Opposition to Motion to Intervene as Appellees on Behalf of Ronald Chisom Et Al and Answers

    1110-24-98 TUE 14:2% LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 54400 P. 01 

PHONE: (504) 861-5590 

TO; 

LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL CLINIC 
7214 St. Charles Avenue 

Campus Box 902 
_ New Orleans, LA 70118 

COVER SHEET 

F,aZ_MBER ofial Agtb  

FROM: A 1-1'1fIrtiC  
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL CLINIC 

DATE:  43/ 4g W/f  

RE: 

Pewit 

C 

(504) 861-5440 

0 j(f. 

PAGES: aD  INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET 

NOTE: 

THIS MESSAGEBI INTENDED ONLY FORTHE USEOF THE INDIvIDUAL OR WITTY TO Mum rr ADDREssED AND mAY CONTAIN OrPORmATION THAT IS PRNILEGED, 
CONFIDENTIAL AND DMIIFT FR= DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLicABLE LAw. W THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE ISNOT THE INTENDED REGIMENT ORME DAPIAYEE 
OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIvERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. YOu AXE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSENUNATION, DisTRIBUTION. 
OR CopTENG OF Tlas COMMuNicATiON Ls sTRIcTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECHNED THIS ComMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY 
BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL M=AGE TO US AT THE ABOVE AD0HESS VIA TOE UNnmo STATES POSTAL sERVICE. YOUR COOPINAVON IS 

APPRECIATED. ' 

MAR 24 '98 14:48 '504 861 5440 PAGE.01 



tIAI -24 -98 TUE 14:2111116 

E 

LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 5440 P. 02 

NO. 98-30064. 

CLEMENT F. PERSCHALL, JR. 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Defendant-Appellee 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

HONORABLE CHARLES SCHWARTZ, JR. 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AS APPELLEES 
ON BEHALF OF RONALD CHISOM, ET AT. 

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: 

Ronald Chisom, Marie Bookman, Walter Willard, Henry Dillon, III, 

and the Louisiana Voter Registration/Education Crusade have moved this 

Court to intervene as appellees in this matter, notwithstanding the fact ' that 

they have not previously been parties to the federal lower court 

proceeding. However, it is acknowledged that when the case was 



' MO-24-98 TUE 14:2 LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 5440 P. 03 

remanded to state court that under the_ proceclufal Nles of: the State of 

Louisiana the aforesaid parties did participate. _But _as the _record will 
. -- 

reflect their participation was nothing more than to mirror. the -pleadings 

filed by the State of Louisiana. Their _presence in the suit added only . 
- • .. 

additional bodies to reinforce ;the position of the • State - of LoUisiana 

The proposed intervenors correctly -note that the State. of Louisiana is 

presumed to provide an adequate representation on., behalf of its citizenry. 

Further, it is the State of Louisiana and only the State of Louisiana which 

is legally bound to defend an act of the legislature.' The attorney general 

has exercised his right and obligation to defend this matter and has 

retained six outside attorneys in addition to his own staff to assist in the 

defense of this matter. The proceedings have been long and arduous, 

attesting to the adequacy of the defense by the State of Louisiana. The 

numerous motions and briefs filed on behalf of the State of Louisiana in 

both the state proceedings and the federal district court attest to that fact. 

The intervenors allege that because they are parties to the Chisom  

Consent Decree that only they will vigorously defend this action 

irrespective that the State of Louisiana is also a party to the Chisom  

Consent- Decree. But their zeal is not a basis for their participation. --

Further, the proposed intervenors have asserted no unique interest in this 

case as opposed to the State of Louisiana and the records of these 

proceedings will support this conclusion. The Court need only compare 

the answer filed by the intervenors to the appellant's petition for 

1 La. CONST. art.. 4, S 8. 

2 

pi • 



MO-24-98 TUE 14:2 LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 544. P. 04 

• , 
declaratory judgment with the answer filed by the State of Louisiana. 

• - , 
Thes0 ans-Wers are identicall Toile :another; including the -"exact • • , 
wording in most of the responses. (See • the :enclosed Exhibit 1.) 

