Memo to Jack Greenberg from Napoleon Williams RE Decision of Justice Dept in LA Reapportionment

    Wine from 

June 9, 

Napoleon B. Williams, Jr. 

1982 

Jack Greenberg 
Jim Nabrit 
Lani Guinier Vv 
Steve Ralston 

For your information, this is the 

recent decision of the Justice 

Department in the Louisiana re- 

apportionment decision. There is 

now pending before Justice the 

issue of the validity of the 

Congressional reapportionment plan, 

which is also part of the lawsuit. 

Justice apparently engaged in-a lot 

of flip-flopping before finally 

coming out against Louisiana's 
reapportionment of the State House 

of Representative's plan. 

The attorneys in Louisiana say 
that Justice is apparently now 
inclined to uphold the Congressional 
plan in Louisiana, thus confronting 
us with a legal challenge on the 
weaker of the two apportionment 
plans against which we filed suits. 

 



Weno from 

Napoleon B. Williams, Jr. 

Page Two 

The attorneys in Louisiana are 

still hoping to defer any trial 

on the Congressional plan (assuming 

that Justice upholds it), as well 

as any necessary trial on a new 

reapportionment plan for the State 

House of Representatives, until 

after the enactment of the new 

Voting Rights Bill. 

The proper construction and legis- 

lative history of the new Section 2 

of the Voting Rights Bill will thus 

be very important for the Louisiana 

case (also for the North Carolina 

cases). For help in getting the 

legislative history of the Voting 

Rights Act, as amended, (Section 2), 

Lani and I have asked Steve Ralston 

for a law student or two to work on 

it. However, I am not entirely 

convinced that this will be adequate. 

NBW/x 
Attach 

 



Yimo from 

Lani Guinier 

 



U.S. Department of J @. 

  

WBR:GWJ :RNK: nk ) 
DJ 166-012-3 Washington, D.C. 20530 

E3138 
2 JUN 1982 

Honorable Robert F. Collins 

United States District Judge 
United States District Court 

for the Eastern District 
of Louisiana 

United States Courthouse 
500 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: Major v. Treen, C.A. No. 82-1192-H (E.D. La.) 
  

Dear Judge Collins: 

On June 1, 1982, the Assistant Attorney General for 

Civil Rights, on behalf of the Attorney General, rendered a 
decision pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965, 42 U.S.C. §1973c, on the submission of Act No. 1 of the 
First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature of 
1981. As you know, Act No. 1 provides for the reapportionment 
of the Louisiana House of Representatives. Since this decision 
pertains to issues raised in the above-styled litigation, we 
are enclosing a copy of the Attorney General's decision for 
your information. 

Sincerely, 

Wm. Bradford Reynolds 
Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Rights Division 

By: 

Gerald W. Jones 

Chief, Voting Section 

Counsel of Record  



U.S. Department of Justi 

Civil Rights Division 

  

Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washingron, D.C. 20530 

June 1, 1982 

Honorable Charles Emile Bruneau, Jr. 
Member, Louisiana House of Representatives 
1002 American Bank Building 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Mr. David R. Poynter 
Clerk, Louisiana House of Representatives 
Post Office Box 44062 
Capitol Station 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 

Dear Messrs. Bruneau and Poyntar: 

This is in reference to Act No. 1 of the First 
Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature of 
1981, providing for a new plan of apportionment for the 
Louisiana House of Representatives, submitted to the 
Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting 

Righta Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1973c. Your 
submission was completed on March 30, 1982. 

We have given careful cansideration to the materials 
you have submitted, as well as comments and information 

provided by a number of other interested parties, and 

relevant decisions of the federal courts. Under Section 5, 

the submitting authority must show that a voting change 

does not have a discriminatory purpose and would not "lead 

to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities 

with respect to thelr effective exercise of the electoral 

franchise." Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976); 

see also, City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 
(1975). 
   



