Memorandum from Lani Guinier to Jack Greenberg and Jim Nabrit Re: Major v. Treen (Louisiana Congressional Reapportionment)

Wooten v. Moore Appellees' Brief preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Jim Moore trading and doing business as Moore's Barbecue Restaruant.

Topic
- Economic Justice
Notable People
- Julius Chambers
- Jack Greenberg
Organization
- NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- f8c5ae78-c99a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Legal Department General, Lani Guinier Correspondence. Memorandum from Lani Guinier to Jack Greenberg and Jim Nabrit Re: Major v. Treen (Louisiana Congressional Reapportionment), 1983. a5d7aa60-e492-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/55f3e7de-f06c-4a0e-93b1-740976b53d8d/memorandum-from-lani-guinier-to-jack-greenberg-and-jim-nabrit-re-major-v-treen-louisiana-congressional-reapportionment. Accessed June 01, 2025.

Copied!

    Memorandum

To : Jack
.J ].m

:11
From: .f.Lbni

Greenberg
Nabrit

Guinier

Major v. Treen (Louisiana Congressional Reapportionment)

March 23, I9B3

Re:

Date:

In July L982 you approved a budget of $15,000.00 for
this litigation. The complaint originally challenged the
reapportionment plans for the Louisiana Senate, House and
Congressional districts, but as a result of the Justice
Department review (in which we invested substantial time)
or,1y the allegations regarding the Congressional plan went to
trial.

The trial was before a three judge court. Tria1 took
four days. The case received a lot of publicity (including
a favorable editorial in the Baton Rouge paper) and, despite
the absence of a ruling from the court, was perceived as a
success by all the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Needless to sErlr our costs were high. First, we ordered
a Lranscript to prepare the post trial proposed fj-ndings.
Although ri/e are splitting the cost with defendants, we will be
bi1led approximately $3000.00 for our share. The transcript
was ordered because the case will be appealed directly to the
Supreme Court and will therefore be one of the first to interpret
the new amendment to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In addition, we used two expert witnesses who easily put
in over 250 hours on the trial preparation. The other major
expense involved the preparation of giant visual aids reproducing
maps of various plans and then producing smaller photographs of
the maps for each of the judges.

f request a new budget for this case of $281000.00, or
$13,000.00 additional. Ir,le already have paid about $5,000.00
and are presently responsible for $20,000.00 additional expenses,
including court costs. Vtre already have bills from the expert
witnesses the court reporters and our cooperating attorneys of
$20,500.00. I am attaching a detailed expense sheet for
$L6,235.40 which is complete except for the time for one wit-
ness ($000.00), the expenses of one attorney ($500.00), and the
transcript ($3000.00) .

I regret our inability to keep costs down further, but I
am convinced that we will win this case and will recover all that
we invest.

LG/ r
Attach

Copyright notice

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

Additional info

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

Wooten v. Moore Appellees' Brief

Topic

Notable People

Organization

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in