_ * "Islof only did the. proposed2intervenors allege no new defenses .or 

raise no new issues by their answer, but Their brief before the Louisiana 

Supreme Court was nothing _more than a. reiteration of the argument made 
by the State_ of Louisiana, ie., that .the ChisOm Consent _Decree, being a _ 

federal court order, preempted the ability of the Louisiana courts to decide 

the constitutional issue of Acts 1992, No. 512, under the supremacy clause 

of the United States Constitution. Although the State of Louisiana raised 

several additional issues regarding the legality of Acts 1992, No. 512, the 

proposed intervenors brief was addressed solely to the effect • of the 

Chisom Consent Decree under the supremacy clause. Their brief was a 

restatement of one issue addressed and discussed by the State of 

Louisiana. 

As further evidence that the proposed intervenors are merely 

mirroring the State's action, one need only look to the pleadings the • 

intervenor attempted to file in the federal district court after the State of 

Louisiana filed a motion to dismiss appellant's action on the basis of - 

mootness. (The dismissal order by the lower court is based upon 

thootness and it is now the issue on appeal before this Court.) The 

proposed intervenors, although not having been permitted to intervene, filed 

"Defendant-Intervenors' Reply to the State's Motion and Incorporated 

Memorandum to Dismiss." The second sentence of the memorandum 

states: 



MO-24-98 TUE 14:2 LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 544* P. 05 

"The defendant intervenors agree with the views expressed 
• in the State's Motion and Incorporated Memorandum to 

Disrniss. " •. 
The intervenors' memorandum makes no further assertion- of law or legal 

issues to support the State's • motion to dismiss. One can only conclude 

that the State of Louisiana has asserted the same issues -which the 

intervenors would have asserted had they been a party. 

In these entire proceedings the proposed intervenors show no lack of - 

adequate representation by the State, nor do they assert any interest thai 

belongs uniquely to them as opposed to the State Louisiana, which would 

give to them a direct right to maintain a defense over and above that. 

which could be asserted by the State of Louisiana.' The intervenors in 

this matter address this Court in the same fashion as the intervenors did 

in the matter of Keith v. Daley.3 In that particular case, the 

constitutionality of an Illinois statute had been questioned and it was being 

defended by the attorney general of the State of Illinois. The Illinois 

Life Coalition, Coalition, Inc. (JPC), sought to intervene in the action because of its 

position that the Illinois act should be maintained in support of the Illinois 

anti-abortion statute. The court in denying the motion to intervene, stated: 

"Moreover the defendants in the instant case are duly 
representing BB 1399. The IPC suggests that it is the 
pnncipal proponent of HB 1399, and that the defendants, while 
'honorably committed to their duty of defending duly enacted 
state le,.noislation . . . cannot match the conviction and thorough 
knowledge of the subject area held by the proposed intervenors 
• • • •1 A subjective comparison, however, of the convictions 
of defendants and intervenors is not the test for determinin0 
the adequacy of representation. Adequacy can be presumed 

2 Keith v. Daley, 764 F.2d 1265 (CA 7th Cir., 1985) at p. 1268. 

3 id. 

4 



• MAIR-24-98 TUE 142 LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 54400 P. 06 

when the party :on whose behalf the applicant seeks" 1 
intervention is a governmental body or officer charged -.63.r law 
with -the _interest of ,the proposed intervenijr.-__, 
Moreover, .we need not rely only .on this presumptioii. _ The 
record in this case indicates that the named defendants charged 
by law with defending the laws of Illinois . . . have . 
adequately defended this Suit." • At p. 1270. 

_ 
-The propoSed .iiterVnors herein would allege that their interest 

regarding the effects of Acts 1992, No. 512, are greater than that of the 

State of Louisiana because this Act was the basis for the Chisom Consent 

Decree in which they were the party plaintiffs. Yet as in Keith v. Daley, 

the record reflects that the issues relative to the constitutionality of Acts 

1992, No. 512, as asserted by the intervenors is no different thin those 

asserted by the State of Louisiana The State of- Louisiana, by law, can 

and is defending the case vigorously, therefore, under the factors 

considered for intervention pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24 (a)(2) and the 

presumed ability of the State to represent each citizen's interest on a state 

constitutional matter, this intervention should be denied. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

