Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment; Plaintiffs Statement of Uncontested Material Facts; Notice of Motion with Complaint

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

"BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

|| DAVID C. TREFN, ET AL, SECTION: H (D) (OC) 
1B 
| 

THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

| 
i 
| 
| 

{ CLASS ACTION 
  

NOTICE OF MOTION 
  

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached Motion for Summary Judgment will 

ibe heard in this matter on May 26, 1982 at 9:00 A.M. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  

R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 
WILLIAM P., QUIGLEY 
STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

LANI = GUINIER 
NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 
NAACP ; 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc 

- 10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 
New. York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs     DATE: April 30, 1982 

   



#» 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

I EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
| 
|| BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

[DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: H (D) (C) 

  

CLASS ACTION 
  

¥ 
| THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 

i PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED MATERIAL FACTS 
14 

I! NOW INTO COURT come plaintiffs who submit that the following material 

1g 
{facts are uncontested in this matter: 

  

I. 

Act No. 3 of the 1972 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature,   | amended by Act. No. 697 of the 1976 session of the Legislature, established the 

I 2 yi 
present congressional districts for the State of Louisiana. 

i 
| 11. 

According to this legislative action, eight (8) districts were estab- 

lished for the State of Louisiana, with an ideal population of 455,398, accord- 

ing to 1970 Census figures. 

  113. 

The population deviations and relative deviations of those eight (8) 

l|districts were as follows when they were enacted: 

1970 ABSOLUTE RELATIVE (%) 
DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION 

  

1 454,836 -562 12 

2 454,809 -598 13 

3 455,575 +177 .03 

4 455,272 -126 .02 

5 455,205 -193 .04 

6 456,178 +780 17 

455,014 -384 .08 

456,291 +893 19°   
iv, 

1   i 

t 

With 1980 Census figures, these eight (8) congressional districts have| 
{ i 

||population and relative deviations as follows:  



# 

1980 ABSOLUTE RELATIVE (7%) 

DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION 

523,271 - 2,226 42 

461,802 -63,695 12 

571,131 +45 ,634 .68 

508,593 -16,904 

507,539 -17,958 

577,140 +51,643 

543,235 +17,738 

511,261 -14,236 

  

0
 

1 
O
n
 

W
i
 

BB
 
W
N
 

r
e
 

¥. 

When enacted, these eight (8) congressional districts had an overall 

population deviation of .31 percent.   vi. 

Now, these eight (8) congressional districts have an overall population 
| 
| 

| 

| deviation of 21.95 percent. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  

Kk. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

LANI GUINIER 
NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

|| DATE: April 30, 1982 
i 

 



# 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

| BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

|| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 
| i 

DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: H (D) {C) 

THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

CLASS ACTION 
  

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
  

NOW INTO COURT come plaintiffs who move for summary, judgment in this 

, declaring that the current congressional districts of Louisiana are 

‘unconstitutional. Plaintiffs make this motion on the basis of the pleadings 

{in this matter, the statement of uncontested material facts, and the memorandum 

[lin support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The grounds for this 

tH KM 

motion are that there are no material facts in dispute and plaintiffs are A 

‘lentitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  

R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 
WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 
STEVEN SCHECKMAN 

STANLEY HALPIN 
631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

LANI GUINIER 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 

NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs   
||DATE: April 30, 1982 

CERT IFICAT 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon 

|| opposing counsel by mailing same postage prepaid via U.S. postal service this 

|! 30thday of April , 1982, 

   



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

|| BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION 

| VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

| DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL SECTION: H (D) (C). 

THREE COURT CASE JUDGE 
  

CLASS ACTION 
  

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
  

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: 

I. 

THE LAW ON CONGRESSIONAL REAPPORTIONMENT 
  

Congressional reapportionment requirements derive from the United 

States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment, 

Ld |'which applies to reapportionment of the state legislatures. 

The Supreme Court has applied a much stricter population apportionment 

||standard in congressional redistricting cases than it had in legislative reappor- i} 

  

In this case, the Supreme Court indicated that the State must achieve 

|| precise mathematical equality. See 394 U.S. 530-531. 

Thus, the Supreme Court has rejected congressional redistricting plans 

l|with deviations of 13.1 percent (Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542, 89 S.Ct. 
  

  1234, 22 L.Ed. 2nd. 535, 1969); 5.97 percent (Kirkpatrick, supra), and 4.13 

| percent (see White v. Weiser, 412 U.S, 783, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 37 1.24. 2nd. 335, 
  
  

17, 

THE FACTS OF THESE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 
  

As was pointed out in the plaintiff's statement of uncontested facts, 

|| when the present congressional districts were drawn, they had an overall popula- 

|| tion deviation of .31 percent. Now,' the Louisiana Congressional Districts have 

{{ an overall population deviation of 21.95 percent. 