Applying these principles to Act No. 1, we note that 
the proposed redistricting plan impacts adversely upon black 
voting strength in several areas of the state. Overall, the 
plan has the net effect of reducing the number of House 
districts with black majorities. In Orleans Parish, for 
instance, the number of such districts is reduced from eleven 
to seven. While this reduction may be justified to some 
extent by the general loss of parish population in comparison 
to overall statewide population gain, the loss of so many 
black majority districts in that parish has not been 
satisfactorily explained, especially since the black percentage 
of the population in Orleans Parish has increased from 45 to 
55 percent over the past ten years. 

Of particular concern in this regard is the uptown 
New Orleans area of the parish, where the configuration of 
proposed Districts 90 and 91 appears to result in a needless 
dilution of minority voting strength. While we understand 
that incumbency considerations may explain in part why District 
90 spans three parish wards, including noncontiguous portions 
of ward 12, our analysis shows that there are other means of 
addressing that concern without adversely inpace ing. on the 
minority voting strength in the area. 

Another problem in New Orleans involves the Ninth 
Ward. Under the proposed plan, a black majority district in 
this ward is eliminated for no apparent justifiable reason, 
leaving only one majority black House district out of the 
five emanating fram that 61 percent black ward. 

In the area encompassing the parishes of East Baton 
Rouge, East Feliciana, St. Helena and West Feliciana, we 

note additional fragmentation and dilution of minority voting 
strength. No satisfactory explanation has been of fered for 
the configuration in this area that includes portions of three 
of the four parishes in District 62. A district more consistent 
with the State's announced criteria could be drawn without 
causing any retrogression by canbining Fast and West Fellclana 
Parishes with all of St. Helena, one of the "Florida" Parishes. 

This would leave intact East Baton Rouge Parish which has 
by itself sufficient population to support nine House districts. 
Under the existing plan, there are three majority black lilouse 
districts in this parish, which are reduced to two by the 
current proposal. Our analysis indicates that all of East 
Baton Rouge Parish can be subdivided fairly in a manner that 
does not result in any retrogression of minority voting 
strength.  



Finally, in the City of Alexandria, in Rapides Parish, 
we note that Districts 25 and 26 have been expanded to meet 
"one-person, one-vote" constitutional requirements by 
combining the predominantly black area with largely white 
suburban areas. This configuration results in an unnecessary 
dilution of minority voting strength in both districts, which 
could easily have been avoided by combining adjacent black 
neighborhoods in central city Alexandria to form one of the 
districts. No compelling justification has been provided 

for the alignment submitted. 

In view of these circumstances, therefore, we are 

unable to conclude that the proposed plan does not have the 
purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race 
or color. Accordingly, I must, on behalf of the Attorney 

General, interpose an objection to the reapportionment of the 
Louisiana House of Representatives contained in Act No. 1 of 
the First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature 
of 1981. : 

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory 
judgment fram the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia that this change has neither the 
purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging 

the right to vote on account of race, color or membership 
in a language minority group. In addition, the Procedures 
for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. §51.44) 
permit you to request the Attorney General to reconsider 
the objection. However, until the objection is withdrawn 
or the judgment fram the District of Columbia Court is 
obtained, the effect of the objection by the Attorney 
General is to make the reapportionment of the Louisiana 
House of Representatives by Act No. 1 of the First 
Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature of 

1981 legally unenforceable. 

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility 

to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the 

coursa of action the State of Louisiana plans to take with 

respect to this matter. If you have any questions concerning 

this letter, please feel free to call Carl W. Gabel (202- 

724-8388), Director of the Section 5 Unit of the Voting 

Section.  



Since we understand that there is now pending 

litigation concerning the reapportionment of the Louisiana 

House of Representatives (Major v. Treen, C.A. NO. 82-1192-H 

(E.D. La.)), I am taking the liberty of providing a copy 

of this letter to the Court. 

re 

ls, 
Wm Cc BedEora=ReyndLda i : 

era Assistant Attorney 
Civil Rights Division