Correspondence from Reed to Morial

    Amp 
4.0 NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 

  AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 

National Office Aft 

Suite 1600 W 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592 

December 13, 1989 

Marc H. Morial, Esq. 
One Poydras Plaza, Suite 1610 
639 Loyola Avenue 
New Orleans, LA 70113 

Re: Chisom, et al. V. Roemer, et al.  

Dear Marc: 

This letter is sent in response to your request for a report 
on the status of the appeal. 

Both the plaintiffs' brief and that of the government are 
due on December 18th. Although the government did not file their 
notice of appeal until November 13th, at our request the 
Department of Justice attorney agreed to a shortened schedule. 
The appellees' briefs will be due 30 days after that date. We 
would anticipate therefore that briefing in the Fifth Circuit 
will be completed by no later than the end of January 1990. At 
that time we would ask the Court of Appeals to advance this case 
on the calendar for oral argument. We also plan to seek an 
injunction to stay the 1990 elections. Of course, we must first 
seek such relief from the District Court. In the event that that 
request is denied, as might be expected, we would then make the 
same request to the Court of Appeals. Given the Fifth Circuit's 
earlier opinion on this subject (see 853 F.2d 1186), we might 
reasonably expect that the Fifth Circuit will affirm a denial of 
injunctive relief, on the ground that the results of the 1990 
election could be set aside and a special election held later. 
However, we believe that we are entitled to such relief, and that 
it is important to make a record on this issue. 

As to your question regarding whether the Fifth Circuit can 
be asked to decide the issue of the remedy, the general rule is 
that a State legislature must be given the first opportunity to 
devise a remedy, after a finding of a section 2 violation. It is 
only after the State fails to propose a satisfactory remedy, that 
the court may create its own remedy. (See, e.g. Wise v.  
Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535; McDaniels v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130; 
Chapman v. Mayer, 420 U.S. 1). 

In this case the lack of success of the referendum is not an 
indication of the State's unwillingness to come up with a remedy; 

Regional Offices 

Contributions are 
deductible for U.S. 
income tax purposes. 

The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part 
of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
(NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its 
commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate 
Board, program, staff, office and budget. 

Suite 301 
1275 K Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20005 
(202) 682-1300 
Fax: (202) 682-1312 

Suite 800 
634 S. Spring Street 
Los Angeles, CA 90014 
(213) 624-2405 
Fax: (213) 624-0075 



o • 
404 

Page 2 
Marc H. Morial, Esq. 
December 13, 1989 

indeed, it might be seen as just the opposite. In addition, the 
referendum was encumbered by ballot issues relating to the remedy 
for Clark. You also mention the district court's reluctance to 
grant relief; however, the district court was willing to grant an 
injunction, and it was under no obligation to grant any remedial 
relief absent a liability finding. 

• I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to 
call if you have any further questions. 

Very truly yours, 

Judith Reed 

JR:aa 
cc: Roy A. Rodney 

William P. Quigley 
Ronald L. Wilson