 
as the chalrperson of the House Congrsssional reapportionment 
subcommittee. 

At the first meeting of the Congressional reapportionment 
subcommittees, which was a joint wession, held on July 21, 1lydze, 
rules tor Conyressional reapportionment were adopted. On 
Population equality, the subcommittees adopted a rule lumi ing 
a4 maximum deviation for Congressional reapportionment to + 1.00%. 
As for legislative reapportionment, a rule was enacted tu avoid 
dilution of minority voting strength. At thia meeting, both 
tuchnical aspects of reapportionment (€.9., thu data base) and 
the legal aspects (e@.y., requirements under the *onu-purson, 
one-vote” constitutional standard and the Voting Rights Act) wure 
discusned. 

T
d
 

r
r
 
S
r
 

hr
 
S
r
 

Sa 
. 

k 
E
e
 

. 
ho
 

ay 

Hlearings of the Congressional reapportionment subcommittuuy 
ware conducted trom July through October 1981. Thu huarlngus took 
place at difterent regional locations throughout the statu to 
allow the public to comment on Congressional reapportionmunt. ‘The 
proceudings Ln thuse committees hearings focused on vuap port tonment 
in speclfic reglons of the state (e.9y., Rapides and Calcaluluu 
Parishes, Orleans and Jefterson Parishes). Various propusals wule 
presented, lacluding those of the Louisiana Congresslonal delugation 
and ot Governor Treen. While the Louislana Conycesslional delegation 
did not have the technical abilities of the State leylslature in 
terms of computer access to the data base, it did develop lta own 
proposals and was kept in consultation with the reapportionment 
work by the subcommittees. Governor Treen publicly released hig ; 
three Congressional reapportionment proposals, but these wuru not + 
presented until October 22, 1981, which was late in the subcommittee 
hearing proceus. 

  

3/ These subcommittees were under the jurisdiction of the Sunatu 
Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs and the louse 
Committee on House and Governmental Affairs.  



e@® 

-lf = 

C. The Special 1981 Legislative Session 

1. November 2, 1981 
  

On November 2, 1981, the First Extraordinary Session of 
the Louisiana Legislature of 1981 convened. Congressional 
reapportionment did not coma before the full Louisiana legislature 
until this special 1981 legislative session. 4/ Various bills to 
reapportion the Congressional districts were Introduced during 
this session (i.e., Senate Bills 4, 5, 6 and 28 and llouse Bills 
2, 25 and 26), but of these, only Senate Bill 5, House Bill 2 
and their amendments were seriously conaiderad. 

On the Senate side, on November 2, the first day of the 
special sesaion, Senate Bill 5 was introduced in the Scnate hy 
Senators Nunez and Tiemann. ~The Congresaional reapportionment 
plan in Senate Bill 5, known aa the "Nunez Plan,’ provided for a 
Jefferson Parish based district (72% of the First Congressional 
District would be in Jeffaraon Parish) and an Orleans Parish based 
discricc (94.9% of the Second Congressional District would be in 
that parish). The First District under this plan would encompass 
the West Bank of Jefferson Parish (i.e., the portion of Jefferson 
Parish on the west side of the Mississippi River), Plaquemines and 
St. Bernard Parishes. The Second District would include only the 
large portion of Orleans Parish on the East Bank of the Mississippi 
River. Because the Second District under the Nunez Plan would 
include almost all of Orleans Parish, it would be 54.0% black in 
population. 5/ 

  

4/ The record of the 1981 special legislative session 1s set out 
in the "1981 Official Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate and 
House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana and the Lepislative 
Calendar, Seventh Extraordinary Session of the Lepgluslature under the 
Constitution of 1974." The First Extraordinary Sesston of the 
louisiana Legislature of 1981 is the seventh extraordinary aession 
of the legislature under the louisiana Constitution of 1974. 

5/ In terms of Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, this contipuration 
would differ from the present apportionment plan as the First and 
Second Districts would not staddle both banks of the Milsulasipptl 
River and would not combine portions of both parishes. There 
are other differences between the present and Nunez plans as will 
be discussed below,  



D0 N 
ri
 

C
R
 

I 
E
Y
 

ho
 

- 
RR 

F
T
P
 

FY.
 
FI

 
RP

AN
 
I
S
C
O
 

we 
A
R
 

On the House side, Repreassntative 8cott introduced House 
Bill 2 into the Louisiana House of Representatives. The 
Congressional reapportionment plan in House Bill 2, known as 
the “Scott Plan,® would provide for a 50.2% black majority 
population district in the Second Congressional District, 
but it would retain the division of Jefferson and Orleans 
Parishus similar to the existing linea. 

Ra
ph
 

pri
rg 

i 
Bt

 
wPe

he 
‘a

te
 

bu 
Fa 

2. November 4, 1981 
  

On November 4, the Senate Committee on Senate and Guvernmental 
Atfalcs reported out Senate Bill 5 with minor amunduuntuy and sunt 
lt to the Senatu floor for consideration by the full Sunate Lhat 
day. Further technical amendments in Benate Bill 5 wuru adopted, 
but more slygntlcantly, two substantive amenduwents to thu bLLLL wuete 
rejuctud by the Henate. One rejected amendment eubodled one ot 
Governor Truun's three Congressional plans, Proposal A. bu/ 

a
 

de 
a 

ti
 
a
l
e
r
t
 

Ae
 

i
 

S
R
R
.
 