This population deviation is reached by calculating the '"norm'", or 

| populations the size of the ideal district, and then subtracting the difference  



® » 

lin population between the number of persons in the district and the norm. This 

larrives at a population variation of raw numbers. This population variance is 
it 

} 
| 

i 

1 

|then divided by the population norm to arrive at a percentage of deviation. If 

the district under examination is larger (has more people) than the norm, the 

‘ivariance is a plus variance, and the district is "underrepresented". If the 

//district under examination is smaller (has fewer people) than the norm, the 

tH { 

| 
variance is a minus variance and the district is "overrepresented". The span 

| 
| 
| 

| 
i 

{ 

Hof variances, or total deviation from population equality, is calculated by add- 
! H 
ling the largest plus variance and the largest minus variance. This is how the 

i 

overall population deviations were arrived at. 

Therefore, an examination of the present congressional districts in 

Louisiana leads to the following result: Five of the Louisiana congressional 

{ldistricts have negative deviations, and three of the districts have positive 

||deviations. The most extreme negative deviation is in Congressional District 2,   
where that district is found to have 63,695 fewer persons than they should have. 

|The greatest positive deviation is in Congressional District 6, which Mas 51,643 

people more than the norm dictates. | 

1 This means that the people in Congressional Districts 1, 2, 5.and 8 

[nave a greater voice in Congress than the people in Congressional Districts 3, 

ls and 7. 

| TXT, 

CONCLUSION 

As is noted above, the Supreme Court has said that congressional 

districts should be as mathematically equal as possible. In Louisiana, the 

present Congressional Districts are clearly out of synch with this mandate.   || They should therefore he declared unconstitutional by this Court. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

  

R. JAMES KELLOGG, Trial Attorney 

WILLIAM P. QUIGLEY 

STEVEN SCHECKMAN 
STANLEY HALPIN 

631 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

  
L ANI GUINIER 

NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS 
NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

10 Columbus Circle 

Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

i Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
| 

|| DATE: April 30, 1982  



  

    

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 

-against- SECTION: 

DAVID C. TREEN, in his capacity DIVISION: 

as Governor of the State of 

{| Louisiana, and JAMES H. BROWN, CLASS ACTION 

in his capacity as Secretary of 

State of the State of Louisiana THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 

  

  

COMPLAINT 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This action is brought by the black citizens on behalf of them- 

il selves and all other black citizens who are eligible and registered to vote in 

the State of Louisiana. They bring this action to enforce their right te have 

an effective vote in the election of the Louisiana House of Representatives and 

din the election of Louisiana Representatives to the United States Congress. 

They seek declaratory and injunctive relief from any election being conducted 

pursuant to the plans of approtionment in effect prior to November, 1981, on the 

grounds that such an election would violate the one-person, one-vote principles 

of the Fourteenth Amendment in that those plans are grossly malapportioned. 

Additionally, they seek similar relief against the plans of apportionment adopted 

in November, 1981 by the Louisiana Legislature for the Louisiana House of Sere-] 

sentatives and for Louisiana Representatives to the United States Congress, 

because those plans do not comply with the one-person, one-vote standards and 

because they dilute the vote of black citizens. 

17. JURISDICTION 

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought 

pursuant to 42 USC 81973c and 42 USC 81983. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant 

to 23 USC 881331 and 1343, as well as 42 USC §1973¢c. 

3. Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 

1965, as amended, and under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution must be determined by a district court of three judges 

pursuant to 28 USC 82284(e) and 42 USC 81973c.  



  

    

4. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and other appropriate relief pursuant 

to 28 USC 882201 and 2202. 

5. The following persons are the plaintiffs in this action. 

a black citizen of the United States and of the State of Louisiana, residing 

and registered to vote in the Parish listed below: 

A. Barbara Major - 

The plaintiffs in this action sue on behalf of themselves and all others simi- 

larly situated. 

6. DAVID C. TREEN is Governor of the State of Louisiana. He is sued 

in that official capacity. As Governor, Mr. Treen has the duty to support the 

Constitution and laws of the State and of the United States and to see that the 

laws are faithfully executed. The Governor also has certain duties under the 

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

7. JAMES H. "JIM" BROWN is Secretary of State of the State of 

Louisiana. He is sued in that official 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. 

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

8. This matter is brought as a class action under Rule 23(b) (2) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all black persons who are | 

residents and registered voters of the State of Louisiana. 

9. The number of persons who would be included in the above-defined 

class would be approximately 

10. The plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the proffered class 

in that they are situated similarly to the members of the class. There are no   actual or potential conflicts of interest and the attorneys for plaintiffs are 

competent and able to handle the litigation. 

11. The questions of law and fact common to the class are those impli 

| 
cit in this complaint including whether the apportionment of the Louisiana Housg 

ll 

of Representatives and of the Louisiana Representatives to the U.S. Congress 

violate the principles of one-person, one-vote. 

    

| 
i 
{ 

 



  

  

    

V. FACTS 

12. The current apportionment of the Louisiana House of Representa- 

tives was established by Acts 1971, No. 106 and Acts 1972, No. 457. 