AL.44.4  
Clement P. erschall, Tr. 
In Proper Person 
110 Veterans Boulevard 
Suite 340 
Metairie, LA 70005 
Telephone: (504) 836-5975 

5 

MAR 24 '98 14:51 504 8.61 5440 PAGE.06 



MO-24-98 TUE 14:2 LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 54400 P. 07 

- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  
_ 

I certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the aforeione 

on all counsel of record on this 23d day of March, 1998, as follows: 

• Peter J. Butler, Esq... 
909 -Poydras Street - 
-Suite -2400 
New Orleans, LA 70112 

6 

William P. Quigley, Esq. 
Loyola University of 
New Orleans 
School of Law 
7214 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, LA 70118 

4504 861 5440 MAR 24 '98 14:52 PAGE. 07 



• 

M!1R.-24-98 TUE 14:3 LOYOLA LAW CLINIC ' FAX NO, 504 861 544. P. 08 

41, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA = 

CLEMENT F. PERSCHALL, JR * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 95-259 
* 

VERSUS ...... * SECTION "B" 
.* 

. .THE STATE OF LOUISIANA • * MAGISTRATE: (1) 
* 

* * z* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ANSWER 

NOW INTO COURT-, through its undersigned counsel, comes defendant the State 

of Louisiana who, in response to the Petition for Declaratory. Judgment on the 

Constitutionality of Acts 1992, No. 512 filed by plaintiff in this matter (the "Petition"), 

removed to this Court on February 27, 1995, avers as follows: 

I. 

FIRST SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

SECOND SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE  

The issues raised and relief prayed for in the Petition are barred by the doctrine of 

accord and satisfaction. 

THIRD SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The plaintiff is estopped from raising the issues and praying for the relief set forth 

in his Petition. 

EyA,I.4- S4a4t's isi3ute 



* MO-24-98 TUE 14:3r LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 5440 P. 09 

IV. 

FOURTH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE. DEFENSE 

The issues raised and relief prayed for in plaintiff's Petition are barred by the 
• 

doctrine of laches, liberative prescription, and/Or-any •and all other applicable statutes of 

limitations. 

V. 

FIFTH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The issues raised and relief prayed for in plaintiff's Petition are barred by the 

doctrine of res judicata. 

VI. 

SDCTI-I SPECIAL I AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff has waived the issues raised and the relief prayed for in his Petition. 

VII. 

SEVENTH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendant specifically avers that Act No. 512 of the 1992 regular Louisiana legislative 

session, codified in La. R.S. § 13:312 and referred to throughout the Petition ("Act 512"), 

comports and is consistent with, and does not violate any Article or Section of the Louisiana 

Constitution of 1974, including, but not limited to, Article 3, Section 12(A), Article 3, Section 

13, and Article 5, Section 3 of said Louisiana Constitution of 1974. 

VIII. 

EIGHTH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

" Defendant specifically avers that Act 512 comports and is consistent with, and does 

not violate any Article or Section of the United States Constitution. 



MAR-24-98 TUE 14:31 LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 54400 P. 10 

IX. 

NINTH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendant specifically avers that Act 512 comports and is consistent with,and does 

not violate any and all applicable laws. 

TENTH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendant specifically avers that Act 512 comports and is consistent with, and does 

not violate any Article or Part of the Rules of the Louisiana Supreme Court. 

XI. 

ELEVENTH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendant further avers that plaintiff lacks standing to raise the issues and relief 

prayed for in his Petition. 

XII. 

TWELFTH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendant specifically avers that Act 512 is not a local or special law pursuant to the 

Louisiana State Constitution of 1974, or any jurisprudence interpreting it.. 

AND NOW, in further response to the Petition, defendant avers as follows: 

XIII. 

Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Articles I, IX, XII, XIV, XV, XVI and 

XVII of the Petition. XIV. 

For lack of sufficient information to justify a belief as to the truth thereof, defendant 

denies the allegations set forth in Articles II, XIII and XXIX of the Petition. 

-3-



MAR-24-98 TUE 14 3 11116 L- 0-Y-0-LA CLINIC-1:A14-  FAX NO, 504 861 5440 

XV. 
. . - 

In response to Articles III, IV, V and VI of the Petition, defendant specifically avers 

that Act 512 constitutes the best of contents alcs for itself, moreover, the _ . 
_. • 

statements set forth in said Articles -constitute conclusions of law to which no response is - 

required; however, in an abundance rof caution, defendan- t 'denies the statements set 'forth 

in said Articles. _ 

XVL 

The allegations in Articles XXXII, xxxvn, Xtiv and XLVIt require no response; 
however, in an abundance of caution defendant deny the allegations in said Articles. 

XVII. 

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Articles XXX, XXXI, XXXVI, XXXIX, 

XLI, XLII, XLIII, XLVI and XLVIII. 

XVUI. 

In response to Article VII of the Petition, defendant admits that Act No. 512 was 

sponsored by Senators Jones and Mona]; however, Act No. 512 was also sponsored by 

Representatives Copeland, Landrieu, Murray and Singleton. 

XIX. 

In response to Article VIII of the Petition, defendant admits that a purpose of Senate 

Bill No. 1255, as originally introduced by Senator Jones, was: 

-"to amend and re-enact R.S. 13:312(2)M) and 312.1(B) relative 
to thd courts and the judiciary; to divide the districts of certain 
courts of appeal in this state into geographical election sections 
for the purpose of qualification and election of appeal court 
judges; to provide for the number of judges to be elected from 
the sections of such districts; to provide, relative to the terms of 
office of certain appeal court district court judges; to provide 
for effective date of these provisions; and to provide for related 
matters." 

-4-

• I . I..... N.A.% If Al 



' MAR-124-98 TUE 14:32 LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 5440 P.12 

XX. 

In response to Article X of the Petition, defendant admits that on June 2, 1992, the 

Senate Committee on  Judiciary A convened during which Senate Bill No.. 1255-of_the -1992 „-: 

Regular Session. was discussed. 
. • 

)0(I. 

In response to Article XI of the Petition, defendant admits that the Unapproved 

Rough Verbatim Minutes of the Louisiana State Senate Committee on Judiciary A reflect 
. _ 

that Senator Marc Maria] participated in a meeting of that CoMmiiiee; a copy of which 

Minutes attached to plaintiff's Petition as Exhibit C, constitute the best evidence of their 

contents and speak for themselves. 

XXII. 

In response to Article XVIII of the Petition, defendant avers that Act 512 constitutes 

and reflects the best evidence of its contents; accordingly, defendant denies the conclusions 

set forth in said Article XVIII. 

XXIII. 

In response to Article XDC of the Petition, defendant admits that Marc Morial was 

an original plaintiff in that case styled Chisom, et al v. Edwin Edwards in his Capacity as  

Governor of the State of Louisiana, et al, bearing Civil Action No. 86-4075 on the docket 

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("Chisom"); for lack 

of sufficient information upon which to justify a belief as to the truth thereof, defendant 

denies the allegations in said Article that Marc Morial was a Senator of the State of 

Louisiana at the time ot the commencement of Chisom. 

XXIV, 

In response to Articles XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XI, defendant 

avers that the record in Chisom represents the best evidence of its contents and the best 



MAR-24-98 TUE 14:33 LOYOLA LAW CLINIC FAX NO. 504 861 5440 

evidence of the allegations set forth in said Articles; accordingly, defendant denies said 

Articles as written. 

XXV. 

in response to Article XXVI of the Petition, defendant -denies the allegation's as 

i.vritten; in addition, defendant avers that references made in Said Article to the consent 
t_ 

judgment rendered in Chisom a copy of which is attached as Exhibit G io plaintiff's Petition, 

constitutes the best evidence of its contents. 

XXVI. 

In response to Article 3CXVII of the Petition, defendant avers that in 1992, Senator 

Morial introduced to the 1992 regular legislative session Senate Bill No. 39 which, inter alia, 

sought to increase the number of Louisiana Supreme Court Justices to nine; defendant avers 

that Senate Bill No. 39, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to plaintiff's Petition, 

constitutes the best evidence of its contents. 

XXVII. 

In response to Article XXVIII of the Petition, defendant avers that in 1992, 

Representative Morrell introduced to the 1992 regular legislative session House Bill No. 55 

which, inter alia, sought to provide for the appointment by the Governor of an eighth Justice 

to the Louisiana Supreme Court; defendant avers that House Bill No. 55, a copy of which 

is attached is Exhibit I to plaintiffs Petition constitutes the best evidence of its contents. 

XXVIII. 

In response to Article XXXIII of the Petition, defendant avers that Article 5, Section 

3 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 reads as follows: 

"The supreme court shall be composed of a chief justice and six 
associate justices, four of whom must concur to render 
judgment. The term of a Supreme Court judge shall be ten 
years." 

• 

-6-



VT*30Ud 98 KIS 4111r:Pi 86, PF NUW 

- XXIX 

In response to Article 3COCIV of the Petition, defendant avers that La. R.S. 13:312.4 

and Act 512 constitute the best evidence of their contents. 
..•...' _ 

- • 
In response to Article XXXV of the Petition, defendant avers that Louisiana Supreme 

Court Rule IV, Part II constitutes the best evidence of its contents. 

In response to Article XXXVIII of the Petition, defendant admits the statements set 

faith therein; however, defendant avers that La. R.S. 13:312.4, codifying Act 512, is not a 

local or special law as such law is defined by the Louisiana State Constitution of 1974. 

XXXII. 

Defendant admits the statements set forth in Article XLV of the Petition; however, 

defendant specifically denies that Act 512 is a local or special law, as such law is defined in 

the Louisiana State Constitution of 1974. 

WHEREFORE, defendant, the State of Louisiana, prays that the plaintiff's Petition 

for Declaratory Judgment on the constitutionality of Act 1992, No. 512 be dismissed, with 

prejudice, at plaintiff's costs, and that judgment be rendered herein in favor of the 

defendant, the State of Louisiana, and against plaintiff for attorney's fees incurred by the 

State of Louisiana and all other just and equitable relief to which the State of Louisiana is 

entitled. 

-7- . 

. , 

.romTin mw1 winln, nhhc TOO bric YIK1 1/141 cc!f7T an! AR-f77-NWU 



ST'30Ud 4100,98 'øS 

_ • 1 - •., • 
4IkS:VT 86, PE eldW 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Butler (Bar * 3731) - T.A. 
.Peter 3. Baer -Jr. (Bar # 18.522) . 
Pan American Life Center - 
601 Poydm-Sireef- - Suite 2400 
New Orleans; Louisiana 70130-6636 
Telephone- 504) 558-5100 

. BUTLER, JR. 

Special Counsel for Defendant the State of Louisiana 

. CERTIFICATE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing pleading has been 

forwarded to Clement F. Perschall, Jr. by depositing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, in the 

United States mail, addressed to him at One Galleria Boulevard, Galleria One, Suite 1107, 

Metairie, Louisiana 70001, on thisoZ4 day of Marc 1995. 

BY: 
P.. ER J. BLS R, JR. 

-8-

nT 'I nhhn Tno hnn if-1m VUJ ATMTln mul winini heihT fl1 oa_h2_111411 



ilpfa .... - --... - - .-. -.... ......,...%_......__. ....._:. ...................„ _. .. 

9T'30Ud 98 PEG 411kS:PT 86, t7Z 8UW 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR TEE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

'CLEMENT F. PERSHCHALL, JR., 

• Plaintiff, 

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, 

Defendant, 
- 

and 

RONALD CHISOM, et al., 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

_ 

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 95-1265 

SECTION 'A' 

MAGISTRATE: 2 

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-LNTERVENORS 

Defendant-intervenors Ronald Chisom, et al., by their undersigned counsel, answers the 

Petition for Declaratory Judgment on the Constitutionality of Acts 1992, No. 512, filed by plaintiff 

in this matter (the 'Petition') removed to this Court on February 27, 1995, as follows: 

MST DEFENSE 

The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

The issues raised and relief prayed for in plaintiffs Petition are barred by the doctrine of 

laches and/or any and all other applicable statutes of limitations. 

IlL 
THIRD DEFENSE 

Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action or to receive the relief sought by it. 

T I ng.a.n '1 AO 1,rin Ink! VUJ 

Ece.4. k-

ATMT1A MUI U1A1A1 

Lire") rX 414`44'):7, 

he.hi flT 0Q-177-11Wil 



LT*30tId 98 POS 03S:17T 86, 17Z 8UW 

N. 
FOURTH DEFENSE 

Defendant-intervenors aver that Act No. 512 of the 1992 regular Louisiana legislative session, 

. codified in La. R.S. § 13:312 and referred to throughout the Petition ("Act 512"), comports and is 

consistent with, and does not violate any Article or Section of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, 
- 

including, but not limited to, Article 3, Section 12(A), Article 3, Section 13, and Article 5, Section 

3 of said Louisiana Constitution of 1974. 

IV-. 
FIFTH DEFENSE 

Defendant-intervenors aver that Act 512 comports and is consistent with, and does not violate 

an Article or Section of the United States Constitution. 

V. 
SIXTH DEFENSE 

Defendant-intervenors aver that Act 512 comports and is consistent with, and does not violate 

any and all applicable laws, or any Article or Part of the Rules of the Louisiana Supreme Court, and 

that Act 512 is not a local or special law pursuant to the Louisiana State Constitution of 1974, or any 

jurisprudence interpreting it. 

VI. 
SEVENTH DEFENSE 

Defendant-intervenors aver that Act 512 was passed to comply with the judgment of the 

Eastern District ofLonisiana, as embodied in the Consent Decree entered by that Court in the case 

of Chisom v. Edwards, Civil Action No. 86-4075, and therefore is legal, valid, and binding under 

the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. any law of the State of Louisiana 

notwithstanding. 

ANSWERING SPECIFICALLY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION, defendant-

intervenors allege and say: 

IT 1 A1.. IAA 4,nn 'AM VUJ nfuTin mul WinInl CCOIT 'an! OPLfi7-11W11 



8I'30Ud 98 'es 411pS:PT 86. PZ NUW 

VII. 

Defendant-intervenors admit the allegations set forth in Articles I, IX, XIV, IX, XVI and 

(VII of the Petition. 

For lack of sufficient information to justify a belief as to the truth thereof, defendant-:. 

intervenors denies the allegations set forth in Articles II, XE, and XXIX of the Petition. 

VIII. 

In response to Articles III, IV, V and VI of the Petition, defendant-intervenors aver that Act 

512 constitutes the best evidence of its contents and speaks for itself; moreover, the statements set 

forth in said Articles constitution conclusions of law to which no response is required; however, 

defendant-intervenors deny the statements set forth in said Articles. 

IX. 

The allegations in Articles XXXII, XXXVII, XLIV and ?cum require no response; however, 

defendant-intervenors deny the allegations in said Articles. 

X. 

Defendant-intervenors deny the allegations set forth in Articles XXX, XXI, XXVI, XXXIX, 

XLI, XLII, XLIII, XLVI and XLVIEL 

In response to Article VII of the Petition, defendant-intervenors admit that Act No. 12 was 

sponsored by Senators Jones and Morial; however, Act No. 512 was also sponsored by 

Representatives Copelin, IAndrieu, Murray and Singleton. 

XII. 

In response to Article VM of the Petition, defendant-intervenors admit that a purpose of 

Senate Bill 1255, as originally introduced by Senator Jones, was: 

to amend and re-enact R.S. 13:312(2)(B) and 312.1(B) relative to the courts and the 

3 

OT 1J nhhc TOO bric inm 11144 mwi minim CW!bi WIT QA-f77-NWU 



6T •39Ud .098 4110S:PT 86, t7E NUW 

judiciary; to divide the districts of certain courts of appeals into geographical election 
sections for the purpose of qualification and . election of appeal court judges; to 
provide for the number of judges to be elected from the sections of such districts; to 
provide relative to the terms of office of certain-appeal court district court judges; to 
provide for effective date of these provisions; and to provide for related matters. • 

In response to Article X of the Petition, defendant-intervenors admit that on June 2, 1992, 

the Senate Committee on Judiciary A convened during which Senate Bill No. 1255 of the 1992 

Regular Session was discussed. 

XIV. 

In response to Article XI of the petition, defendant-intervenors admit that the Unapproved 

Rough Verbatim Minutes of the Louisiana Senate Committee on Judiciary A reflect that Senator Marc 

Morial participated in a meeting in a meeting of that Committee, a copy of which Minutes attached 

to plaintiff's Petition as Exhibit C, constitute the best evidence of their contents and speak for 

themselves. 

XV. 

In response to Article XVIII of the Petition, defendant-intervenors aver that Act 512 

constitutes and reflects the best evidence of its contents; accordingly, defdendants deny the 

conclusions set forth in said Article xvra. 

XVI. 

In response to-Article XIX of the Petition, defendant-intervenors admit that Marc Morial was 

an original plaintiff in Chisom et al. v. Edwin Edwards et al., E.D. La. Civil Action No. 864075 

s_ om_D . 

XVII. 

In response to Articles XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXRr, MCV, and XL, defendant-intervenors 

aver that the record in Chisom represents the best evidence of its contents and the best evidence of 

et.T nut.r, Trim &ate" inu uu ATi1VIA unnynn nc.;,T'ont 



OE'30Ud V 98 VOS 4110:ST 86, V? aJW 

the allegations set forth in said Articles; accordingly, defendant-intervenors deny said Articles as 

• _written. _ 

In response to Article XXVI of the Petition, defendant-intervenors deny the allegations as 

written; in addition defendant-intervenors aver that the consent judgment rendered in Chisorn,..a 

copy of which is attached as Exhibit G to plaintiffs' Petition and as Exhibit A to' this answer, 

constitutes the best evidence of its contents. Defendant-intervenors further aver that Act 512 was 

passed for the spicific purpose of camplying with the provisions of the Consent Decree in Chisoin • 

and its provisions are embodied in and incorporated into the judgment of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana as a result of that Court's approval of the Consent Decree 

in Chisom. 

XCX. 

In response to Article XXVII of the Petition, defendant-intervenors aver that in 1992, Senator 

Morial introduced to the 1992 regular legislative session Senate Bill No. 39 which, inter cilia, sought 

to increase the number of Louisiana Supreme Court Justices to nine; defendant-intervenors aver that 

Sente Bill No. 39, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to plaintiffs Petition, constitutes the best 

evidence of its contents. 

XX. 

In response to *Article XXVIII of the Petition, defendant-intervenors aver that in 1992, 

Representative Morrell introduced to the 1992 regular legislative session House Bill No. 55 which, 

inter alia, sought to provide for the appointment by the Governor of an eighth Justice to the 

Louisiana Supreme Court; defendant-intervenors aver that House Bill No. 55, a copy of whioch is 

attached as Exhibit I to plaintiff's petition constitutes the best evidence of its contents. 

01, 1 Tnn LA^ 'Au Unl 

5 

INTI1Tne% LAIVI 1_11(11A, IPsf.0 nnl no 4,, muff 



BOUd 4 14,98 POS 411010:ST 86, VZ &Xi 

In response to Article XXXIII of the Petition, defendant-intervenors aver that Article 5, 

Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 - reads as follows: 

The supreme court shall be composed of a chief justice and six associate justices, 
four of whom must concur to render judgment: The term of a Supreme Court judge 
shall be ten years. . 

XXII. 

In response to Article XXXIV of the Petition, defendant-intervenors aver that La. R.S. 

13:312.4 and Act 512 constitute the best evidence of their contents. - 

XX131. • 

In response to Article XXXV of the Petition, defendant-intervenors aver that Louisiana 

Supreme Court Rule IV, Part II constitutes the best evidence of its contents. 

XXIV. 

In response to Article xxxvm of the Petition, defendant-intervenors admit the statements 

set forth therein; however, defendant-intervenors aver that La. R.S. 13:312.4, codifying Act 512, 

is not a local or special law as such law is defined by the Louisiana State Constitution of 1974. 

XXV. 

Defendant-intervenors admit the statements set forth in Article XLV of the Petition; however, 

defendant-intervenors deny that Act 512 is a local or special law, as such law is defined in the 

Louisiana StatE Constitution of 1974. 

WHEREFORE,-defendant-intervenors Ronald Chisom, et al., pray that the plaintiffs Petition 

for Declaratory Judgment on the constitutionality of Act 1992, No. 512 be dismissed, with prejudice, 

at plaintiff's costs, and that judgment be rendered herein in favor of the defendant-intervenors. 

6 

t 

I, I I ALL^ 1^11 L.^^ (1,11 nrttr-te. tatri trInIrvi Int4,T nni no ;,7_111111