+B
 

p
h
 

in
l 

n.
d 

ben 
t
a
t
 

Ce
 
A
N
 

On the same day, the Senate finally passed Sceunate Bill 4 
ay amended by a vote of 31 to 6 and sent At to the Houwu ot 
Representatives for action. 

In the Housu Committee on House and Govarnmuntal Altaliu, 
House Bill 2 was reported out with amendments. Thu amunduuntu 
ware slynificant as the committee voted by a vote ot 12 to | 
to replace the "Scott Plan® with Governor Treen's VPropoual Wi. 
By the same margin, the House committee rujectud an amendment 
to incorporate the Nunes Plan into House Bill 2. 

J. November 6, 1981 
  

On November 6, in proceedings before the tull House ot 
Representatives, an amendment {3 proposed to amend House Bill 2 
by incorporating Governor Treun's Proposal A instead of Proposal 
8. The House rejects this amendment by a vote of 51 to 47. 

: 
: 

Poy 

\ 
; 
ivy 
yy A 
} 
'3 

1 
1] 

i} 
og 

5 
“«t &“ 

te 

] di 
CINE © 

a. 

wl 
«9 

i . 
" i) 
Nl, | 
. 4 

{ 4 : 
1 

+ 
y 

  

6/ In an article on the Senate vote rejecting Treen Proposal A, 
the Tlwes/Plcayuns, one of the leading newspapers in the city ot 
Now Orleans, observed, "With Treon's top aides, John Cade and 
William Nunyesser, lobbying in the rear of the chamber, the 
proposal made a surprisingly good showing, loaing only 20-17." 
Times/Picayuna, November 5, 1981. 

RB
 

RP
 

VA
TA

 
5 

AT
Y 
W
T
A
E
 

AT
E 

oe 
AN

 
a 
T
E
R
 

© 
va

 
P
R
A
T
T
 

W
W
 
P
E
N
S
 

15
 

5F 
15 

1 
S
R
N
R
 

NI  



—
—
 

re
 

Next, Representative Alario moved to amend House Bill 2 by 
substituting the Nunez Plan for Treen Proposal B, and Lhu amendment 
to incorporate the Nunez Plan was adopted by the House by a votu of 
59 to 38. A flour amendment was Offered to amend lHuusu BLIL 2 LO 
be a plan siwmllar, Lf not, one of the Treen proposals, but Ly a 
vote Of 4Y to 4%, the House votes to decide the tinal passagu ot 

House Bill 2. House Bill 2 incorporating the Alario amendment (i.e. 

the Nunez Plan) was finally passed by the Housu Of Kupresuntativus 
by a vote of 61 to )8 and waa sent to tha other chamber. 

. 
i
e
e
e
 

tt
 

e
c
,
 

R
E
V
 

RE
P 

1
S
 

PE
A 
v
u
 

A
t
a
r
i
 

a 

Thus, in both houses of the legislature, Conyresuional 
reapportionment bills incorporating the Nunez Plan were adouptud 
by both the Senate and tha House. 7/ 

After the House votes on Congressional reapportionment, 
Governor Treen that evening iasued a public statement that 
"Any bill in that form is unacceptable and without uustion 
will be vetoed.” Times/Picayune, November 7, 1981. (At the 
May 31, 1982 conference with Mr. Reynolds, Govurnor Truen 
admitted that he publicly threatenad to veto any leyluslation 
embodying the Nunez Plan.). 

After Houses Bill 2 was sent over to the Senate that day, it 
was discovered that there had been a technical dufuct in thu 
legislation. According to Glenn Koepp, staff membur of thu Sunate 
Laglslative Survices Office, the Alario amendment lett out ona 
voting precinct in Jefferson Parish. Mr. Koepp sald that under 
the Loulslana Constitution, final enactment of legislation must be 
in a single instrument approved by both houses of the lugislaturae, 
and only then, does it go to the Governor for actlon. Accurdling 
to Senator Nunez and Mr. Koepp, the Senate leadership decided not 
to ratify House Bill 2 because it would afford Governur Treen a 
technlcal excuse to carry out his public threat of a vero and 
decided to wait over the weekend until Monday November 9 to 
straighten out the technical variance. 8/ 
  

7/ Thia indicates that at the May 31, 1982 contercnce with Mc, ; 
Reynolds, Guvernor Treen and Speaker of the House of Kuepruuentatives, 
John J. Hainkel, Jr., misapoke in stating that the Nunuz BiIll would 
not have passed the House of Repressantatives. 

[E
S 

SR
 

O
E
P
 

PO
 
I
 

J 
Sa} 

8/ Alternatively, the House might have adopted Senate BLLL 5, which 
had buen sent to the House after its final passage in thu SHunate 
on November 4, but that bill was not procudurally ruady tur action 
in the House Of Representatives as of Novembar 6. 

hn
 
W
w
 

Me 
fe

n 

 



2® 
$
2
.
4
 

- 

l
p
 

Rl
 

A 
ME

 

-- 7] = 

"o
t 

u
t
e
 

The news reports characterised the rejection of the Treen 
Congressional reapportionasnt proposals and the adoption ot the 
Nunez Plan as a rude shock to the Treen Administration. Tlwes/ 
Picayune, Novumber 7, 1981; Baton Rouge Sunday Adovatu, Novumbar 
8, 198l. The Congressional reaction to the events Of November © 
was mixed. The Times/Picayune on November 10, 1941 reported that 
Conyressmen Breaux, Long, and Tauzin were at the Statue Capitol on 
November 6 to lobby against the Treen proposals. beu also, 
Shreveport Journal, November 6, 1981 and Baton Rougu State Times, 
November 10, 1981. Jack Wardlaw, repocter-columnist tor thu ‘Tlmes/ 
Plcayuna in his column of November 15, 1981, attributed the 
legislature's actions in part to Treen's proposals which would 
have adversely lmpactud on three Democratic incumbents, Breaux, 
Long, and Tauzlin, to Republican advantage. See also Baton MHougu 
State Times, November 10, 1981. The Times/Picayune reported on 
November 7 that Conyresswoman Bogys sald, "I certainly have no 
peruonal problem with At [i.e., the Nunez Plan) at all,"but also 
that Congressmen Livingston and Moore opposed the Nunez Plan. 

i
e
n
e
 

w
a
t
e
l
e
i
n
 

ta
l.
 

b
r
a
t
 

p
u
 

ud
in

d 
Su 

h
e
i
"
 

Th”
 
WR
 

By
 

ri
r 

Qe 
bh
 

4. November 9, 1981 
  

Early in the day, Governor Treen held a news conturcnce 
and released his so-called "Reconciliation Plan," which would 
provide for a ruapportionment plan similar to his wavlice throu 
proposals and which would not include a majority black district 
in New Orleans. Governor Treen also reiterated his thruat tao 
veto the Nunez Plan, Lf further action ia made on that plan. 
Tiwes/Plcayune, Noveaber 10, 1981. 

Thue full House conmidered Henate Bill 5, which on Nuvembar 
6, the Committee on liouse and Governmental Aftalcru had acepui tad 
out with amendments incorporating a proposal slallar tu Guvernoc 
Treen's plans, Representative Alario moved for amundmunts La 
Senate Bill 5 to adopt the Nunez Plan, but theme amendments ave 
rebufted by the House by a vote Gf 54 to 45. Repreuentativu 
Bruneau next moved to amend Senate Bill 5 to incorporate the ‘l'veen 
Conciliation Plan presented only hours earliur, and thu amendment 
was adopted by a vote of 74 to 206. The amended bill was Lilnally 
passed by a vote of 79 to 22 and returned to the Benatu. Y/ 

T
H
R
E
E
 
E
r
e
 

r
a
e
 

O
S
T
 W 
S
A
 

Sr
p 

SF S
P
P
 

  

P
E
P
E
 

S 
5
 

5 
M
E
 

BN 

8/ These actions in the House constituted a reversal ol tu votus 
un Friday Novewber 6. The Times/Picayune noted that Lhe Treun 
Adulnistration heavily lobbied state leyislators over the wuukund 
against the Nunuz Plan. Times/Picayune, November 10, LYul. 

r
a
t
 
A
L
Y
 

VE
 

P
S
P
 

LA 
N
O
P
 

E
T
E
 A
 

WR
 
a
T
 

a 
E
M
S
 

MT
 

NL  



R
S
S
 

< 
~4

 Upon receipt of the amended Senate Bill 5, the Senatu 
rejected the House amendmants to its bill by a vote of 28 Lo 3. 
This forced the necessity of a conference committue to work 
out the differences batween the two legislative chambuius. 

e
n
 

do
's
 
s
e
 

PA
L 

a
n
y
 

“
y
r
 

3. Negotiations and Adoption of a Plan, November 9-12, 1981 

La
d 

  

On November 9, after the Senate and House talled Lo come to 
an agreement on Congressional reapportionment, Senate President 
O'Kefte took aside Senator Nunez and Jefferson Parish Assessor 
Lawrence Chehardy, representing the Jefferson Parish leglslative 
delegation, Victor Busale of tha AFL-CIO, to tell thew that unluss 
a compromise on the configuration in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes 
ls worked out, the special legimlative uwumsaion may und wlthout a 

Congressional reapportionment plan. And none might not be vnacted 
until the following regular legislative session in April L1vu2. 9/ 
Many leglalators feared that the public would find the tallure Lo 
reapportion irresponsible and the need to call anothur uwpuclal 
session wasteful, 

r
e
 

"w
y 

2 

Li
on
an
sy
 

A tormal conterence committee was appointed on Tuusday Novamberc 
10, which consisted of Senators Hudson, Nunez and O'Kettu and 
Representatives Alario, Bruneau and Scott. But the actual work of 
hammering out a settlement took place in the Senate Compulur Room 
in the State Capitol basement and the Governor's Suite upstalecs. 
In the basement computer room, the Jefferson Parish duluyation and 
Democratic Congressional representatives and the Senate leadership 
tried to work out their compromise proposal. 10/ 
  

9/ Sty -malntalins that Lit was "common kinowludgu® that 
Governor Truen would not call another special luglulative wuusulon 
to finish Congressional reapportionment Lf a yuburnatucrlal veto 

were intygponed and that Af would bave to walt until Ancli. 

House Speakur Hainkel, an ally ot Governor 
Treen, stated that "1,000 percent convinced® that thu Guvernur 
would vetu a bill Incorporating the Nunez Plan and that "[L}f that 
happens, we may well have to wait until April and the nuxt ruyular 
legtulatlye yupwion,® Baton Bouus Stats Times. Novewber 10. 198). 

10/ Participants in the basement working out alternatives on Lhe 
State computers were Jefferson Parish Assessor Chehiacdy, Stale 
A¥L-CIO President Victor Bussle, Senate President O'Keltu and 
Sanatocs Nunez and Laurcella, Representative Alario, Cunyreuusmain 
Long and aides to Congresswoman Boygs, Long and Tauzin, and wumbecs 
Of the Senate aduinistrative services umtatf. No mumbur ot Lhe 
Loulslana Leglslative Black Caucus participated at thuse scuslons, 
nor were the aldes of Governor Treen ocr of Congrusumun Livingston 
and Moora.  



o® 
. 

. 
. 

. 
- 

fe
 E
B
 

ol 
Re 

SR
) 

. 

According ta ,. Se . the Capitol 
Basement group tried to strike a balance to raise the Jutferson 
Parish proportion and the black percentage within the parameters 
of the Governor's requirements. After the plan was agreed upon 
by that group, it was takan ul lates chak adabs Lo tle Cavurnor 
tor hls gxamination. 11/ 

w
e
r
a
 

els 
a 

‘
i
e
 

- 

E
R
S
 

: On Wednesday November 11, Thu BuXL day, GLOVULNOL 
ki signalled that he could accept the plan and would not veto 

t. 

E
L
E
 

>
,
 

e
t
 

Re
 

' 

  

1 
- 

E
I
R
 

vr
 

- 
. 

A 
N
e
e
 
r
e
e
 

ei
 
A
d
s
 

ue
 

A 
E
A
R
L
 

a 
R
r
 

i
B
 

ts
 
a
l
a
s
 
c
b
t
 

c
e
c
a
 
A
N
I
L
 

ac
 
c
s
a
n
t
 

o
s
s
 

an
 

r
e
 

to
m 

i 
i 
+ 
i 

4 

i 
5 

' 
' 
” 
LJ 

EL] 

[ 
[] 

| 
$f 

{ 

J 
1 
i 
1% }- 
[1] 1- 

( 

\ J 

BE 
4 

3 
‘ 
[ 

 ) 
F] 
1 
1d 

} 
‘a 3. 
3. 
Ki 
' 
1 
[} 
5 

3 
1 
3 

4 
L 

"
B
a
r
 

B 
b
m
 

h
h
h
 

t
h
 

PI
NE
 
N
R
 
W
U
T
 WE 

WE 
T
r
e
.
"
 

Fa
 

AR
 
A
S
A
E
 

E
X
E
 

A
N
S
 

Latec that night, Conyrussmen Livingston and Movie Li tad to 
persuade Governor Treen to accept the compromise. Gatun Kouyu Slate 
Times, November 11, 1981 and the Times/Picayune, November LJ, 1981. 
Apparently, Governor Treen was hesitant about the plan becaune tt 
Placed his Metacie home in Congresswoman Boggw'as dlustrict. while 
(continued)  



C
R
A
 

a
e
 © °o 

H
E
 

: 
I
W
 

OL
 

Ja 
ge 

“ 
L
S
:
 

SL
 

3 
A
A
A
C
E
R
N
 

In the evening of Wednesday November ll, the conterunce 
committee tormally met. The Benate leadership, including Senators 
O'Ketfe, Hudwon and Nunes, said that while the plan may not be am 
satisfactory as some would have wanted, the legislature has an 
obligation Lo the people to devise a Congressional reapportionment 
plan. ‘The compromise plan was adopted by a votu of 4 Lo 2 wilh 
Repredentat ives boott and Alario dissenting. Kepruuwuntal lve 
Scott lnsidted on proposing amendwents to create a wa juilly Llack 
dlstcict in Nuw Orleans, but thowe amendments weru ru juctud. 

CAA 
ek
 

da
h 

me
w 

a
 

’ 
* 

S
O
R
 

e
n
a
 

b
n
 

Po
 

sn
. 

So 
s
r
 

le 
Sa

re
es

 0
 

in. 
Se 

i
h
e
 
e
e
b
s
e
a
c
e
s
 

L
A
 

x 
R
E
S
 

T
I
N
 

2
 
r
a
n
 

Thu plan which came out of the contarsncu commit Lee bucCamu 
Act No. 20, the submitted leglslation. The plan worked out in Lhe 
neyot lations Letween the Jefferson Parish dalagat lon and thu 
Governor and adopted -by the conference committue did not lnclude a 
majority black district, but did provide for a district which 
would be 55% Jutferson Parish in population. 

NEE 
W
W
 
WE
D 
W
E
E
 

BP
E 
S
e
e
 

s
l
a
t
 

LX
 

TP
 
R
N
 

A 
So
r 

w
i
s
 

L
a
r
 

e
w
e
 

rw
an
da
 

tl
 
X
8
2
 

0
%
 

s
e
a
 

Er
 
m
a
 
g
y
 

A. 

C
e
e
s
 

3
B
 

Both Lhe tull Houww and Senate tinally pasuud the cunturunce 
comalttes plan, the amended Benate Bill 5, on November 12, lull, 
the last day ot the apscial session. Governor Treen signed Lt 
into law on November 19, 1981. 

(continued from last page) 
Lhe Governor tssued a denlal, the general understanding in the 
luylalature Lo that this was true. On thu moucnlng ul Wudiiuuday 
Novumber 11, Treen alde John Cade admitted to Congiuususman bBiuaux and 
Senator Nunez that the Governor was not happy Lhat hiv huousu way 
in Conyresuwoman Boyyw's district and asked Lf the leglolature Lo 
Lbelng over Congruswman Livingston's district 1nto Juttocuon Par luh 
to plck up Truen's residence. Baton ROuye Liate Tlwues, Novewbuer 11 
and 12, 19bl. Genator Nunez answered that since Lhu Gover not IY]A 
his way on uverything else on the plan, accowodatlon ot this tu uust 
would jeopardize the compromise and sald that elther Lhe Compromise 
plan be adopted or no plan will be enacted thiw special suusion, 

Accunding to , Lice Lhu ward ul 
Trucn's howe as an lusue got out, the leylelative 1uact lon was une 
Of dlsgust. One black legislator in his rewarks over Lhe talluge 
tO create a wma)oclty black district called the controvuiuy uver Tres 
home a ®diayrace.® Gee remarks of Hepcesentatlve Alphonuu Jackeon, 
Conteruncu Committee Hearing Transcript, Novewbec 11, Llyul,  



n
l
,
 

o
d
 

& 
E
B
L
 

S
t
 

ia
 

«
s
s
a
 

S
2
2
 

a
m
i
 

ri
me
 

T
b
 

lu
i 

in
 

2B, 
fo
n 

E
N
O
 

Y
Y
 
A
W
C
 

YE
 
P
Y
)
 

e
l
e
m
 

m
a
n
d
B
l
l
S
 

C
i
e
l
o
 

22
22
2 

U
E
 

AT
W 
Y
S
 

ER
C 
N
E
 

R
E
N
 

» 
c
e
n
 

r
r
 
d
d
.
 

St
an
 

Fon C
al

ne
 
r
a
m
i
 

P
E
R
 

Sr
 

a
 1 

. 

a 
a 

kJ 
- 

Sh
oi

ht
o 

83
st

 
A 
f
B
u
r
n
 

tus 
w
a
 

n
e
a
"
 

RC
N 

SY
 
W
S
L
S
 

o
d
 

. 
00

 
TR
B 

MY 
1 

c
a
t
e
 
e
t
m
 

ie
 
c
A
 

A 
A
L
 

A
T
 

I 
a
 
t
a
k
a
 

P
L
L
 

SR 
NE

E 

- 14 - 

In the submission review process, Governor Treen has 
enunclated several reasons for his opposition to tha Nunez Plan 
and in support of the submitted plan. Plrectly on the (uustion Of 
race and Congressional reapportionment, Governor Truun nald: 

What [ did do was to Yuestion the appropriatencun 
of a daliburata, conscious drawing of conyremwulonal 
district Tlnes for the deliberate Purpose of achlaving a 
majority black district. 1 observed that such wutives 
were inconsistent with our goal of a homogenous socluty. 
In fact, it is demeaning to blacks to suggest that they 
must be in an absolute majority in order to effect the 
vlectlion of a member of their race. It is also duemcaning 
to them that they will always vote along racial linus. 

  

Statement of Governor David C. Treen, Attachment A to Mumorandum 
to William J. Guste, Jr., Louisiana Attorney General, April 7, 
1982, ac 3, 15/ 

His flrst statement in the reapportionment procenu was 
apparently made on September 7, 198) when he communted at a news 
conterence that the idea of drawing a majority black Congresulonal 
district "swacks of racism.® Baton Rouge State Times, Seplembar 
9, 1981. On October 26, 1981 Governor Treen at a news confuerenca 
in answer to a question why his Congressional raapportionment 
.Propoualy did not incorporate a majority black district, hu stated 
that thure ls "no constitutional lmparative that that bu done, nor 
do I think there is a policy imperative.” Timesw/Plcayunu, Octobur 
27, 198l. Finally, at a third nuws contervnce on November 9, l19ul 
after the adoption of the submitted plan, Governor Trucn stated *f 
question whether the interests of the black people . . . ut that 
clty [New Orleans) are batter served by concentration tn one dlustcict, 
Oc by having a larye and substantial voice, a chancu to Lntluunce 
the policy and thu decisions of two congressmen, which Lhuey would 
continue to have under this arrangement (referring Lo my tinal 
PEOPOsal to the Legislature.” Attachment A tO Memurandum LO William 
J. Guste, April 7, 1982, at 1. 

  

15/ Governor Treen noted that his three reapportionment prupusals 
enhanced the black population percentage over the current plan in 
the Second Congressional District from 40.79 to 44.5%.  



  

  

a
 

ll
 

Tr
 

n
d
 

M
W
 

e
d
 

h
t
 

a 

M
P
P
 S
B
E
 

TE
 

Ee
 

BE 
al
 
ea
l 

X
W
 

IV
 
WW
 
R
a
 

. 

in
 

AD
A 

As
 
A
N
A
S
 

A
n
 

ed
en

 
b
s
 

BB
 

E
e
 

P
e
 

‘ 
Rd 

i] 
3 

b 
i 
i 
] 

1 
3 

i 
[) 
i 
4 
K 

oF
 

IS 
I S

E 
TE
 

WIE 
EN

 
S
T
N
 

E
R
 

a 
Se

 

3 the letter of dated September 2 ; Sunalor Thomay HH. Hudson and Representative pir tn feel Bi Of the Senate and House Congressional FRapportionmwent vubcoumlttues Lo the louldlana Conyreuslonal delegation. The letiur tecommuinded a that the Conyruwslonal delegation recomsend Proposal whlch would Create (1) a wajority black distecict in Orleans Parluhy (2) a Juttervon Parluh based district and (3) more Compactly cunt tyuiced districts. The Conyrewsional delegation indicated Lis at uumant with the Bugyuut long by letter dated Octubur 8,:1941, Val Luu © other luylalators, white and black, testified at Lhe tcappurt Lolmsut subcommittee heat luge that a majority black distelct would ba J&a 1 Lanta. The ews reports on Congressional feappourtlioament alu OUR ai Alntucust (n the issue of the cruation of a majority black dluslclct, and the subject came up K requ Tr ’ news conturences. $ Shuencly 2% Suvetise runt 

Chatiuen 

 



  
  

    

According tu Representative 7 Loutdtlana Legislative Black Caucus, teally had no 
tole ln the duvelopment of the Nunez Hntlay up the Hupp ot luglalators and nen 

the plan, or tn Lhe crucial 
Governor thruatenud Ll. Vulu aiid a 

urnluy uald 
Huvur J uput Lud 

subcommltiuuu. wihtle the Us warmly wndorsed the Nunez 
unaminously voted for tt, the lpate {in its development and the ut! 

wl
 

=3
 

A 
W
t
 

L
A
 

a
 
r
d
 

v0
 

Bt
 
Ba
l 

tb
ls
 

F
t
 
a
 

A
i
r
!
 
a
 
m
t
 

Yr 
B
t
 
a
 

P
r
a
 

f
A
 

swim 
i 

Lun, upohku 

Caucuuy wan 
Orly Lo yut 

L
A
E
 

RI
 

AT
E 

E
R
S
 

ed
 
e
d
 

E
S
A
 

AB reported An the News repocts, etforts to enact the Nunez Plan was NOL a wuwmbur of Lhe Jel terunun Parciyh delegation, but Lawrence Chehardy, the Tax Ausususuor ot Jefferson Paciuh. i)/ nc. Chehardy said that hls primary object lve wad the recognition Qf the population growth ln Jettueruon Pactual, but he also HUupports what it would do tor Orleans Paciuli and (ta winorcicy Community 

the kuy Lndlvidual tn the 

§ 

- 
) < 
1] 

A
R
T
 

N 
U
W
E
»
 

  

1) According to Governor Treen, Chuhardy iw (ha "political bono” Of Jattucwon bParlush., Nr, Chehardy is the de tacio leadut ot thu Jufterson Parian Democratic political establishment and dows not duny that he has substantial influence in the selectivn ut Candidates, but not Mucusuarily thelr direct electiqn. 

a
s
 
T
a
 

Yt
 

Re
t 

T
a
 

2
3
 

T
r
 

DR
 

AP
L 

PA
RE
 

P
R
E
 

! 
do 
A
W
 

r
a
y
,
 

S
R
E
 

27
a"
 

Te
a 

Fu
  



  

    

In 194%9, Davld Treen joined the States Kighty Fuity oul Loutslana. 
He mutved ad Lhe Chalrman of the party's central committee aid van as 
a predldentlal wlector candidate In 1960. The waln plattotm ol the 
States Rights Party was preservation of raclal segregation tn tha 
#atate and reuslutance to any fedural effort to curtall wuegiugat tun, 
Itty luadersnip included the most notorious whitu Buptemac tule tn 
Loulslana, such as Judge Leander Perez Of Plaguumlnuuy Pai tah, who was 
excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church tor Liu taciut viuwi, 
and Ltatu Senator William Ralnach, the most prominent upokuuman tor 
raclal suyregatlion in the state leglslature. Along with Judge tPuces 
and Senator halnach, David Tresn was a candidate tour prusident lal 
elector In 1960 on the States Rights ticket. (In tact, on Lhe . 
Campalygn flyer submitted by the Survival Coalition, Governor Tivun's 
pleture lu sandwiched between the two wen. The waln thumu ob Lhe 
flyer to "stop integration by federal force.") 

In bly campalygn blography, Governor Treen explatned that his 
interest in thu States Rights Party was ®"ldealistic® duu Lo concern 
over what he belluved was excessive federal Lntuervunt ion in slate and 
local matters, contrary to the letter, Lf not, thu wpiitl ul tha Tenth 
Awenduwent LO the United States Constitution. Besldeu the cry Lo stop 
tederal civil righty eftorts by the fedural judiciary and Lhe Cunyress 
LO deseyreguale Loulslana public schools and to rugutiic vactal cquality 
ln employment and voting, the campaign flyer also tatscs legitimate 
conCerns about the relationship between the tuderal government and 
the states, many of which are the subject of cuntewpurary dubale. But 
tn Lhe context of the history of the state and the pus tod 1a which 
the statemcnly wore wade, the main public appeal ut the Ltatcs WAghts 
Party was Clearly its campaign to resist laws tor caclul vqguallty, 
  

19a/ Senator Malnach was the chairman of jolnt luginlat ive comslt tae 
Commonly knuwi as the "Begreyation Commlttew,® which puilpuuse was "to 
watlntaln seycugatlion Of the races in all phasus of our lite 
accordance with the customs, traditions and laws of our Htate.® 
United Stated vo Loulslana, 2295 ¥. Supp. 353 (E.D. La. 1963). LHuhator 
Kalnach also led sfforts In the legislature for racially sclective 
entorcement of loulslana's literacy test requirement for volar 
reylatration., See Jack Bass and Walter DeVeoios 
bhouthern Politics (1977) at 162 snd 166. 

tn 

, Tranotoimat ton of 
———— 4 —— A So. rc TNE 

   



e 
- 20 = 

Governor Treen in his biography stated that he was disturbud with the racist tendencies, latent or otherwise, in the party and that he always believed that "all men are created Giual® and that there should be wqual application of the laws. # 

: Another flyer lists Governor Treen a8 a featured speaker at a "Rally to Save SBayreqgatlion® with top billing given tu Governor Rous Barnett of Mlssluulppl and Judge Leander buruz and Senator William Ralnach. 

David Treen unsuccessfully attempted to cun tur Congr vin in the Second Conyrussional Distcict againet the late lulu Bugg, a southern Democratic liberal and formerly the majority whip ot U.5. Housus of Representatives. Governor Treen ran thicue tiameu against Congruasman Boyys (1962, 1964 and 1968). In the LlYud and lY%68, Treen's Campalyn platform was conservative, aml unc waln plank wau opposition to federal civil rlyhts moasurea on voting, education and housing. Bes Treen Conyrusulounal Campatgn tlyers tn 1964 and 1968, Piles of the Tulane Unlveralty Libary, attached to the supplemental Comment of William Pb. Quuigluey, June 15, 1942. 21/ 1a 1968, Treen almost dufuatud Bugigu by 1unutayg agalust the latter's support of twderal civil cightu leglalat ion, Howuver, the black community in New Orleans bloc votud tor Boga, and according to Governor Treen, the black vote provided tha wargly ut victory. Luu Attachment A to Memocandum of David CC. Tiuun to William J. Gusts, Jr., Louisiana Attorney General, Apel 3, 1942, 
; While wu aru somewhat reluctant to probe thu ractal viuwn Of a particular individual, the lusue has been raluud. 

21/ For uxawply, there is a Elyur in the 1968 Cungrcounional Campalyn by “"bLemocratw tor [Presidential Candidate Guo yu Cucluy) Wallace and Treen,” which Clalas that "HE WALLACE a ‘I'libd PLATFOWME ARE ‘Mi SAME: l-Return control of thu wchuouluy Lu thy blale; 2-Hupual tha open housing law; J-kecontirmation uf the buprema Court juatices every 6 ywars . . , .*  



P
R
O
E
R
I
S
 
N
W
 

1 
bi 
4 

: 
1 
] 

‘ 
H 

] 

A 
3 
Ll 

i 

1 
H 

1 
i 
L 
3 
1 
s. 

3 
1 

1 

3 
i 
3 
i 
a 

4 

& 
: 

y 
b) 

4 

3 
A 

4 

: 
b 
4 
: 
EL] 

. 
w . 

B
A
r
2
R
 
A
I
A
 

D
T
 

OE
 

er
e 

d
e
n
i
 

A 
A 
AE

 
B
E
 
a
 

we
ed

 
a
d
 

: 
A, 

i
u
s
 

s
h
a
 

C
e
n
 

BR
E 

BE
 

Br
 

L
E
 

I 
I 
S
P
 

L
r
 

a
t
 

en
 
a
 

In Conyreuulonal reapportionment, the luglelatutce analysud 
two kuy vacuous which Llndicatud polarization between Libcialu and 
cunuervativeus and whites and blacks, the 1979 yuburnatui lal gqunural 
sluccion butwuun Conservative Republican David Tueun and lilbutal 
bBumocral Loutly Lambuct and 1980 Presiduntal eluction Lutween Honald 
Huajan and Jlmmy Carter, Under the Nunuz Plan, Lhe Flint blatrilot 
vote tur Trevn/Huagan was about 628 while under thu pruaunt plan 
lt wan only 92% and undec the submicted plan, lt was Suv. 

 



U.S. Departmelf yusiice 

Civil Rights Division 

  

Office of the Assistant Atiorney General Washington, D.C, 20550 

June 18, 1982 

  
The File 

wm. Bradford Reynolds Wol- 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 

SUBJECT: louisiana Congressional Redistricting 

Plan -- Section 5 Review (Docket #E3028) 
  

The State of Louisiana congressional plan, La. Act No. 
20, was submitted to the Attorney General for Section 5 ruview 
on December 17, 1981. Pursuant to a request by the Voting 

Section of the Civil Rights Division, supplemental information 
was received on April 19, 1982, A decision by the Attorney 
General as to whether the submitted redistricting has either 
racial purpose or effect must be made by June 18, 1982. 

Based on a thorough analysis of the congressional 
plan, review of all supplemental information submitted by the 
State, a careful evaluation of the comments and materials 
furnished by those opposing the plan, and full discussions 
with both proponents and opponents of the redistricting, 1t 

is the decision of the Department of Justice that the State 
has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that its 1981 
Congressional redistricting is not racially discriminatory in 
either purpose or effect. Accordingly, La. Act No. 20 of the 
First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature of 
1981 is precleared by ths Attorney General under Section 5 of 
the Voting Rights Act. 

In reaching this decision, careful attention was ylven 
to allegations that certain statements made by the Governor 
of Louisiana while the Legislature waa drawing the Congressional 
districts suggested a racial purpose. Those statements have 
been examined. Whether conaidered in isolation or collectively, 
they indicate no more than the Governor's hcnest belief as 
to the legal requirements imposed by the Conatitution and 
the Voting Rights Act on jurisdictions compelled to redraw  



4 3 
- 2 = 

districts. From a purely legal point of view, the Governor's 

understanding of the law is absolutely correct, and his 

forthrightness in expressing such an opinion beapeaks no 

racial purpose. 
— 

Moreover, a requeat was made of the Governor to meet 

with the Assistant Attorney General and other representatives 

of the Division to answer the allegations that he had acted 

with a racially discriminatory purpose. Such a meeting took 

place, and a full explanation of the events leading up to 
the redistricting was provided, together with a formal written 

submission. Based on this meeting, and all materials received 

from the Governor,.the Justice Department is satisfied that 

the Governor's role in the redistricting process was political, 

and was in no respect informed by racial animus. 

We are similarly satisfied that there was no evidence 

of racial purpose on the part of the Louisiana legislators in 

the drawing of new congressional districts. While both houses 

of the State Legislature initially passed similar (albeit not 

identical) redistricting plans that included a larger minority 
district than any that was included in the plan ultimately 
submitted, for political -- not racial =-- reasons, only 
the submitted plan was ultimately passed by the Legislature 
and signed by the Governor. We find no basis for objecting 
in such circumstances. 

of course, even in the absence of racial purpose, a 

redistricting can be rejected by the Attorney General to the 
extent that it "would lead to a retrogression in the position 

of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise 

of the electoral franchise." Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 
130, 141 (1976). For purposes of determining the "rutroyreaaion" 
question in this instance, the point of comparison is the 

Louisiana congressional apportionment plan that was precleared 

by the Attorney General in 1972. 

  

That 1972 Plan, measured by 1980 Census figuras, 

contained two districts (the First and Second Congressional 

Districts) with the sizeable minority populations of 36.5% 
and 40.7%, respectively. Under the newly submitted plan, by 

comparison, black voting strength was again concentrated in 

two districts (the Second and Eighth Congressional Districts), 

but at the increased percentages of 44.58% and 38.3%, respectivaly. 

The racial proportions in the other districts in the submitted 
plan remain much the same as under the old plan. */ 

  

*] Because of the black population increase in the Second 
Congressional District (from 40.7% to 44.5%), the black 

population percentage in the First District drops seven 
(cont'd)  



J 8, 

- J = 

Accordingly, we are unable to find any actual retro- 
gresaion as a result of the State Congressional redistricting. 
Moreover, when we examined the projected increases in minority 
population in Louisiana over the next ten years, our analysis 
failed to reveal any prospect that the submitted plan is 
likely to result in tential retrogression. Even accepting 
the expected movemants of Blacks ia and around Orleans and 
Jefferson Parishes in future years, there is simply no sound 
basis to conclude that the minority communities suffered any 
dilution in voting skrength as ‘A result of the new plan, 

In the circumstances, the B8tate has met its burden 
under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of demonstrating 
that its Congressional Redistricting has neither a racial 
purpose nor a racial effect, Preclearance of La. Act No. 20 
is therefore required, 

  */ (cont'd) 
percentage points to 29.5% black, and the black percentage in 
the Sixth District declines about 4.5% to 25.1% black. But 
the minority percentage gains and losses appear to even out; 
in fact, the change appears to be somewhat ameliorative,