13. The current apportionment, which had a deviation of approximately 

9.1 percent based on the 1970 Census, has a deviation of approximately 111 

percent based on the 1980 Census. 

14. The Louisiana Legislature has drawn a reapportionment plan effec- 

tive at Noon on March 12, 1984, Act 1 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1981 

(November, 1981). That plan is subject to the pre-clearance requirements of 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 81973c, but has not been approved 

by the United States Department of Justice. 

15. The purpose and effect of the November, 1981 plan of apportion- 

ment for the Louisiana House of Representatives is to dilute the voting strength 

of black citizens and to deny them the effective utilization of the right to 

vote on account of their race. 

16. In the City of New Orleans (Parish of Orleans), despite a change 

of population from forty-five percent to fifty-five percent, the number of black 

majority districts was reduced from eleven to seven and the number of white 

majority districts increased from seven to eight. 

17. The current apportionment of the districts for electing Representa: 

tives to the U.S. Congress was established by Acts 1976, No. 697. 

18. The current apportionment, which had a deviation of approximately, 

percent based on the 1970 Census, has a deviation of approximately 

percent based on the 1980 Census. | 

19. The Louisiana Legislature has drawn a reapportionment plan effec 

| 
| 

1981 (November 20, 1982). That plan is subject to the pre-clearance requirements 

tive at Noon on January 3, 1983, Act 20 of the First Extraordinary Session of 

of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 81973c, but has not been 

approved by the United States Department of Justice. 

1 

| 
| 
| | | 
| 

{ 
i 
1 

20. Qualification for election under the November, 1981 plan of 

apportionment is scheduled for July 5-9, 1982. The primary election is sahedulad 

for September 11, 1982; the general election is scheduled for November 2, 1982. | 

21. The purpose and effect of the November, 1981 plan of apportion- 

ment for Louisiana Representatives to the U.S. Congress is to dilute the voting! 

strength of black citizens and to deny them the effective utilization of the 

right to vote on account of their race.  



    

    

22. During November, 1981, both houses of the Louisiana Legislature 

passed a bill which would have established a black majority district in Orleans 

Parish. Under a threat of a veto by Defendant Treen, the plan was modified so 

as to split the heavy concentration of black voters in Orleans Parish between 

two districts. The plan as adopted by the Legislature and signed by Defendant 

Treen, established a First Congressional District with over thirty sides, 

creating a rough approximation of the cartoon character, Donald Duck, out of the 

Second Congressional District. 

23. Defendants Treen and Brown will conduct elections for vacancies 

prior to March 12, 1984, in the Louisiana House of Representatives under the 

current plan unless they are restrained from doing so, despite the large devia- | 

tions between districts. 

24, Defendants Treen and Brown will conduct elections pursuant to Act] 

One and Act Twenty of the First Extraordinary Sessior. of 1981 unless restrained | 

from doing so. Although these Acts were submitted to the Attorney General of 

the United States, neither has been approved by either the Attorney General of 

the United States or the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. 

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION 

25. The current plan of apportionment for both the Louisiana House 

of Representatives and the districts for Louisiana Representatives to the U.S. 

Congress violate the principles of one-person, one-vote under 42 USC 81981 and 

1983 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 

26. Act One and Act Twenty of the First Extraordinary Session of 

1981 violate the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, as well as 

42 USC 881981 and 1983 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. 

Constitution in that the purpose and effect of the Acts is to dilute the voting 

strength of black citizens. 

Vii, EQUITY 

27. This action is an actual controversy between parties having   adverse legal interests of such immediacy and reality as to warrant a declara- 

tory judgment. 

28. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irre-     parable injury unless injunctive relief is issued.  



  
  

  

      

VIT7. PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 

i 
| 
{ 
i 
i 

| 
i 
i 
| 

| 

| 

1 

| 

1. That a District Court composed of three judges be convened pursuant   to 28 USC §2284. 

%s That sg declaratory judgment be issued that the current plan of 

apportionment of the Louisiana House of Representatives and the districts for   Louisiana Representatives is unconstitutional, null and void. 

3. That a preliminary and permanent injunction issue prohibiting the 

holding of elections under the current plans of apportionment. 

4. That a declaratory judgment be issued that Act One and Act Twenty 

of the First Extraordinary Session of 1981 are illegal, unconstitutional, null 

and void. 

That a preliminary and permanent injunction issue prohibiting the 

implementation of Act One and Act Twenty. including a prohibition on the holding 

of qualifications and/or elections under the Acts. 

6. That there be an expedited hearing on the merits of this case and 

ar approval of a legal and constitutional plan of apportionment for the Louisiana 

House of Representatives and for the districts for Louisiana Representatives to 

the U.S. Congress. 

7. That attorneys' fees be awarded to plaintiffs as prevailing partiey, 

That there be such ogher relief as may be necessary and proper. 

  

Respectfully Submitted: